To ask why Wayne Couzens needs a defence barrister?

[HeartsAndClubs]

Was just reading the BBC article about how he is due to be sentenced today, and they said that the judge will hand down the sentence after his defence barrister has spoken.

Thing is, he confessed to the murder, so it’s not as if this is a trial where guilt needs to be established and where he would be entitled to a defence to prove his innocence. So why does he need a defence barrister?

I agree generally. It's hard to see how a murdering rapist could be trusted not to reoffend, though. I thought the fact he took his family there for a walk a couple of days later showed an extra disregard. How could you rehabilitate that level of hate and disregard for women and their lives?

I agree. Psychopaths are often attracted to the scene of the crime.

I think that disregard he shows in going back with this family is important here.

I'm glad you asked the question OP.

I must admit, I had previously wondered how barristers could bring themselves to defend obviously guilty and evil people. It didn't occur to me that they wouldn't necessarily do it to 'get the defendant off' , but instead to ensure that every detail had been thoroughly checked to make certain that no appeals could be brought, no loopholes exploited.

As a PP more or less said- only idiots think asking questions is stupid.

[quote kirinm]@M4J4 Yep because literally no one else has ever read anything about our criminal justice system. Read about it. One day you may be in it.[/quote]
The point is telling people they are stupid because they haven’t read about is shitty behaviour. Don’t do it.

As a PP more or less said- only idiots think asking questions is stupid.

Amen

@M4J4 I didn't do it thanks. I said I was surprised that someone didn't know. I am surprised. They should know.

So why are you @‘ing me?

@ Shodan wasn’t there an article recently from someone working for the CPS who had become a prosecution lawyer precisely because he felt uncomfortable with some of the cases he had to defend?

"It strikes me that someone doing something this vile , then admitting guilt is trying to mitigate, by seeming kind not to put the family through the ordeal of a trial."

It's possibly the strongest mitigation and in many jurisdictions it entitles you to a certain amount of credit with respect to time off the headline sentence.

Not only can you argue that he's saved the state a huge amount of resources, time and money. Depending on the crime you have saved witnesses and victims the ordeal of giving evidence, being put through cross examination and having to relive the details of the offence in detail.

Beyond that as a defence barrister you also get to say that your client takes responsibility for his actions, is remorseful and is deeply ashamed etc something which you can't really do if you've spent 2 weeks at trial calling the police and witnesses liars and denying your guilt.

Since you can't be penalized for contesting your innocence then the course of action where by you forego your trial and voluntarily give up your presumption of innocence has to be viewed as a mitigating factor.

If only to set the precedent. Otherwise if you're just going to get the same sentence regardless you may as well fight it, make life as difficult as possible for the prosecution and hope they drop the ball at some point. If you're going to get the maximum sentence either way.

@Mayorquimby2

"It strikes me that someone doing something this vile , then admitting guilt is trying to mitigate, by seeming kind not to put the family through the ordeal of a trial."

It's possibly the strongest mitigation and in many jurisdictions it entitles you to a certain amount of credit with respect to time off the headline sentence.

Not only can you argue that he's saved the state a huge amount of resources, time and money. Depending on the crime you have saved witnesses and victims the ordeal of giving evidence, being put through cross examination and having to relive the details of the offence in detail.

Beyond that as a defence barrister you also get to say that your client takes responsibility for his actions, is remorseful and is deeply ashamed etc something which you can't really do if you've spent 2 weeks at trial calling the police and witnesses liars and denying your guilt.

Since you can't be penalized for contesting your innocence then the course of action where by you forego your trial and voluntarily give up your presumption of innocence has to be viewed as a mitigating factor.

If only to set the precedent. Otherwise if you're just going to get the same sentence regardless you may as well fight it, make life as difficult as possible for the prosecution and hope they drop the ball at some point. If you're going to get the maximum sentence either way.

Well said.

@HeartsAndClubs

@ Shodan wasn’t there an article recently from someone working for the CPS who had become a prosecution lawyer precisely because he felt uncomfortable with some of the cases he had to defend?

The CPS and prosecution is the same thing. Crown Prosecution Service. I assume you meant working for the defence? A lot of barristers do both.

If I had known the answer, I wouldn’t have asked the question. And given I didn’t study law, or in fact get a degree, or wasn’t educated in this country, I was asking a genuine question.

Were you educated in a country that doesn’t provide legal representation for people who are accused of a crime? You don’t need to have studied law to understand a really basic principle of the vast majority of justice systems.

Whole life order.

Right decision.

@midsomermurderess

No, 'TLDR. only idiots don't ask questions' does not cut it. A functioning adult, probably raising children, has no bloody business being this frankly stupid. That's not patronising.

I can absolutely guarantee that there is part of your knowledge that is lacking that would make someone else think the same as you think of the OP.

Doubtless you have good reason not to know the things you don't know. Doubtless you'd say that you've got on perfectly well not knowing those facts.

That is unless I'm addressing Her Majesty the Queen and Font of All Knowledge herself, in which case please use your comments to educate further, rather than shame others.

He’s just been given a whole life tariff.
Right decision.

@HeartsAndClubs I don't know.

TBH I hear most direct information about the CPS from a police officer- and his views are limited mainly to his own experiences with them.

But this thread has sparked an interest so when I have some free time I'm going to go down the rabbit hole...

@HeartsAndClubs

Mn at its best as ever I see.

Perhaps the “how stupid do you have to be/are you uneducated” responders would rather I posted. Thread calling for a lynch mob then eh?

If I had known the answer, I wouldn’t have asked the question. And given I didn’t study law, or in fact get a degree, or wasn’t educated in this country, I was asking a genuine question.

For those who answered, thank you. I was wondering, and I don’t imagine I would have been the only one.

I apologise for the fact that I asked the question in the first place, since this is seemingly cause for offence. I will ask MN HQ to remove the thread.

Why should this thread be removed? Sure some people have been dismissive but there are some very good answers that would be useful for someone else who isn't familiar with the English legal system (for whatever reason)

@Carboncheque

I’d also like his name to be forgotten. Sarah Everard should be remembered, not that nothing of a man.

On Radio 4's Today programme this morning Nick Robinson very pointedly declined to use the perpetrator's name.

“GoodnightGrandma
Does any know what his relationship with his wife was like?
I suppose that might come out after sentencing.
This was all her fault I expect.”

Or he’ll try to blame his Mother somehow.

I agree with a previous poster that I’d rather he did top himself to be honest.

He will want to have the chance to argue the sentence he receives.

Hope he never sees the outside of a prison again, but he will get 30 and be out in 15 no doubt.

He needs a good defence lawyer do that it's all done correctly and he can't appeal and he stays locked up. Thought that be obvious.

Oh retract that, not read the news till just now! Good, hope he stays there!

@maddening

He will want to have the chance to argue the sentence he receives.

Hope he never sees the outside of a prison again, but he will get 30 and be out in 15 no doubt.

He got a whole life tariff and unless it is successfully appealed, he won't ever be out.

The whole life order needs to be bullet-proof.

Sarah Everard's family do not need to be having to face appeal after appeal. They need to be left in peace now, such as it can ever exist for them.

The decision seems secure to me, because he had a competent defence.

Its essential that our legal system is shown to be fair, balanced and reasonable. Otherwise you would get constant appeals or even cases thrown out because people could argue they had not had a fair trial.