To not understand how people can be lawyers?

[danniboi]

DD was in court today, domestic violence. She had to leave as she was so upset.

How can lawyers do that to victims? Not being arsy, just don’t get it.

I also just want to share an example of why this is so important:

A friend of mine was accused of rape following what he considered to be consensual sex. He was arrested, strip searched, medically examined and then bailed for two years before the CPS decided to prosecute him.

In the meantime, his career was on the line, he was unable to sleep properly and he was facing what could have been an 8 year jail term as the accusaions were multiple.

At the 4 day trial, the CPS were very deferential to the "victim", as we the initial defence lawyer. The judge noticed this and ordered that hte defence lawyer be replaced at short notice as it was considered that he wasnt providing the best defence possible.

The new defence lawyer laid into the "victim" in much the same way as I assume the defence lawyer laid into the OP's daughter. He soon established beyond all reaonsable doubt that what she had alleged was (i) not actually even possible physically (ii) not quite what she had told the police in her statement and (iii) not actually made up by her but by her friend who hadnt appreciated them having sex in her bed - "victim" had gone along with it because she was embarassed.

The jury found him innnocent in less than 20 minutes by unanimous consent. The judge was so angry with the CPS for prosecuting it at all that he awarded full defence costs to the new defence lawyer (which was unusual as the defence lawyer was quite an expensive last minute find) and made a formal report to the SRA in respect of the original defence lawyer that he had dismissed.

Even now, my friend has to live in the shadow of suspicion when people find out about this.

Ok - this is only one case but it's a good first hand example of why stringent defence is necessary.

Ian Brady's lawyer, for example, wanted to carry out his wish to have his ashes scattered on Saddleworth Moor. How is this "duty of care" to a client?

Do you have a link to this? AFAIK Brady requested it in his will but this was denied.

LadyinCement - I do see your point. However underlying it is the fact that Ian Brady was entitled to make the request (via his lawyer) - as any other prisoner would be entitled to make the same request - and the Judge was able to follow the process and turn it down. Its not the lawyers job to decide that the request was spurious or mischief making although I'd assume that the lawyers involved said "You can ask but it absolutely will never, ever happen."
You can guide clients but you cant make them take the advice. In the situation the lawyer could have withdrawn services but another would have stepped in because he was entitled to make that request.

God!! Can you imagine if there were no lawyers??

Yes, we'd all be absolutely fucked.

Its a job that needs to be done. Their defence lawyer needs to try and discredit you. That's their job. I could do it. I think I would be good at it.

Have you ever had a different view of something, than someone else? My brother has a different view to my mum, myself and my oldest brother of an childhood incident. How is that possible? But he is convinced.

So even in every day life, we have different views of the same thing.

I was accused of a serious crime. It never got to court. I wish it had. I was ripped apart. even my mums parenting of me as a toddler was criticised. but later after seeing all the paperwork, I was astonished at the assumptions, presumptions, certain things being factually incorrect. Some blatant lies. I couldn't work out why some people had such a different view. But they sure did.

This happens all the time.

LadyinCement, the punishment for crime is the sentence passed by the court; we absolutely cannot have a culture whereby once you're in prison you are vulnerable to attack by other prisoners or prison officers with no possibility of redress, or where your human rights are taken away whenever the prison authorities feel like it, or where they don't have to bother to keep you safe. Therefore it has to be possible for prisoners to pursue court actions when necessary. I remember a case where legal action had to be taken to stop prison officers from insisting on handcuffing all prisoners in hospital irrespective of whether they presented any danger or not - and that included women in labour and terminally ill patients.

As for so-called spurious claims: the Legal Aid Agency simply won't fund them. It has to be shown that there is at least a 50% chance of success, and usually more, and this is monitored as the case progresses - legal aid will be withdrawn if chances of success fall.

There was never any legal action to get permission to scatter Brady's ashes on Saddleworth moor. On the contrary, when contacted by the coroner his lawyer made it clear that that had never been contemplated. Frankly, you need to be aware that newspapers frequently make these things up precisely because they know it will get their readers going.

@LadyinCement Bradys lawyer was instructed by Brady, the client. It was not the lawyers personal wish. 🙄 the lawyer will have known it would never be authorised and will likely be relieved that's the case. To say the lawyer 'wanted it' is incorrect. The lawyer carries out the client's instructions. Their own wishes don't come into it.

Huntley was viciously attacked by another prisoner. The Prison Service’s duty of care to unpopular prisoners is not unlimited but letting anyone get near him with a blade was a breach of that duty.

So sorry for everything your daughter has gone through OP, and glad to hear that justice was done in the end.

I agree that the legal system is a disgrace. The adversarial process means that often neither lawyer is much interested in the facts, they just twist the evidence to their benefit. It’s all a game for them and they often seem to have little regard for the victims and the impact of the legal process on them.

I hope your daughter can start to rebuild herself now this is over.

I have a big problem with the adversarial nature of our courts and the bullying that ensues.

I'd feel like saying to the lawyer when they're accusing me of lying "how the hell do you know you weren't bloody there". Might be contempt of court...

I think an inquisitorial system where the court is trying to get to the truth would be better. Our current system just depends on who has the "better" lawyer (ie the one that is best able to make the other side's witnesses seem less credible).

I think an inquisitorial system where the court is trying to get to the truth would be better

That literally is what we have. That doesn't negate the need for rigorous defence.

I completely understand the need for robust legal defence and the burden of proof being on the prosecution.

However; having recently been involved in a Crown Court trial I was struck by the fact that victims life histories were laid bare by the defence when the defendants were not.

The defendant was presented as of 'previously good character' which meant lack of convictions rather than 'of good character' and had it been permitted, there would have been many witnesses willing to attest to patterns of disturbing behaviour although those were not prosecutable offences OR witnesses would not have wanted to go through the stress of prosecution.

Whereas the victims were picked to pieces and their personal histories laid bare in open Court.

The case resulted in some of the offences resulting in conviction and a prison sentence. But victim impact statements even had to be altered as they contained reference to an offence that the CPS had not proceded with so it was not allowed to be heard in Court.

I felt that was unfair.

When people talk about how badly criminal barristers are paid, how much/little are we actually talking? Absolutely badly, as in less than the average salary across all jobs, or badly in relation to other highly-qualified professionals, or badly in relation to other branches of law?
Apologies for being nosy, it just comes up a lot, and as someone who once intended to be a barrister until Land Law knocked that idea RIGHT out of my head I'm curious.

@doobigetta

It really depends on seniority. Very junior criminal barristers (who will have paid tens of thousands to go to uni and undertake the Bar course) often seem to work at a loss. Conversely, a criminal QC would probably be financially comfortable.

In between, I expect it’s better paid than a lot of jobs but poorly paid compared with other jobs with that level of skill, hard work, stress and responsibility. Certainly they are usually paid less than civil barristers.

One of my best friends is a public defender here in the US. His job is to ensure his client gets a fair trial. Lawyers have an ethical and moral obligation to zealously defend their clients.

I'm a police officer with a law degree. In my first year at university a very wise lecturer told us 'it's a legal system, not a justice system' and those words have helped me make sense of some of the things I've seen and heard in court.

DH is a solicitor and will never do criminal law for this reason. He's very clear that he couldn't cross examine victims/ try and get off people who have done violent crime. Especially as I work with victims of sexual violence. I think it would have been a deal breaker for me.

Thinking of your dd and hope she is okay.

Snoopys - I think that's a fair assessment.

I absolutely believe in our Criminal justice system but think it is weighted against the victims or the poor (as in monetary) defendants who often have inadequate representation.

And the 'you can't defend someone who has told you they are guilty' thing doesn't quite wash with me when I have been personally told by a solicitor (on duty Police cell one so not the same as one defending a case in Court) that they advised someone not to give an interview as they would 'incriminate themselves'. So that solicitor knew by what the person said that the person had committed the crime but advised them to keep schtum.

Same as the defence solicitors and barristers who can clearly see from CCTV or other evidence that the person did it but as long as they don't say 'I did it' that's okay?

And I'll be honest, there are far more solicitors that I have really liked and respect who are doing their utmost for the CJS and their clients who are innocent or who had mitigating circumstances but it's those scenarios I discuss above that make me stop and think.

And having recently perused the websites of some defence barristers they seem to boast of having guilty people aquitted.

I would like to see an ethics module in the degree programme.

The US may have one. I am unsure.

And the 'you can't defend someone who has told you they are guilty' thing doesn't quite wash with me when I have been personally told by a solicitor (on duty Police cell one so not the same as one defending a case in Court) that they advised someone not to give an interview as they would 'incriminate themselves'. So that solicitor knew by what the person said that the person had committed the crime but advised them to keep schtum.

No, that is not what they mean. The concern is that a perfectly innocent person may say things that get twisted against them when interviewed, particularly when they don't have all the facts about what is alleged. Bear in mind that, even with a lawyer present, being interviewed by the police is a massively stressful situation and there is a major inequality of arms, particularly for accused people who may have health problems or learning difficulties, or who may simply be over-naive and trusting.

Same as the defence solicitors and barristers who can clearly see from CCTV or other evidence that the person did it but as long as they don't say 'I did it' that's okay?

Again, no, that would not be permitted professionally - it would also obviously be bloody stupid if the evidence is there. But, again, a responsible lawyer at least gets their client's explanation before advising on the plea; a CCTV doesn't necessarily show everything that's relevant, and in particular does not normally record speech and other noises. It may be, for example, that what appears to be an attack is in fact self defence or defence of another person.

And having recently perused the websites of some defence barristers they seem to boast of having guilty people aquitted.

How do you know they were guilty?

Mulitdimensionalbeing You do realise that some of the people you are talking about probably prosecute cases too?

Criminal legal aid hasn't increased since 1997. People, whether solicitors or barristers, really struggle to make a living. It's a hard, thankless, poorly paid job. As PP a lot of people won't do it because of the pay, or because they think it's morally reprehensible to 'get a guilty person off.' In reality the latter hardly ever happens. Somebody has to do it and yet all the thanks they get is to be branded morally bankrupt.

LPC covers ethics as does the PSC both of which are mandatory for solicitors. Barristers have an equivalent provision. Both professions has detailed Code of Conduct.

The Sally Clark case demonstrates why every person accused should be able to access a robust defence as the consequences of the court getting it wrong are so significant.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark

The thing that people don't realise too is that the solicitor or barrister would actually be in breach of their professional duty if they didn't cross-examine witnesses in the way they do. If their client's instructions are that the complainant is lying, they have to put that to them. They aren't doing it because they are nasty people. They have to do it because we have an adversarial, rather than inquisitorial legal system in the UK. The Judge would not allow anything that was unfair or unnecessary unpleasant.

I must say, the attitudes of some people on here are quite disturbing.

Take this scenario (WARNING - possibly triggering) : child disappears, her body is found three days later having been stabbed several times, the killer has ejaculated on her underwear. Four girls identify someone they say has been exposing himself to them and stalking at least one of them; he fits the police profile, he does some odd things, the police say they found girlie mags and sweets in the car. On interview there are a number of discrepancies in what he says, and he confesses. He gets charged with the girl's murder. The mother of one of the girls he's alleged to have exposed himself to is very vocal about what an utter monster he is and how he should have been arrested earlier.

So, he's bang to rights, isn't he? He confessed, his claimed alibi is obviously a lie, he obviously did it. How disgraceful for any lawyer to waste time defending this piece of scum who has obviously committed this awful crime; how disgraceful putting those girls through all the strain of giving evidence.

Then, when he is in prison, he is repeatedly subjected to threats, and is physically attacked several times. Quite right, he deserves it all and more for what he did, right? He absolutely shouldn't be entitled to complain that the prison authorities made no real effort to protect him, let alone to sue them.

Then a lawyer approached by his mother takes up his case, and goes to a lot of trouble to petition the Home Secretary to get the case reopened. What an absolute disgrace, right? This man should be left to rot.

Except, he didn't do it. He confessed because he had a very low mental and emotional age, he wasn't cautioned at the correct time, he didn't have a solicitor with him, the police refused his request to have his mother there, and they interviewed him intensively for three days. He could not produce sperm, and could not therefore have been the person who ejaculated on the victim. An independent witness says he saw him at the time of the murder precisely where he claimed to have been, a long way away. Eventually, the four girls who claim they were the victims of flashing and stalking admit that they had been lying "for a laugh". 10 years later, another man whose DNA was a direct match with the sample and who had a history of violence and a previous conviction for indecent assault against a 9 year old girl, was convicted of the murder.

Unfortunately for Stefan Kiszko, though, his mental health was effectively destroyed by the time he spent in prison and what he underwent there, and he died 18 months after his release.

Still, what bastards those lawyers were for trying to get the conviction overturned. How could they possibly live with themselves?