Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To not understand how certain crimes/criminals can be defended?

70 replies

IcouldstillbeJoseph · 04/08/2013 18:42

I know it is a basic right to be allowed a defense in court but I just don't see how some crimes can ever be defended?
I'm thinking, just now, about that poor 4 year old boy abused to death by his mother.
How can that ever be defended? Do lawyers 'have' to represent her? Can they choose not to?

OP posts:
SPsTotallyMullerFuckingLicious · 04/08/2013 18:44

I guess it depends on the crime or reasons behind.

In the case of that young child I have no idea. Can lawyers refuse to deal with a case? Can they openly say they think they are guilty and don't want to represent them?

auntmargaret · 04/08/2013 18:47

In my view, its the job of a criminal lawyer to test the evidence. It's the police job to collect it, and the Crown's job to present it. If the police and Crown do their job properly, the defence has nowhere to go. But if the evidence isn't good enough, then why should that result in a conviction? We are still innocent til proven guilty, not just until we are accused of a crime.

Onlyconnect · 04/08/2013 18:48

One thing to remember is that you can't have a proper prosecution without testing the defence arguments. They need to be tested to ensure a proper conviction. Also very often a defendant is not saying that they didn't do X but rather that X is not the crime thy are being charged with.
I don't think its a case of defending in the sense of excusing the defendant.
Also unless you actually saw the defendant do the crime how do you know they did? In this case, the media have told me who did what but I don't actually know that myself. There have been many examples of everyone 'knowing' a certain defendant is guilt only for us to discover later that in fact thy weren't.

VeryDullNameChange · 04/08/2013 18:50

The case against the accused has to be proven - the defence lawyers are there to make sure it's done properly. What would you suggest - should the judge say "actually this one's definitely guilty, we'll just skip the trial and send her straight to jail"?

cushtie335 · 04/08/2013 18:51

Everyone's entitled to a defence in our judicial system. No way am I defending what many people think is "indefensible" but when you only get the media portrayal or Daily Heil spin on a case you can't possibly know all the true facts of the case.

Original poster
IcouldstillbeJoseph · 04/08/2013 18:52

Verydull - no, not saying that at all. I'm just ignorant how it all works really.

OP posts:
Roshbegosh · 04/08/2013 18:53

Many lawyers clearly have questionable morals and while everyone is entitled to a defence and is innocent until proved guilty lawyers must know when they are defending someone that has committed a horrendous crime and they just want to get them off. Whores really IMO but they have no morals and like the money. Then sometimes they find a technicality to allow someone to walk away scott free. Whatever about entitlements it would be hard for a decent person to do it.

catgirl1976 · 04/08/2013 18:55

Everyone does have the right to a defense and they are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

If they plead not guilty then a defense lawyer needs to put across their evidence and make a case for the defense.

If the defense lawyer knows something that would affect the case (eg if the defendant confessed to him or was hiding evidence that would prove him guilty) then they have to disclose it.

Barristers don't have to take cases as far as I am aware, but someone has to defend people however horrific the crime they have been accused of - after all, they may well be innocent.

Roshbegosh · 04/08/2013 18:56

I appreciate that arguments should be tested but what about lawyers knowing they are defending a guilty person? They make a great deal of money for these cases and know what they are doing.

Original poster
IcouldstillbeJoseph · 04/08/2013 18:56

Interesting - so what happens if the person has confessed to the charge then? Do they still get 'defended'?

OP posts:
EmmaGellerGreen · 04/08/2013 18:58

Roshbegosh, my DH used to defend. He has very high morals and would be incredibly insulted to be called a whore. He certainly did not defend for the money! What exactly do you suggest, that for some crimes, we forget about a trial and have summary justice!? So having no need at all for the police and cps to do a thorough job? How on earth is that fair justice?

Roshbegosh · 04/08/2013 18:59

Cat girl, the dependent might not explicitly confess (or they might) but the defence lawyers rehearses all the responses with them to twist what happened. Yes they do.

EmmaGellerGreen · 04/08/2013 19:01

Unless you are privy to all of evidence in detail rather than what the media chose to publish (with whatever spin) you can not possibly know whether someone is guilty or not. Imagine if you or someone you knew was accused, wrongly, or a crime and had no opportunity for a defence?

catgirl1976 · 04/08/2013 19:01

I don't think they can be defended as such if they confess as they will then plead guilty and the verdict is not in question (unless they then retract the confession and plead not guilty)

However, if they plead guilty their counsel can put a case for leniency in sentencing etc

There are a few barrister on MN, I am sure one will be along soon who knows how it works

TheOneWithTheHair · 04/08/2013 19:01

Roshbegosh your post is offensive on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

If a defendant confesses to their lawyer then the lawyer is legally bound to make the defendant change their plea. If they can't do that then they must resign from the case and inform the judge why.

If a defendant has pleaded guilty then their lawyer then has the opportunity to put forward and mitigating circumstances.

A solicitor or barrister is not allowed to defend someone who has confessed in private but still wants to plead not guilty.

VeryDullNameChange · 04/08/2013 19:01

Actually when I was at law college I had a talk from an elderly solicitor who had been a junior part of the defence team in the Timothy Evans / 10 Rillington Place murders. Evans had definitely killed his wife and baby; he'd confessed to it but when the trial came he claimed the confession wasn't true and he was innocent - he suddenly blamed his landlord, who was a pillar of the community. The defence went through the motions but they knew him to be guilty, and weren't sorry to see him convicted and hanged. Nobody in the world thought that Evans was innocent until his landlord later confessed to being a serial killer.

DameDeepRedBetty · 04/08/2013 19:01

As Catgirl says, if the defendant tells their lawyer something, the lawyer is obliged to disclose it.

Lawyers can and do refuse to take on certain briefs.

The word 'advocate' might be better used than 'lawyer', as it reminds us that the defending barrister's job is to 'advocate' i.e. literally 'say good things' for the defendant, and that it is their duty to do their best for any defendant whose instructions they have accepted, even the most obvious lowlife shits.

iamadoozermum · 04/08/2013 19:02

Under the "cab rank" code of conduct, barristers cannot refuse a brief unless there are very specific issues e.g. the case requires an expertise that they don't have, conflict of interest etc (see link: www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-code-of-conduct/the-code-of-conduct/part-vi-acceptance-and-return-of-instructions/). The first part of this says "601. A barrister who supplies advocacy services must not withhold those services:

(a) on the ground that the nature of the case is objectionable to him or to any section of the public;

(b) on the ground that the conduct opinions or beliefs of the prospective client are unacceptable to him or to any section of the public".

This to ensure that everyone has a chance to have the evidence effectively tested as everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Far worse to have someone who is actually guilty let out on appeal due to an ineffective defence IMO.

catgirl1976 · 04/08/2013 19:04

If a defence barrister has evidence a defdendant has committed a crime he has to disclose it

TheFallenNinja · 04/08/2013 19:05

Don't defence lawyers also offer mitigation?

catgirl1976 · 04/08/2013 19:05

I expect they can be on holiday or something if they really don't want a case doozermum :)

McNewPants2013 · 04/08/2013 19:05

Before a person is convicted, they are innocent.

cushtie335 · 04/08/2013 19:06

Barristers are self employed as well. They might not have the financial luxury of turning down a case if they've got a mortgage and school fees to be paid. At the end of the day, it's a job.

auntmargaret · 04/08/2013 19:10

Rosy, do you think doctors should treat people who commit crimes? Yes, because that's their job. If you start looking at the moral character of everyone you meet before you help them, it's a slippery slope.

iamadoozermum · 04/08/2013 19:12

Indeed catgirl and to be fair, if a barrister is willing to circumvent the system then you probably don't want them defending you anyway! However, I know some barristers take on difficult cases on principle because they believe in the justice system and that it should work for all regardless of what crime has been committed.