Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask how defending Lawyers/Solicitors sleep at night.

460 replies

lollilou · 09/10/2012 10:43

When they are defending someone who is accused of a horrible crime and that they know are guilty yet have to come up with a defense to try to get a not guilty verdict? It must happen a lot, how could you live with yourself in that situation? What if the accused gets off then commits another crime?

OP posts:
londonone · 09/10/2012 23:19

Well given that you have stated that someone who was found not guilty is a child raping abuser I would suggest you choose your words more carefully.

The barrister didn't suggest anything, he was representing the views of his client, who strangely enough didn't agree with your version of events. It sounds like your prosecution was shit tbh rather than the defence being a problem.

londonone · 09/10/2012 23:20

So the case is ongoing?

londonone · 09/10/2012 23:21

Old lady - it was more a general point I was making!

Fozzleyplum · 09/10/2012 23:22

I haven't read all of the thread as it's so long and I'm knackered, what with lawyerin' all day and that. I am however a defence lawyer and sleep v v well at night, ta v.m.

We are governed by very strict rules of conduct which prevent us from helping defendants make up defences. We are not allowed to represent a defendant who tells us he is guilty, but then wishes to perjure himself by giving evidence to show that he did not commit the offence.

I just wish I had a pound for every time I'd been asked that question, or a variant of it.

Am now off to sleep the sleep of the innocent...

mustbetimetochange · 09/10/2012 23:23

Because to quote a corny quote "all it takes for evil to flourish is good men to stand by and do nothing".

It's not a defence barristers job to consider the guilt or innocence of their client - but perhaps it should be

It had been described to me (by a sympathetic barrister) as a chess game once it gets to court - but it's not a game.

Because our experience is far from unique - from the reading and research I have done (a lot) it is common to accuse a victim of lying as a defence.

It's not the barristers fault you are right - the whole system is fundamentally flawed - but if you chose to be the public face of a defendant - then sadly you are seen to be stood with them and making excuses for them.

xkcdfangirl · 09/10/2012 23:24

I'm not a lawyer but I sleep a lot better at night if I believe that everyone who has been tried and found guilty had a strong enough case against them that a good lawyer fighting against it could not break it. If the case is strong, it will hold and the guilt will be proven. There will always be injustices in any system and there will always be a balance to be struck between guilty-but-unprovable-walking-free and innocent-but-unbelieved-being-convicted. I think we've got a reasonable balance and it certainly wouldn't be improved by people going to trial without a defence lawyer.

RosemaryHoyt · 09/10/2012 23:25

By you. Not everyone feels that way. Mercifully.

londonone · 09/10/2012 23:27

Mustbe - of course it is common to accuse the victim of lying and guess what sometimes they will be lying, sometimes they will be mistaken. What would your solution be? That we just take every victims word for it? Why bother with courts at all eh?

mustbetimetochange · 09/10/2012 23:28

London believe me when I say - I would happily be charged for my view - I will not be threatened into changing my views by him or anyone else, he has tried to intimidate me into silence, it won't work.

mustbetimetochange · 09/10/2012 23:29

I already suggested upthread something more like the coroners court/French magistrates system - where it is someones job to find the truth.

mustbetimetochange · 09/10/2012 23:30

Rosemary of course these are my views - who elses would they be?

mayorquimby · 09/10/2012 23:30

"It's not a defence barristers job to consider the guilt or innocence of their client - but perhaps it should be"

It really should not be and thanfully is not.
It is for the jury to decide matters of fact and the guilt or innocence of an accused.
If defence barristers start making unilateral judgments on what they perceive the facts to be and applying themselves to each case on that basis it would be no system of law at all.
Imagine a system where because the barristers all agree they reckon someone is guilty then there's no need for a trial.

londonone · 09/10/2012 23:31

Tbh I think only the very stupid or small minded would think that lawyers somehow stand with their clients. How do feel about the fact that many barristers do both defence and prosecution work? Are they detestable in your book?

londonone · 09/10/2012 23:33

Must be - happily charged and convicted I assume as you don't seem to think trials are necessary.

mustbetimetochange · 09/10/2012 23:34

I prefer to imagine a system where barristers dont defend someone they think is guilty.

London it is relatively new news (post trial) that some barristers do both. Playing both sides of the coin is I assume more lucrative?

mustbetimetochange · 09/10/2012 23:35

I have already said what I feel is necessary - a system
Designed to establish the truth.

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 09/10/2012 23:37

Barristers don't get to pick and choose their clients. They are allocated cases.

londonone · 09/10/2012 23:38

Must be- not necessarily more lucrative. How the fuck should barristers know who is guilty before he trial?

mustbetimetochange · 09/10/2012 23:40

Barristers don't get to pick and choose their clients. They are allocated cases.

And then it's their job to make the best defence case possible - regardless of their own personal feelings?

And London you can think it's as small minded as you like - Id rather be considered to be small minded than prepared to defend an abusers of any shape or form.

I couldn't and wouldnt do it.

londonone · 09/10/2012 23:43

My question is how would you know they were abusers to be able to make that decision.

Thx for pm by the way

mustbetimetochange · 09/10/2012 23:54

Barristers are highly intelligent - they see all the evidence before the trial.

Put it this way - I would like all defendin barristers to consider - if the defendant is found not guilty - would they be happy to leave their wife/child/loved ones exposed to them - if the answer is yes - I genuinely believe there is no risk to them - then its fair to do your best to unleash them on the general public - if there is enough doubt in your mind - that you wouldn't expose your own to the defendant - then you should recuse.

As I have said - defence barristers are the public face of a flawed system.

I couldn't and wouldn't do it - not for anything - at the moment someone has too - but there is no point in being then upset at being viewed in the same vein as the defendant by the victim and their family - when you are the one who appears to be getting them off.

I don't actually think the CPS or defence did a bad job - they presented a really strong case - my thought (and it's just my uneducated one) is prosecutor didn't want to dilute what appeared to be strong evidence with lots of questions.

But in a he said she said scenario - I dont really see how anyone can ever be 100% convinced enough to convict.

We need a different system - especially Given that there is a school of thought that many offenders will reoffend.

londonone · 09/10/2012 23:58

Essentially then you don't believe in trials at all. Give all the evidence to one intelligent person and let them make decision! I find that a lot scarier!

mustbetimetochange · 10/10/2012 00:00

It's a massively emotive topic - it is always going to attract strong opinions on both sides - doesn't mean it isn't worth debating - change never happens without debate - and even if you think the system is fine as it is - it's important those voices are heard.

I hope it changes - to a more investigative process - but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.

londonone · 10/10/2012 00:00

I don't think defence barristers expect the victims nd their families to like them, I just think they would rather not be vilified en masse!

OhDearSpareHeadTwo · 10/10/2012 00:00

The prosecuting barrister isn't allowed to speak to the victim

This is not true. Victims of crime have an entitlement to a "special measures" meeting with counsel prior to trial in cases of sexual violence and other very serious crimes. They do not discuss the evidence but discuss how the victim will give hteir evidence and also offer reassurance about the trial process.

I have been in court all last week with a very serious rape case and the prosecutor came in to speak to the victim and update her on certain matters several times.