To ask how defending Lawyers/Solicitors sleep at night.

[lollilou]

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?

Personally I don't particularly support the adversarial system, but until the system changes someone has to represent each side

London I believe the system as it stands - is flawed - soxdo many others.

If we could find a way to improve conviction rates within the current system - wonderful - but if we can't - then it should change to become fit for purpose.

Not guilty should mean innocent - at the present time - it doesn't and that is unfair for both victims and defendants.

Also, a defendant must be able to question a witness's version of events. Surely its kinder for the victim that this is done by a professional then they are being questioned by their attacker?

ohdear while I absolutely believe you - we were told the barrister was not allowed to meet the witnesses or discuss case.

I wonder if different regions have diff policies - I have looked it up on CPS website and it does mention pre trial meeting (we were refused one).

We discussed special measure with OIC and witness services - they then put requests to CPS.

londonone Wed 10-Oct-12 00:01:45
Personally I don't particularly support the adversarial system, but until the system changes someone has to represent each side

Agreed

Like I said, sounds like your case was handled v badly from the prosecutionside

ohdear also as victim in our case was a child - they left court after giving evidence and never came back on advice of OIC.

I had the lovely job of breaking the verdict to them

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

Which would lead to a horribly corrupt system. Thankfully there are systems in place which mean that for the most part barristers can not pick and choose who they defend.
Barristers are advocates, they are there to speak on behalf of those who for the most part lack the legal knowledge and specialised skill set to do so for themselves.
It is not for them to pass judgment of guilt, they are there to present the the arguments of the accused.
Even if all the evidence points to their guilt, in fact especially so in those cases. If there is concrete dna evidence, a million witnesses and cctv footage of the commission of a crime then the defendant is still entitled to have his or her version of events to be heard in court, even if it is completely unbelievable and doomed to failure. Because the basic tenant of our legal system is that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and that until the prosecution have convinced a jury of their guilt they enjoy a presumption of innocence.

"if there is enough doubt in your mind - that you wouldn't expose your own to the defendant - then you should recuse."

that's a ludicrous argument. The aim of court isn't to pass judgment on their overall character and whether someone subjectively views them as a threat. The aim of all cases is to reach a conclusion as to whether X committed the SPECIFIC crimes they are charged with.
Also the notion that if you have a doubt in your mind as to innocence then you should recuse yourself is complete abandonment firstly of the taxi rank rule but more importantly of the principle of the presumption of innocence.
The standard is not "do you have any doubt in your mind that this person could be innocent." it's are you satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

I don't think it would have mattered what the prosecution did - there was some very strong evidence - it wasnt just the victim and myself who were accused of lying.

But I can't go into that here.

I'll just keep hoping for change and also that someone else comes forward - as sadly - knowing what I know of the defendant and his past - I do not believe there is only one victim.

I understand all of that mayor - but the system we have does not produce a fair trial - for the victim.

(is enjoyable - well that's the wrong word but you know what I mean I hope - to read well written and thought out explanations though - I have mostly read from the view of a victim/reports etc into why conviction rates are so low).

So the CPS are constantly being expected to change the way they do things. This means that things get lost in the system or just not done in time

Our CPS branch have so few trial lawyers that they can't cover trials and they have to engage agents for mags work. There is one part time lawyer that reviews all the magistrates cases going through two very busy courts. 4 years ago we had about 10 full time lawyer posts (not APs). Now we have something like 4/5 with much higher volumes of trials. I have a domestic violence case that went not guilty in June, victim retracted in July, statement duly sent to CPS with request to issue a summons for the victim. Request was chased at the end of August and again in the middle of September. Trial is next Tuesday and the file still hasn't been looked at by a lawyer since the EFH.

ohdear yes I know our local CPS is struggling with staffing, so are the CPU, SS and every other govt body involved.

It's where cuts are hitting the most vulnerable.

kungfu I just wanted to say how kind you've been to attempt to explain the intricacies of a complicated system to mustbe

Fortunately in this country we don't have 'defending lawyers', they take the next case that comes along, as defence or as prosecution.

There is an interesting talk called "phone call of doom" by Laurance Lee. That name probably means nothing to you.

Laurance Lee was in a court building and a phone rang, he picked it up and was asked if there was a solicitor available to be present while a 10 year old was interviewed. He went to the police station and by default became the defence solicitor for John Venables.

He said at the time, and since, no matter how horrendous the crime you are accused of, everyone is entitled to legal representation.

Sara seconded and thank you to all the other posters who too the time to explain.

I do really appreciate it - and I do understand the system we have is the system we have - me complaining about it isn't going to change anything.

And I am sorry of my views are offensive - we are not in a very food place in our house the moment - we feel very let down and betrayed by this system.

(sorry hit post).

And it's easy to blame everyone and everything - I know every party was just doing their job, but thats no consolation to us.

I had a lecturer who told us about the time he defended a woman who had murdered her own baby around the same time his wife was pregnant. He couldn't go into details but said it was the hardest thing he had ever done, knowing she has committed the crime. So I suppose some may not sleep restfully at night.

mustbe

Only you know the details of your case and it sounds like what you went through was very hard on you and your family.

However, the system has to be bigger / broader than any one case. I think if you are going to take away someone's liberty possibly for a considerable period of time, it has to be on the basis that the state have proved their guilt and that they have had a full opportunity to defend themselves.

I am sure at the time the vast majority of people were sure that the Guilford Four, Maguire Seven and Birmingham Six were guilty. I am pretty certain that had you run an opinion poll shortly after their convictions asking people if justice had been done the majority would have answered yes.

17 people who apparently had committed horrible crimes, who the vast majority of people believed were guilty but were in fact innocent. Public opinion and the opinions of the police, prosecutors and defence counsel should not be relevant to a person's trial. So even if everyone suspects someone is guilty of a horrible crime they should get a robust defence because after all they may be innocent despite what most people think.

However, the system has to be bigger / broader than any one case.

Oh I absolutely agree, without a shadow of a doubt, but our experience is repeated, over and over and over and over again, by victims of this sort of crime and the system should be robust enough to make sure that if someone is a victim of a crime, they can come forward, safe in the knowledge they can hold a reasonable expectation of a conviction, rather than have everyone pat them on the back and tell them how brave they were for speaking out, regardless of if there is one.

Telling people, "there will always be a question mark now", well its pretty cold comfort to a rape victim who has just seen her attacker walk free from court.

mustbe you've obviously had a very difficult time and for that I am genuinely sorry. I for one do not find your opinions insulting, the pain in your posts is palpable. I don't wish to insult you by inviting you to consider the broader picture but i hope one day you'll find it easier and perhaps beneficial, to do so.

In the meantime can I suggest you write to the OIC seeking some clarifications on the issues which are of most concern to you - I would be happy to help you draft a letter if you felt it might help.

mustbe

I agree that there are some areas where the system doesn't seem to work very well at the moment. Rape / Abuse / Domestic Violence cases do have woefully low conviction rates and I think it is reasonable to question if the adverserial system is the most effective way of getting to the truth in these types of cases. Its a difficult balance because these are very serious accusations so they should be properly examined and tested as the consequences for both parties of the wrong result are so serious. I think part of the difficulty is that these are the types of cases where there is often the smallest amount of external third party evidence so it turns on who is the most believable the accuser or the accused. That will lead to a case where witnesses and the accuser will have their credibility tested and that can be a distressing experience.

So sorry for your situation,mustbe.
I hope everything works out well as soon as possible.

I think the op worded this thread well.

There have to be some cases where a defence lawyer,or whatever the correct word is,has been allocated a particular case.
He/she has to defend it as it is their job,and their career would be on the line if they didnt. He/she then subsequently finds out that the person is guilty,but the accused doesnt actually tell the defence lawyer that.
But the defence lawyer,because it is their job,has to carry on doing a robust defence of that person in court.
To the general public,most of us could not face being that defence lawyer. We would feel much too bad.