Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think defendents should not have right to remain silent in court?

210 replies

Curly3456 · 26/03/2022 11:26

I have just finished watching "Killed by a rich kid" (documentary on Channel 4).
One of the boys accused of killing Yousef chose not to be questioned in court.

The two boys charged with Yousef's murder were found not guilty. Yousef's family were left feeling justice had not been done.

I can't help feeling that people accused of a crime shouldn't be able to opt out of being questioned in court?

OP posts:
ChateauxNeufDePoop · 28/03/2022 21:22

@BrokenNHS

What do you mean by your last sentence? The prosecution team is appointed by the CPS and nothing to do with the victims family.

His family are on the side of the prosecution. Do you think that they were able to pay for the ‘best’ lawyers in the land to stop their son’s character from being destroyed by the prosecution? No, the only thing they could do was rely on the CPS to prosecute the defendants. They had no voice.

Yes that was what I said
ldontWanna · 28/03/2022 21:36

@EmeraldShamrock1

That teenager will kill again.
How can you say that with such conviction? Based on what?

Don't get me wrong, I believe he should've been done at least for manslaughter,if not murder, and I still don't fully get how he wasn't.

Nothing I've read or seen though points to premeditation, maliciousness or any ill intent until things went fatally wrong.

PebbleMillAtOne · 28/03/2022 21:42

It’s up to the prosecutors to show the defendants guilt. Same as it’s up to the police to prove your guilt, which is No Comment I’d used so much . Innocent until PROVEN guilty

BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 21:47

BronwenFrideswide

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make here, of course the family of Yousef can't pay for lawyers for the simple reason the State prosecutes crimes, are you suggesting that individuals should be able to fund criminal prosecutions? Where the hell do you think that would lead?

The State/Prosecution is the voice of the family.

We all know that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes!
They are indeed meant to be the voice of the family but in this case they obviously didn’t do a good enough job. Did Yousef’s family get to choose the prosecution team? No, of course not.
His character was destroyed by the (obviously) stronger defence team the accused paid God knows how much for. He was made out to be person he wasn’t.
The victim’s family get given their team. The defendant should also have their team chosen for them.

BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 21:48

Voice of the family AND, more importantly, voice of the victim.

ldontWanna · 28/03/2022 21:52

@BrokenNHS

BronwenFrideswide

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make here, of course the family of Yousef can't pay for lawyers for the simple reason the State prosecutes crimes, are you suggesting that individuals should be able to fund criminal prosecutions? Where the hell do you think that would lead?

The State/Prosecution is the voice of the family.

We all know that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes!
They are indeed meant to be the voice of the family but in this case they obviously didn’t do a good enough job. Did Yousef’s family get to choose the prosecution team? No, of course not.
His character was destroyed by the (obviously) stronger defence team the accused paid God knows how much for. He was made out to be person he wasn’t.
The victim’s family get given their team. The defendant should also have their team chosen for them.

Was the character "assassination " , some would say context, completely made up then?
BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 22:01

Was the character "assassination " , some would say context, completely made up then?

I doubt very much it was completely made up. Who knows what the truth is? A person can be a lot of things all at once. If all is fair, did the prosecution do a good enough job character assassinating the defendant’s personality in return? Possibly not.
C4 did though.

BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 22:02

That was a bit garbled but hope you understand what I mean! 😄

Hoplesscynic · 28/03/2022 22:05

"That's a perverted but sadly common view of what defence barristers do."

Are you for real? Of course the defense lawyer's job is to get the lightest sentence, they are there to work in the best interests of their clients.

NeverDropYourMooncup · 28/03/2022 22:15

Fuck's Sake.

A Barrister's Core Duties:

To observe their duty to the court in the administration of justice.

They;

must not mislead a court or a judge or waste a court’s time and may need to make sure the court has all the relevant information it needs
must not abuse their role as an advocate; and
they must ensure that their ability to act independently is not compromised.

To act in the best interests of each client

A barrister who is working for you must always think about what is best for you and do their job in a way that reflects that. This does not mean that a barrister can lie on your behalf, or that they must do everything you tell them. Their duty to the court comes above even their duty to you as their client and barristers must act with independence, honesty and integrity. This means, for example, that they cannot do anything for you that would go against their duty to the court.

To act with honesty, and with integrity

The duty to act with honesty and with integrity includes not misleading or lying to anyone, not encouraging other people to mislead or be untruthful, and only accepting money and fees that they are legally allowed to. Barristers should also show integrity by upholding the professional standards expected of them.

To maintain their independence

To make sure barristers maintain their independence, they are not allowed to offer, promise or give gifts or referral fees to any client (or intermediary such as a solicitor), or to accept any money from a client or intermediary unless it is as payment for their professional work. They cannot work for you if there is, or they think there might be, a conflict of interest for them in doing so.

Not to behave in a way that is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in them or the barrister profession

Things that would be likely to diminish trust and confidence in the profession could include committing a crime, being dishonest, harassing others, offensive conduct towards other people, or abuse of their position as a barrister.

To keep the affairs of each client confidential

This means that barristers are not allowed to talk to other people about what you tell them without your consent.

To provide a competent standard of work and service to each client

A competent standard of work and service includes promoting a client's best interests, treating clients with courtesy and consideration, advising a client in terms that they can understand, avoiding unnecessary costs for a client, and reading a client's instructions promptly.

Not to discriminate unlawfully against any person

Barristers must not treat anyone less favourably or harass them or victimise them because of their race, colour, ethnicity or nationality, citizenship, sex, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, relationship status, disability, age, religion, belief or pregnancy/maternity.

To be open and cooperative with regulators

This means that barristers have to do what is asked of them by us or the Legal Ombudsman and provide the Bar Standards Board with information they need about them.

To take reasonable steps to manage their practice...

... or carry out their role within their practice, competently and in such a way as to achieve compliance with their legal and regulatory obligations

This means that a barrister must run their practice in a way that follows the rules in the BSB Handbook.

Just because people don't like the verdicts, that doesn't mean the barrister is doing something wrong - that means they're doing something right.

Lockheart · 28/03/2022 22:19

@Hoplesscynic

"That's a perverted but sadly common view of what defence barristers do."

Are you for real? Of course the defense lawyer's job is to get the lightest sentence, they are there to work in the best interests of their clients.

Yes, I am for real. Their job is not to get the lightest sentence possible or to get all charges dropped. Their job is to make sure the prosecution is sound (i.e. the conviction is just and inarguable) and appropriate (i.e. they're not being convicted of or sentenced for murder when they're only provably guilty of theft).
BronwenFrideswide · 28/03/2022 22:21

His character was destroyed by the (obviously) stronger defence team the accused paid God knows how much for. He was made out to be person he wasn’t.

I assume you are talking about the victim when you say he was made out to be a person he wasn't, how can you be absolutely sure of that?

So far we've had:

The case was lost because one of the defendants wasn't forced to take the stand in their own defence.

The case was lost because the defence made the victim out to be something he was not.

You are saying the Jury only took into account the Defence argument regarding the character they portrayed, they based their decision entirely on this totally which is a ridiculous assumption. Immediately before the Jury retires to consider their verdict the Judge sums up the case, goes over the facts of the case and tells the Jury, about the relevant law. The Judge also gives advice to the Jury. Are you saying the Judge was blinded by the expensive defence team too?

Some defendants do have their team chosen for them and paid for by the tax payer, in my opinion defendants should have the best possible team for their defence, whatever you personally may think of or about the people in the dock they are entitled to have a robust defence as they are presumed innocent until they are proven guilty to do anything else reverses that assumption and take us down a very slippery slope that ends with kangaroo courts and no justice at all.

BronwenFrideswide · 28/03/2022 22:26

@BrokenNHS

Was the character "assassination " , some would say context, completely made up then?

I doubt very much it was completely made up. Who knows what the truth is? A person can be a lot of things all at once. If all is fair, did the prosecution do a good enough job character assassinating the defendant’s personality in return? Possibly not.
C4 did though.

And you don't think Channel 4 had an agenda to do just that?

Do you not think the truth lies somewhere in the middle of both those character assassinations?

Hoplesscynic · 28/03/2022 22:27

So if a client has committed murder but the defence can spin it as manslaughter (e.g the evidence or lack there of allows for that), the defence wouldn't? Because they have to act with honesty and integrity? Yeah, right.

BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 22:28

Bronwen: You are saying the Jury only took into account the Defence argument regarding the character they portrayed, they based their decision entirely on this totally which is a ridiculous assumption.

I don’t think that at all.
Your assume too much!

BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 22:28

You

BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 22:29

@Hoplesscynic

So if a client has committed murder but the defence can spin it as manslaughter (e.g the evidence or lack there of allows for that), the defence wouldn't? Because they have to act with honesty and integrity? Yeah, right.
Exactly.
Lockheart · 28/03/2022 22:31

@Hoplesscynic

So if a client has committed murder but the defence can spin it as manslaughter (e.g the evidence or lack there of allows for that), the defence wouldn't? Because they have to act with honesty and integrity? Yeah, right.
The defence barristers job would be to make the prosecution prove that the threshold was met for a murder conviction. They would not "spin it" as manslaughter, they would make the prosecution prove it was murder.

Remember, the defence barrister's duty is first and foremost to the court, not to their client.

ldontWanna · 28/03/2022 22:32

@BrokenNHS

Was the character "assassination " , some would say context, completely made up then?

I doubt very much it was completely made up. Who knows what the truth is? A person can be a lot of things all at once. If all is fair, did the prosecution do a good enough job character assassinating the defendant’s personality in return? Possibly not.
C4 did though.

The thing is ,they probably couldn't find anything factual that was worse than what the defence presented. Don't forget that the defence didn't say only Yousef was into drugs,knives , stupid videos or that the "plot" was just his idea or that he coerced the other two into it.

Of course it sounds like shoddy tactics and character assassination when it's about the victim, particularly a very intelligent,scholarship winning,grammar going young man.

Do you really believe that if they found anything worse that wouldn't come out as part of the trial they wouldn't have used it?

The trouble is one young boy was the victim, so his actions are character assassinations. The other two are the criminals/perpetrators , so we expect the worst from them and their actions (not including the killing) just aren't bad enough or the prosecution didn't try hard enough.

BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 22:33

Bronwen

Of course that was the aim of C4.
We heard plenty about the ‘poor misunderstood’ accused 1&2 in court reports and press.
I’m glad C4 told the other side of the story.

BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 22:36

ldontWanna

True.

ldontWanna · 28/03/2022 22:39

@Hoplesscynic

So if a client has committed murder but the defence can spin it as manslaughter (e.g the evidence or lack there of allows for that), the defence wouldn't? Because they have to act with honesty and integrity? Yeah, right.
The defence don't spin anything at the trial. If CPS go for murder instead of manslaughter and they can't prove murder with all the legal requirements,the defendant walks free. It doesn't suddenly change to manslaughter in the middle of the trial.

There might be a plea bargain before the trial and some negotiations, for example the defendant pleads guilty of manslaughter instead of having a trial for murder. Or CPS decides that all they can prove is manslaughter rather than murder so that's what the charge is.

BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 22:40

ldontWanna
I don’t think that the C4 documentary glossed over the victim’s behaviour.
I guess the real injustice is that Yousef isn’t here to tell his side of the story.
The two accused were proved to be lying far too many times so it’s difficult to believe anything they say.

BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 22:42

ldontWanna

The way in which real evidence is presented to the jury is crucial.

BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 22:45

There might be a plea bargain before the trial and some negotiations, for example the defendant pleads guilty of manslaughter instead of having a trial for murder. Or CPS decides that all they can prove is manslaughter rather than murder so that's what the charge is.

I think that’s the point. A good (expensive in this case) defence lawyer will often bargain and negotiate.

Swipe left for the next trending thread