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.

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

Well, the LPC indeed mentions ethics, but in ad hoc fashion. There is a good Law Society report on this subject. They recommend a module. I agree as it would flag it as highly important.

Ceto - I have a lot of knowledge about false confessions (Gudjonsson being one of my favourite people professionally and personally) and having been an appropriate adult in interviews conducted in the early hours when everyone is tired and hungry and upset, I wanted to confess to a crime that I had no part in just to make the whole thing stop lol! Iinterviews are tedious (particularly no comment) ones in serious crimes, go on for bloody ages and are very high emotion and stress situations.

This however, was a specific situation where the accused had said specific phrases e.g in a sexual assault case - 'she was crying'.

And no I don't know on the websites that the defendant was guilty but when a website for a defence barrister mentions serious crimes being acqitted with e.g a breach of PACE or potential flaws in cell site evidence (when that evidence is substantial) leading to aquittal then yes, I read that as a defence barrister not saying 'they're innocent' but saying, I got them off on technicalities...

Which does happen a lot. And that's the CJS but it can't be presented as the defence not knowing or at the very least suspecting that the person they're defending is innocent.

Multidimensionalbeing Perhaps there are a few barristers who make these stupid boasts, but the reality is the legal professional is full of really decent people who do a thankless, difficult task day in day out. Would you like to have to watch footage or read accounts of sexual assaults day after day for crap pay?

My personal experience has been the opposite of that Number. I think many within the legal profession are primarily concerned with maximising their own fees and furthering their careers, concerned for their clients’ best interests only insofar as these overlap with their own and very little concern at all for whether just outcomes are achieved.

As Ceto demonstrated the technicalities and procedures are there for good reason. We (the general public) don't get to decide who can rely upon them and who can't.

My DP was falsely accused of rape last May by his ex.

Thank FUCK for the solicitor who got to the bottom of all her lies, the case went down as no crime committed and the tables have now been turned and she's in court in the new year charged with perverting the course of justice and wasting police time.

Unfortunately people DO lie for whatever reason and thankfully we live in a country where we are entitled to a proper trial and not just a lynch mob upon accusation!

Number - I think I've been clear that I have a huge amount of respect for the majority of solicitors. And Police. And Prison officers (I have worked in prisons).

That doesn't mean that I don't see flaws in the system or get fucked off when I see things that I think are shit.

And working in MH I listen to the consequences of abuse and violence every day. Day in day out - EVERY day for 20 years. For crap pay. And I've been there myself so I absolutely know what you're talking about.

Number - and this is a thread primarily about the CJS and potential criticim of defence solicitors/barrister not prosecution.

If solicitors/barristers are ' watching footage or read accounts' of sexual assault and then going on to defend that - that's exactly what people on this thread are saying.

That they couldn't watch it or read it and then go on to defend that person.

If you (not meaning you specifically but anyone) can do that then great, the criminal justice system needs you. But it's okay for people to say they couldn't or they don't understand.

When my husband was charged with assault the police took a statement from myself and me then 8 yr old son because we were there ,the CPs didnt use us as witnesses presumably because our statements went against the case they were trying to prove, instead they used two witnesses who were not there so hadent seen anything but had been told by the alleged victim her version of events which differed vastly to what actually happened, the alleged victim had tore my top and my husband's t shirt during the incident and the police took these as evidence but when my husband's solicitor requested these as evidence the CPs repeatedly ignored the requests ,thankfully every thing was resolved on the first day of the trial in my husband's favour and guess what after the court case my ripped top and my husband's ripped t shirt turned up at the police station

If someone is primarily concerned with maximising their own fees, criminal law is not the optimum place to do it. Those starting out are often on not much more than minimum wage, and even if you're one of the tiny smattering of superstar QCs doing big name work, with that level of ability you could still earn more elsewhere. It simply isn't what you'd choose if you just wanted to get rich quick.

You do realise there are many many other kinds of law, not criminal law??

That's exactly what I was going to to say OnionShite. Anybody who only cared about money wouldn't practice criminal law. You only have to look at the comments section to see that this upcoming generation want nothing to do with crime, because it's poorly paid. Once again it's going to become the domain of the wealthy middle-class who have access to family money.
As for maximising fees, people have no choice other than to do this because they have to pay rent on their premises and support staff. It costs a small fortune to practice at the Bar or to run a solicitors' office.

I find the comment about maximising fees and furthering careers interesting. I’ve spent a large part of my career in City firms where the partners were paid eye poppingly large sums of money.

There were also very large amounts of fee income written off or discounted because it’s better to have repeat business and a slight decrease in margin than gouge people so badly they won’t come back. It also eeems to be a quicker route to partnership if you can bring in a tame blue chip client.... so furthering your career = keeping clients happy.

@artisancraftbeer Of course it's a quicker route to partnership if you are bringing in blue chip clients. Nobody would think otherwise 🙄. It's not easy to do though, procurement of legal services isn't normally that straight forward.

I don’t know why the face 2014. I thought it was clear that I was responding to another poster who’d said that lawyers were only out for themselves and clients were secondary by quoting part of their post and responding to it.

I know it’s more complicated than that , but if you go round pudding all over your clients, you don’t end up with much a career.

What's pudding?

I'm a barrister, and I did criminal law for a bit, a long time ago. For those who were asking about earnings, working as a junior criminal barrister is stupendously badly paid. I used to do hearings for £46.50 and often had to pay my own travel expenses out of that, leaving me with less than the minimum wage. I had a friend who was forced to leave the self-employed Bar because she couldn't afford to pay her travel expenses to get to hearings. My understanding is that the rates have gone up very little, if at all, since the early 2000s.

I do think that there are things to be said for a more inquisitorial, less adversarial system (although I don't think the areas in which we do have a more inquisitorial system, such as Coroners' courts, are better at getting to the truth of the matter). That said, it is extremely important that we have skilled lawyers representing defendants in criminal cases for all the reasons given above - although there is another reason that I don't think anyone has mentioned as yet. Imagine there was no lawyer and the defendant represented him/herself (this does of course happen in some cases where the defendant insists on self-representation, or in civil cases involving e.g. human trafficking where the defendants cannot afford representation). Then you have the alleged perpetrator cross-examining the alleged victim. That is a horrendous scenario and one I have always tried to avoid in practice. Whilst any kind of cross-examination is an ordeal, and I do feel for your daughter, OP, cross-examination by a trained professional subject to a code of conduct is infinitely preferable to cross-examination by the alleged perpetrator.

Pissing. I have a prissy phone.

YABU

not all lawyers do criminal defence work for a start.

Hope your DD is OK. Sounds like she’s had a traumatic time x

Whilst any kind of cross-examination is an ordeal, and I do feel for your daughter, OP, cross-examination by a trained professional subject to a code of conduct is infinitely preferable to cross-examination by the alleged perpetrator.

This. I've seen it in a family law situation and it was eye wateringly awful.

Also good to have some figures about how poor the pay is. I knew it was around that but the numbers are stark. For those reading who don't know, also be aware that getting into criminal law as a barrister is still really competitive, despite it becoming less popular as a specialism, just because getting into any kind of area as a barrister is really competitive. The people who are starting out doing this are very promising. They have to be or they wouldn't get the gig. This isn't a case of the dregs taking the best they can get. If you're working as a junior criminal barrister, there's no way you couldn't earn more elsewhere. It's a choice you're making for reasons other than money

When a website for a defence barrister mentions serious crimes being acqitted with e.g a breach of PACE or potential flaws in cell site evidence (when that evidence is substantial) leading to aquittal then yes, I read that as a defence barrister not saying 'they're innocent' but saying, I got them off on technicalities

It still doesn't mean that the accused was guilty; it means that the prosecution failed to prove its case. As pointed out, it is vitally important that they follow PACE properly and ensure that they have checked all the evidence, because the consequences of failure are not only that awful cases like that of Stefan Kiszko happen, but that the guilty go free and carry on with their crimes. These are not "technicalities": they are of absolutely fundamental importance to everything that underlies our criminal justice system.