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?

Corrine - Ian Huntley would have come up with his version of events. No lawyer can ever "suggest" an account to a defendant.

He was disbelieved, convicted, locked up - all within our great tradition of justice and adherence to the rule of law.

Apologies to the lawyers here, I was just rather clumsily making the point that there are some without scruples. I did not mean to make a sweeping statement about all lawyers.

There you go - I suspected I was wrong about it and have been put straight. No need for the humphy face. Plenty of people don't have a clue about other professions and have been led astray by Hollywood although it must be frustrating that myths abound about the legal profession in particular

Oh, and another thing. A good advocate will ensure that the case is disposed of as quickly and effectively as possible. They can advise the Defendant to plead guilty if the evidence against them is strong - thereby saving court time and costs and meaning that witnesses do not need to be cross examined.

Defendants who refuse representation or are unable to afford it, for example in civil cases actually use more public resource than someone who is properly represented.

Apologies for the humphy face :)

N.p - understand, shouldn't have even mentioned it

SummerBreezer If you think the person you are meant to defend is guilty can you decline representing them?

I always thought that the lawyer had to believe in their innocence. No idea why I thought that.

I do believe in fair trials even when its obvious they are guilty. It is something that interests me and I wish I had followed law instead of business.

SP - no you can't, there is a 'cab rank' rule.

At the end of the day it would only be your personal view 12 members of the jury have that decision not you.

I have represented many I didn't really believe, but you have to put personal views aside and present their case to the best of your ability.

Ultimately if they did it and the Crown do their job, the right result should come out.

SP you don't have to believe in their innocence, but there has to be at least reasonable doubt based on the evidence.

If the evidence is overwhelming to the point of there being no reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, you can strongly advise the client to enter a guilty plea. If they do not, you can refuse to represent them.

In a lot of murder cases, they will not deny being responsible for the death, but will deny murder (premeditated killing). The defence team will then work on getting a lesser charge of manslaughter (by reason of insanity/self defence/ diminished responsibility etc) and therefore a reduced sentence.

Precisely, there is a line between personal belief and professional duties.

Thank you for answering. I honestly thought that and now feel like an idiot for not going ahead with what I wanted.

I understand why they need someone representing them, so it is fair and it is their right. I just assumed the lawyer believed the person was innocent.

I rarely believe my client is actually innocent. Someone once asked me if I have sleepless nights when I think my client might be guilty. I don't - I have sleepless nights when I think they might actually be innocent.

LalyRawr - just to correct you on one thing. You can never refuse to represent someone just because they won't enter a guilty plea when you think the evidence is overwhelming. However "guilty" they appear, you must continue to do your best to present their case.

As Hanging says, it is called the "cab rank" rule. You must accept every case that comes along, unless

1. You've already got something booked
2. You are not being sufficiently well remunerated (and that doesn't really apply anymore)
3. You are not competent to do the work (e.g. I would not do a murder case as I am too inexperienced)

Breach of the cab rank rule is very serious, and can result in a barrister being disbarred.

But in truth, the system doesn't work like that. Those of us in the profession WANT to do the big cases, the murders, the rapists, the terrorists. Those high profile cases, being at the front line, are what being a barrister is all about.

You are more likely to be congratulated on securing instructions in such a high profile case than vilified for taking on an unpleasant client.

I am gobsmacked that anyone still thinks criminal defence lawyers are "in it for the money" after all the news about the gradual decimation of the legal aid system.

Criminal firms are barely scraping by. I'm in a criminal department in a fairly big regional firm, and we may well be dropped by the rest of the firm because we're incapable of doing more than breaking even, under the current payment schemes, and will be running at a loss if the proposed 17% cuts go through.

And that's not running at a loss because of all our fat-cat salaries - that's running at a loss while paying highly qualified, highly experienced professionals the bare minimum they can be persuaded to work for, before they laugh in your face and go off to find another job.

In the next few months we may all be offered our choice of redundancy, pay-cuts or fewer hours.

I have been in this job for twelve years and I have come across precisely two unscrupulous lawyers. Everyone else has been dedicated and hard-working, and increasingly depressed, not only by the impossibility of staying in the job in this climate, but also with the damage being done to our entire justice system.

A few points:

1. Removing basic human rights, like the right to a fair trial, for those we think unworthy is a very, very slippery slope. In order to ensure that the innocent are properly represented and properly tried, the guilty have to be properly represented and properly tried.

2. A lawyer can represent someone who has admitted the offence, and they quite often have to. What they can't do is advance any defence, or imply that there is any defence. They can put the Crown "to proof", which involves simply requiring the prosecution to present their case and see if it is good enough, and to test the evidence. If this is being done, it has to be indicated on a case management form when the defendant first pleads guilty, so they cannot then change their minds and put forward a defence of any sort.

3. You can't just go around withdrawing from cases willy-nilly. There has to be a good reason, otherwise the system would be struggling with all the problems that accompany unrepresented defendants. If you withdraw from acting, a judge will often push you as far as they can about whether you're sure you can't continue, without obviously demanding your exact reasons. Lawyers withdrawing generally finish up costing more money from the system.

4. Unrepresented defendants are a nightmare for everyone. They don't generally do a good job of representing themselves. They waste court time. They make spurious applications. And they aren't, in any event, legally allowed to cross-examine their victims in violence/rape cases, or where witnesses are juveniles or vulnerable. This is for the protection of the witnesses and prevents, for example, a scenario where a woman is cross-examined about her sexual preferences by her rapist, before the judge can shut him down. The lawyer is a filter, and will refuse to ask inappropriate questions.

5. Lawyers don't make up defences for their guilty clients. Why exactly would we do that? Do people really think that the law is peopled with Machiavellian types, rubbing their hands together and giggling evilly over the prospect of getting one over on the jury?

Defence solicitors are officers of the court, with all the duties and responsibilities that come with that. Currently, some of those responsibilities involve desperately trying to prop up a disintegrating system which people won't give a shit about until it's gone and they suddenly find that they don't like what we're left with.

Thank you for answering. Its just something I have wondered but haven't had anyone to ask.

Its like people who defend people like Ian Huntley, I think that would be such a hard job. The things some lawyers see and hear in the court room must be hard to handle sometimes.

Ah, happy to be corrected Summer.

I don't work in criminal & we can refuse cases!

I've had sleepless nights over a young lad who may or may not have been guilty, but certainly shouldn't have gone to prison. Unfortunately he fell foul of a thoroughly unpleasant bench who quite obviously decided to make an example of him.

Stupid, perverse decision that flew in the face of everything that probation were asking them to do, and has probably ensured that a young man, with a truly terrible background through no fault of his own, has had all his recent, almost superhuman efforts, to sort out his life, completely wasted.

I came home and cried over that one - first time in years that's happened.

Thank you for the link, summer sobering reading indeed.
Shooting my best wishes at you.

Kungfu I got out of criminal work many years ago but one young girl who got a custodial when she really shouldn't have still sticks in my mind. I often wonder what became of her.

As does the 10 year old with an addict mother who didn't even turn up to court with her child.

Some people don't have emotional responses to particular crimes - I would imagine that defending someone in that situation would be no different from any other case

Well if I were ever accused of a crime,I would be thankful to have someone to speak on my behalf. The same as any of you would.