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.

The barrister is doing his job with regard to talking about Brand's family in mitigation.

I am far more incensed by he remarks that he made in which he attempted to minimise the rape. Claiming that the victim wasn't vulnerable, that she had willingly consented to sex before the anal rape, and characterising Brand as a man that had gone too far.

I believe that everyone should be entitled to a defence, but once someone is convicted, I don't think it's ok for the barrister to be so dismissive of the crime.

His job was to defend Brand and, once he was found guilty, to try to get him as light a sentence as possible. That’s his job. That’s how the system works.

I voted you are not being unreasonable as I feel your anger at Brand and his highly unprofessional Barrister but of course I know his odious Barrister is doing his job. Glad to see Brand get 10 years plus for and I hope his Barrister has the book thrown at him for his nasty outburst last week.

Speaking as a rape survivor a mandatory life sentence with a minimum of 15 years in custody should be the starting point.

Tbf when someone fights a case and loses you are already grasping at straws for mitigation as a barrister.

All the absolute bankers that you can say when they've pleaded guilty are off the table.

You can't say that they are remorseful as they have spent weeks saying they didn't do it.
You can't say they accept responsibility and are sorry for their actions, they've spent the trial calling the victims liars.

You can't say they saved the victims from the ordeal of giving evidence and cross examination, that they were cooperative or that they removed a massive financial and administrative burden from the state.

You are really left with saying fairly vague points about them being an otherwise good person and finding something to distinguish their crimes from the most serious examples of the same crime to argue it should be towards the lower end of the scale.

I can't comment on how well his QC did throughout, the limited parts I've read don't paint a great picture, but I will say any barrister is pretty much on a hiding to nothing when trying to mitigate someone who fought and lost multiple violent sexual offences

Sometimes you can really see the bubbles that Barristers live in. This one has clearly been pandered to by male colleagues and allowed to get away with this behaviour and can't even see it is tone deaf and likely to turn the jury against him further. I guess it would work with some old school Judges but it won't increasingly going forward.

Consequences. Glad that they are finally ensuring some chickens come home to roost.

Plenty of lawyers are also appalled by the particular language being used by Winter

Didn’t the judge say that he didn’t consider any of the women to be classed as vulnerable?

He is just doing his job but I do agree with you, however I'm more disgusted about his attempt at mitigation for anally raping the woman. He said it, "was quite a short... momentary total failure to respect her consent"

Disgusting.

Laura Brand isn’t thinking this through is she op. I wonder if it’s entered her head that her children could very well grow up and resent her for sticking by there dad. I can imagine the Mumsnet post from said daughter… would I be unreasonable to go no contact with my mum because she stood by my dad, a convicted rapist?
Im with you op, his defense is a complete duck, luckily it hasn’t worked, Russell brand has just been sentenced to 10 years.

You understand how our legal system works don’t you? I have no idea what you’re furious about or want to complain about. This is the Barristers job he is doing well at.

totally bizarre post

To all those saying "the barrister is just doing his job" - this is true, but do you not believe that we should be looking at what that can mean, and limiting it somewhat?

Barristers are, for example, not allowed to put forward a defence they know to be untrue, as it would be misleading the court.

I would say many of the things Ian Winter has said are arguably misleading the court - it clearly wasn't "an isolated incident", "a short failure to respect consent", and the use of the passive voice, as if this is something which Brand has had done to him, rather than the direct consequences of his own unpleasant actions, are all arguably misleading. Just as there are moves to ban "rape myths" from being used in court defence, I think similar should apply to mitigation speeches, where it should need to at least roughly correlate with observable reality, and, more importantly, the verdict which has just been given on his conduct.

I imagine both of them will be in years of therapy. Once she has her mind back and he can't control her (they even home school the daughter) I think both of them will need some very clear support.

Not quite.

Their job is not to get the client off the hook or as light a sentence as possible. Their job is to ensure that the judge takes all relevant factors into account when passing a sentence.

The defence mitigates, the prosecution gives aggravating factors.

This is important to ensure the sentence is proportionate and fair. If not, it is open to challenge.

Sentence - ten and a half years in jail.

"where" dad?
Furthermore @ToastAndCoffee8 , it's been 8 minutes since the verdict. Maybe the wife will reconsider once time has passed. Perhaps she stood by him because she is still in shellshock. Perhaps you don't know anything....

Maybe not just you but definitely people who don't understand the judicial system.

You can complain to the Bar Standards Board

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/for-the-public/problems-with-a-barrister/reporting-a-concern.html

Read the guidelines about complaints. There are limited grounds of it's not your barrister or you are not directly involved. But you may still think you want to raise the issues with his conduct.

The victim wasn't vulnerable, the victim had consented and taken part in sex before the rape, and clearly Brand had gone too far as he raped her. So taking Winter to task for doing his job is what you are doing.

There are major issues around our adversarial system in regard to prosecuting rapes and that's what needs to be focused on moving forward. The system needs to change.

"was quite a short... momentary total failure to respect her consent"

Quite difficult to understand what he was trying to argue here - he just seems to be describing rape.

In terms of the rape the barrister is able to call it an isolated incident in his mitigation because Brand was found not guilty of the other rapes.

Totally agree with this, this statement went too far.

There are major issues around there adversarial system full stop. It creates a winner and a loser and doesn't necessarily seek the truth.

The jury has left. This is just to the judge. I'm no lawyer but I shocked at the lack of knowledge about the legal system on this thread.

I agree with @CurlewKate - that was his barrister's job to get him the lightest sentence possible.

I watched the sentencing live & Dh said , re the judge's comments , he ( the judge) giving all mitigating circumstances , possibly to remove grounds for appeal.

Whether 10 and half years is enough , just at the moment I reckon 10 years looking over your shoulder probably sounds very bad indeed. I actually shed a tear at some of the witness statements read out. I just hope that gradually these people who think they are beyond the law because of reasons will very much realise they are not.