To be absolutely furious at Brand's barrister?

[Bollihobs]

Just reading the live sentencing of Russell Brand and this is what his defence barrister, Ian Wilson KC has come out with, presumably in a hand-wringing attempt to lessen the sentence.

Ian Winter KC told Southwark Crown Court that Russell Brand's rape and sexual assault convictions have caused 'total devastation' to his wife Laura Gallacher – but she is 'standing by him'. He said "they have been 'wrestling with how to explain' to their ten-year-old child what has happened to their father. 🤔

Mr Winter said: 'I'm afraid words are completely inadequate to truly try to convey to your Lordship the total devastation she's experiencing.

'Currently (they) are wrestling with how to exactly explain to a child who's just turned ten what has happened here. It brings home the consequences of this conduct to totally innocent people who have been caught up in it.'

WTF??? Surely the only non-innocent person is Brand. The "innocent people caught up in this" are his victims first and foremost. And as for "what has happened to their father" ???? Well, justice came knocking that's what happened!

I have no idea how to complain about a barrister's conduct but I really want to. This is just appalling.

His barrister is doing his job.

Do you understand how the legal system works? It’s this man’s job to represent RB. Everyone deserves representation.

‘hello, can I complain about someone doing their job please.’ Ffs

It is so tone deaf it's unbelievable!

Wow. Just me then. Hey ho.

But this is his job… He’s selling the story of Brand as the loving father and how much his young children will miss him to try and persuade the judge to be more lenient in sentencing.

Hasn’t the barrister already referred himself over an incident with a reporter? In your example he was doing his job but he doesn’t sound like a great person.

He’s literally doing his job - offering mitigations to reduce the sentence. Who would you complain to? To his Chambers? They would think you were off your trolley. Plus you haven’t even heard the sentencing yet to understand if the mitigation has even made a difference! Fair enough if you don’t understand how the legal system works - as is clearly the case - but please look into it before you go shooting off a complaint which will only waste people’s time and make you look foolish.

Sounds like the barrister is scraping the bottom of the barrel in trying to find any reason to portray Brand in a sympathetic light. I read that they couldn't find anyone to be a character witness for him - is that true?

That’s his actual job. Perhaps you need to read up on what a defence lawyers role is ?

I dont know if this is a wind up. What on earth is he supposed to do. His only point of being there is to convey to the judge/jury whatever he can to influence the result in a more positive way for his client. Doing anything else would almost certainly lose him his profession.

Only his wife, although didn’t Georgina Baillie put in a written statement today as part of the mitigation?

It would also be illegal!

Yes, this. He's trying to persuade the judge to opt for a lesser sentence, just as his previous job was to try to get a not-guilty verdict.

It is called mitigation
The barrister is doing his job

I read an interview with her in which she said someone (Brand himself?) had asked for her support and she had offered to speak to his legal team to give her version. The article didn't say whether anything had been submitted to court in her name - I assumed not, as the media would have covered it.

yeah, just you who doesn't necessarily understand right to a fair representation, and mitigation.

You're basically saying that Brand's representation should abandon any pretence of representing him, just so that they can stand in the light of "moral justice" or whatever you think should be happening here.

Thank the Lord we have a proper court system in this country instead of a kangaroo one based on message board opinions and public consensus.

He’s being called out all over the media. I don’t think this thread is needed

there are multiple threads running on Brand and a couple for his wife

I don't think having young children is a very strong argument for leniency as it would apply to everyone convicted of a crime who has children. Unless the children were entirely dependent on the parent and it was a non-serious crime, eg single mother not having a TV licence. But Brand has been convicted of serious crimes against multiple people.

I would be more lenient on a man that owned up to his despicable and vile behaviour.

Removing any contact between Brand and his child and wife for as many years as possible is by far the best outcome for both. He should not be allowed to influence a child and normalise rape.

What exactly do you think the defence barrister’s job is?

Describing a rape victim as “not particularly vulnerable” does sound seriously off, though.

His job is firstly to defend him secondly to try to minimise his sentence. That’s literally his job ! He doesn’t have to agree with it

I’ve seen many cases where a woman has committed a serious or violent offence and the sentence is very clearly geared toward not removing her ability to care for her children. It’s the only ‘reverse sexism’ that exists really.

It is his job to offer things that could be mitigation.

Dismissing anal rape as ‘a short total failure to respect consent’ and he just ‘went too far’ as if it doesn’t matter I’d say beyond his professional job as a defence barrister. He questioned witnesses and victims about what they had been wearing and used rape myths to dismiss victims.

He crossed the line between the role of defence and actually defending rape. IMO.

I'm well aware of what his job is. He's just not doing it very well.

I don't think 'his wife will be upset' or 'they don't know how to explain to a ten year old girl that her Daddy's a rapist' is good mitigation.