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:
ldontWanna · 28/03/2022 22:46

@BrokenNHS

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.
Don't get me wrong. I struggle with the verdict and whatever measly sentencing they received. There's nothing positive about their hidden lifestyle, and tbh it's very worrying that bright teens with good futures and lives felt drawn to that lifestyle and thought acting and behaving like that was cool. How stupid and fucked up is that. Now their friend is dead. One of them murdered him no matter what the verdict said and has to live with that. They both have a record ,have been named ,everyone knows who they are and what they did. As pathetic as the sentencing was ,he did go to jail. And for what? For likes , and street cred and blud ? Ffs...
BronwenFrideswide · 28/03/2022 22:55

@BrokenNHS

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!

Well what are you saying, because your posts about the ever so expensive defence and their character assassination seem to be saying that is what swayed the Jury to find the defendants not guilty of murder or manslaughter?

Or are you saying the defence had no right to pursue that path even though they were arguing it was a case of self defence?

As for the Channel 4 programme, they told the side of the story they wanted to tell, did they give chapter and verse of every bit of evidence in the court case or just pick out the bits that suited their agenda?

On the evidence and arguments presented by both sides the Jury did not believe the case met the high bar for murder or manslaughter, if you had seen all the evidence they had and heard all the arguments they heard you may well have come to the same conclusion. Cases are not judged (or shouldn't be) on whether or not the defendants or victim are likeable, they are judged on the facts and arguments presented.

Blackberrycream · 28/03/2022 23:00

@BronwenFrideswide
The truth may lie between…This isn’t some kind of character competition/ comparison though. Molnar plunged a knife into Yousef’ s heart. Yousef was the victim.He was not on trial.
The actual known and proven facts show Molnar to have a history of carrying knives and a previous incident of a threat with a knife. He made videos of himself carrying out pretend knife attacks. He is implicated in much more. There were several incidents leading up to this attack and an internal police review was held that identified failings in the investigation in that they failed to make the connections between these incidents. They also failed to search Molnar’s home until a few days later. The clothing had been washed and his room cleaned by then. His dna was on the knife. The so called knife he claimed he thought Yousef had was never found. Funny that. The case stinks.

BronwenFrideswide · 28/03/2022 23:05

[quote Blackberrycream]@BronwenFrideswide
The truth may lie between…This isn’t some kind of character competition/ comparison though. Molnar plunged a knife into Yousef’ s heart. Yousef was the victim.He was not on trial.
The actual known and proven facts show Molnar to have a history of carrying knives and a previous incident of a threat with a knife. He made videos of himself carrying out pretend knife attacks. He is implicated in much more. There were several incidents leading up to this attack and an internal police review was held that identified failings in the investigation in that they failed to make the connections between these incidents. They also failed to search Molnar’s home until a few days later. The clothing had been washed and his room cleaned by then. His dna was on the knife. The so called knife he claimed he thought Yousef had was never found. Funny that. The case stinks.[/quote]
So a shoddy investigation then? How is that the fault of the defence and the expensive lawyers who defended their client on the basis of the evidence against him?

Implicated in much more is just that implicated not proof.

Blackberrycream · 28/03/2022 23:11

And actually cases are affected by ‘likability ‘. It is very naive to think that rich, well connected boys from Hale are not seen in a more empathetic light than those involved in inner city knife crime.

BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 23:15

ldontWanna
I agree with everything you say in your last post. The loss of life is so utterly pointless.

Blackberry
It really does stink.

In a final note (tonight at least) One of the things that irritated me the most about the C4 documentary was the comment made by someone from the investigating team about the defendant. Privately educated, from a ’good’ middle class family.
What makes his family ‘good’?

BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 23:16

On not in!
Will catch up tomorrow. Interesting thread OP.

BrokenNHS · 28/03/2022 23:17

@Blackberrycream

And actually cases are affected by ‘likability ‘. It is very naive to think that rich, well connected boys from Hale are not seen in a more empathetic light than those involved in inner city knife crime.
THIS!! Exactly what I meant in my last post…
Blackberrycream · 28/03/2022 23:23

@BronwenFrideswide
The attack he is implicated in is mentioned widely in the press and in the police review also. It’s important as the events following on from this event suggest premeditation and motive.

The defence are not at fault but the prosecution absolutely are.

PurpleTrilby · 28/03/2022 23:31

Fuck me, I didn't really need more examples of why the jury system is an outdated load of shit, but here's loads of people proving just that. Well done everyone who wants summary extrajudicial killings due to arbitrary rules. Are you fans of Priti Patel?

Jonny1265 · 28/03/2022 23:33

@NeverDropYourMooncup

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.

This is bullshit and you know it. If a client disclosed they are guilty, then according to the above, you should state that in court. This clearly isn't the case and the duty to the client is above that to the court. This is why there is so much injustice in the system.
LoveFall · 28/03/2022 23:51

If a client tells you they are guilty it is absolutely not a lawyer's duty to tell the court.

Exactly the opposite.

But, then you cannot put your client on the witness stand and have them testify under oath that the are innocent,

LoveFall · 28/03/2022 23:58

If your client is testifying and you KNOW they are lying, really your only option is to immediately step aside and no longer represent the client, even in the middle of court.

You must do that without saying why and certainly without pointing to your client and saying he or she is lying.

A judge will always accept your withdrawal.

LardyDee · 29/03/2022 00:03

@Jonny1265
This is bullshit and you know it. If a client disclosed they are guilty, then according to the above, you should state that in court

What are you talking about? Did you even read the principles in @NeverDropYourMooncup's post? In particular:

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.

Jonny1265 · 29/03/2022 00:41

[quote LardyDee]@Jonny1265
This is bullshit and you know it. If a client disclosed they are guilty, then according to the above, you should state that in court

What are you talking about? Did you even read the principles in @NeverDropYourMooncup's post? In particular:

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.[/quote]
Yes but I also read
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 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.

These core duties are contradictory and the legal system is built upon getting your client off and not seeking the truth.

LardyDee · 29/03/2022 00:55

@Jonny1265

The duties are not contradictory. You just don't understand them!

Nothing you have cited (and indeed, nothing) requires the barrister to reveal anything to the court without the client's consent. Withholding confidential information is fine. Misleading the court is not.

Jonny1265 · 29/03/2022 01:16

[quote LardyDee]@Jonny1265

The duties are not contradictory. You just don't understand them!

Nothing you have cited (and indeed, nothing) requires the barrister to reveal anything to the court without the client's consent. Withholding confidential information is fine. Misleading the court is not.[/quote]
I do understand them and the whether they are contradictory is open to interpretation. The entire notion of an adversarial system ensures that their is a winner and loser and the truth gets lost in that process.

BronwenFrideswide · 29/03/2022 11:12

@Blackberrycream

And actually cases are affected by ‘likability ‘. It is very naive to think that rich, well connected boys from Hale are not seen in a more empathetic light than those involved in inner city knife crime.
That is why I used the words should not be, yes it happens and no it shouldn't which is why the Judge directs the Jury to find on the facts of the case and the Law.
BronwenFrideswide · 29/03/2022 11:15

[quote Blackberrycream]@BronwenFrideswide
The attack he is implicated in is mentioned widely in the press and in the police review also. It’s important as the events following on from this event suggest premeditation and motive.

The defence are not at fault but the prosecution absolutely are.[/quote]
The shoddy investigation seems at the heart of this, the Prosecution can only prosecute on the evidence supplied by the investigating team.

Lockheart · 29/03/2022 11:23

I think quite a few posters might benefit from watching this:

It's 12 mins long but it explains the core principles and how they interact, and what barristers can or should do or not do if the client admits they are guilty.

thepastisanothercountry · 29/03/2022 11:46

@Viviennemary

I agree. If they refuse to speak then it should be an automatic guilty verdict by default.
I disagree completely.

What you are saying here is that if someone refuses to speak all other evidence should be considered beyond reasonable doubt. There are loads of reasons many mentioned by PPs why someone may not want to speak.

Supposing for example something another witness says undermines the prosecution case or the complainants evidence is inconsistent or there is doubt cast on DNA or forensic evidence...

Silence does not necessarily correspond to guilt.

SolasAnla · 29/03/2022 11:58

@Blackberrycream

And actually cases are affected by ‘likability ‘. It is very naive to think that rich, well connected boys from Hale are not seen in a more empathetic light than those involved in inner city knife crime.
So to solve that remove the jury who are the ones making the decision to like the boy from posh area more that the not posh at all area?

No prosecution
No defence
No jury
😶

Blackberrycream · 29/03/2022 18:07

@SolasAnia
That is quite a jump in logic you made there.
I was stating that there is inequality in the treatment of certain groups/communities in the justice system. It’s really not that controversial a statement. Some cases in particular bring this to the fore. I believe this is one of them. It needs review.

BasiliskStare · 29/03/2022 19:59

Not sure if mentioned and quite old is Blackstones ratio

BrokenNHS · 29/03/2022 20:44

Blackberry

I was stating that there is inequality in the treatment of certain groups/communities in the justice system. It’s really not that controversial a statement. Some cases in particular bring this to the fore. I believe this is one of them. It needs review.

I agree. The detectives interview in this documentary constantly talked about the boy's 'young' age, 'good', middle class background, school, academic ability. They didn't even search their houses immediately.

Young people from less affluent areas (not too far from Hale Barns) are, without a doubt, viewed and treated differently.