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

[IcouldstillbeJoseph]

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?

Rosh, not Rosy

I meant circumvent the cab rank system to try to avoid taking the case rather than circumvent the justice system per se, just to clarify.

If someone has admitted to their lawyers that they are guilty then the lawyer cannot defend them as innocent. However what they do is appeal for mitigating circumstances (from murder to manslaughter based on diminished responsibility for example) or submit a guilty plea and request for a more lenient sentence.

Everyone has a right to a fair trial. Everyone has a right to be represented in court. No one is guilty until they are proven to be by a jury of their peers or through confession of their own free will.

Well that's it

The justice system is hugely important and the fact that everyone has the right to a defence and is innocent till proven guilty are cornerstones of that system

OP - you can't start denying people those rights just because they have committed (or at least are accused of) horrible crimes. Where does that end?

In the case you refer to, justice was done and it was done without eroding the justice system we have.

Barristers advise their client on the strength of the evidence against them, but if the person chooses to plead not guilty that is their right and the barristers job is to test the prosecution evidence to the best of their ability.
As said above if a client tells the barrister they 'did it' then that barrister cannot represent them on a 'not guilty' plea.
You have to bear in mind as well the mandatory life sentence for murder. The reality is that there is no real advantage to pleading guilty so you may as well 'test' the evidence. Harsh but true.

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.

My BIL is a criminal solicitor who defends people accused of various nasty crimes. He barely scrapes a living but believes that everyone deserves a fair trial--that means you, too, if you're ever accused of doing something you didn't do, for instance. Or should we just throw you into prison without a fair trial?

His morals are impeccable.

Mitigation is something that sometimes isn't presented properly. I'm thinking now of the awful case a few months ago where the six children were burned to death. To those of us who spend time in the Relationships forum, it was fairly obvious that Mairead Philpotts was completely under the control of Mick. As an individual human being, I pity her unreservedly. Her defence did not, in my opinion, make enough of the controlling behaviour of her husband to both her and his mistress - the access to money, and even the keys of the family home, as well as the sexual domination thing.

I am a criminal defence barrister.

I would like to put a few things straight.

I am not a "whore who is in it for the money". I earned £26,000 last year. I am as educated and qualified as a doctor, but they earn three times as much.

The poster who said that needs to actually learn some facts, rather than spew misinformed bile.

I do what I do for the public good.

My job is to be the mouthpiece of the defendant. I say everything he would say if he was legally qualified.

Because otherwise, it would be state, with all it's money and resources, against one man.

I am happy to answer any questions.

Sorry just realised have veered completely off topic. Please blame jet lag... just back from hols and having my first MN session for nearly two weeks!

There is a fantastic blog post by a junior barrister about the reality of life at the criminal bar, can't recall the details now, but the poster who is spitting the bike about criminal lawyers really needs to seek out the facts.
Summer - I hope he/she takes you up on the offer.

Bile not bike!

50shadesofaffray.wordpress.com/

Worth reading. Sobering stuff for us all I think.

DameDeep I'm not a criminal barrister, so don't take this as gospel, but I think that the issue with Mairead Philpott is that there isn't really a mitigation available. Duress is not available as a defence to murder (quite rightly in my opinion but that's another matter); diminished responsibility requires a recognised medical condition (and just being his abused wife would not meet this criteria) and loss of control is exactly that - if you have engaged with and acted according to a plan you can't claim that you weren't in control of your actions, even if your hand was forced.

Summer - thank you, enlightening

I take my hat off to any barrister that puts their principles and belief in the need for a fair and just system before their personal disgust in what a particular person may have done. It can't be easy or pleasant for them and their must be times they don't want to do it but they do.

A family friend was accused of child abuse, very nasty allegations, he was exonerated after the prosecution fell apart under the scrutiny of a very good defence team. I know his family are eternally grateful that the defence lawyer believed him when he said he was innocent and worked hard to prove his innocence.

Hi Dame,

Interesting to hear your views on the Philpotts.

My own view is that Mairead knew what she was doing. She wanted to burn the house down, but not kill the children. You can tell from the increased panic in her voice during that awful 999 call.

The judge acknowledged the control Mick had over her - hence why his sentence was so much greater than hers. But she is still extremely culpable, in my view.

Thanks summer, was there myself once upon a time, I have much respect for those sticking it out in the current climate. Leaving aside the contempt which some members of the public clearly hold for criminal lawyers.

Hi Hanging, indeed. I probably won't be able to stick it out for much longer - Grayling is making sure of that.

The sad thing is, there was a time when the criminal bar were sucking the legal aid system dry. That, rightly, ended. In about 1999. Since then, the cuts have made our position completely untenable.

And we will never attract the support that doctors/nurses/teachers do. The salaries of doctors and nurses are protected during the cuts. Mine has gone down 40% in real terms in the last five years.

No, it's not a vote winner to suggest giving a decent wage to those representing 'nasty criminals'

Hop over to the civil bar, not a pretty picture in certain sectors but you can at least pay the rent!

Roshbegosh - you clearly know nothing about how the justice system works or the stringent professional standards barristers and solicitors operate under.

As other posters have said it is a breach of our professional standards to represent someone you "know" is guilty or mislead the Court.

Everyone is entitled to a defence.

Not all defendants accused of a crime are guilty. Cases like that of Sally Clark are an illustration of how the prosecuting authorities can and do get it wrong and why it is so important that people have access to a good advocate.

Criminal legal aid is notoriously badly paid.

That is exactly what I am planning to do. :)

And it'll be fine, I'll enjoy the job, I'll still get satisfaction.

But, I came into this to do crime. I love my wig. I adore making jury speeches. I am good at it, yet I cannot keep doing it.

Sorry, it has all made me quite bitter. But - onwards and upwards at the civil bar! :)

Summer, I keep my hand in with local authority/HSE prosecutions and insurer backed motoring stuff. Good luck! We may end up facing each other across a courtroom soon!

I'd love to know who came up with Ian Huntley's version of events and had always assumed it was concocted between himself and his representation. I suspect I will get a thorough education after reading this thread.

I am absolutely gobsmacked and deeply offended that Rosh is calling criminal barristers/solicitors "whores".

They work for an absolute pittance defending ANYONE accused of a crime, because everyone has the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

You think that the accused should just be locked up on the say so of he police/CPS? No fair trial? No testing of evidence?

I wish (am a lawyer) that I had half the level of dedication and commitment friends who work in criminal defence have. Being called to the police station in the middle of the night, to try and put a defence for someone who is pissed, offtheir face on drugs or just angry, for peanuts. Because you truely believe that everyone, no matter what crime they are accused of.

Barristers do not "concoct" events

They might advise on how best to present your version of what has happened but they don't make stuff up with their clients

They present the clients evidence. They don't "concoct" things