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.

They do it lots though all the same, usually with female criminals to be fair.

He has already had to refer himself for his angry outburst blaming the journalist for this! Of course the woman reporting the crimes was at fault, not the celeb committing them 🙄

I agree it’s his job. Also he said it was a long time ago and he was a different person then. Yet he continued to deny it and put his victims through the trauma of giving evidence and cross examination. But he is doing his job.

When you start making the sentence for rape similar to the one for murder, you actually increase the risk to women.

Why let the victim live when dead women can't tell.

Sentencing has to walk a fine line between being enough of a punishment, and not being so much of one that you incentive further crimes since "I'd get the same punishment anyway".

His upset family is utterly irrelevant to the crimes he is being senenced for. Do we not lock up murderers because there kids are sad?

Barristers are supposed to represent whoever comes along as long as it’s within their area of experience and for a “proper professional fee” (the second being a bit of a matter of opinion!)

However they obviously have to do so within certain rules.

Yeah but just a short rape, which makes it okay or something..... Agree with PP that although their job is to make the Judge aware of and ensure they consider the facts there should be closer guidelines and restrictions around that.

RB isn’t a murderer. I’ve seen women commit very serious violent offences and not receive a custodial sentence because of their caring responsibilities for their kids, yes. This is quite common actually.

Rapists do tend to escalate into more serious abuse and murder, so maybe keeping them in sooner would impact society better as a preventative logical step. We need to work on what happens to these men in prison as well or at least sort the tagging system out properly.

How do your come across as a great person when you’re defending a sex crime? He’s doing his job not increasing his popularity.

Yes that was exactly how I read it too. Despite the not guilty plea and defending on the basis of consensual sexual activity, the barrister now seems to have openly said yes, he knew she wasn't consenting (which IS rape however "momentarily"). So he's admitting Brand has committed perjury? I'm so confused.

Am a solicitor but not criminal so a lot of the procedure is unfamiliar to me.

That didn't mean she wasn't affected by the rape or made vulnerable by it. A vulnerable victim would for example be someone with lower than normal capacity. Or it could be a power imbalance e.g. priest/doctor/teacher situation. I think the prosecution were going diwn that line with the argument that she was a fan, but the judge found that didn't mean she was particularly vulnerable.

It’s much better that he says it, that RB like any defendant gets to hear his mitigation out across and the Judge can take it into account and address it.

I’m not sure if you listened to the Judge’s sentencing remarks but he went through the guidelines that meant he couldn’t give the personal mitigation much weight.

What you don’t want is for these things not to be addressed at the sentencing hearing and the defendant being able to appeal on those grounds.

That's true but it's also much more likely that the mother is taking on far more parenting responsibilities than the father and that the children may need to go into the care system if the mother is jailed. Although the fact that a man is a father is always brought up in mitigation, judges give it little weight unless for example the father is a single parent due to bereavement and there is no family that can care for the children. Because most criminals have children, often multiple ones by various different women, likely none of whom they actively parent or contribute financially to. Loads of criminals also conveniently claim to be carers for elderly parents to mitigate sentence but generally judges take a similar view that they should have considered this before committing crime.

The barrister in Brand's case was looking for anything he could say in mitigation because the reality is there is hardly any to be had.

In putting across mitigation at a sentencing hearing, it’s common for a barrister to address the judge on the basis that the defendant was in fact guilty- so on the basis of the Jury’s verdict.

Defendants are never, or almost never, prosecuted in addition for perjury as it conflicts with their right to a fair trial.

No, I feel the same as you, and I'm from a family of solicitors (some who specialise in criminal work).

Some of the things Brand's defence presented as 'fact' during the trial was disgusting. "Rapists don't give out their email address. Rapists don't kiss their victims goodbye."

Barristers can't just do and say whatever they want to help their client. There are still rules. For example, if they admit to their barrister they're guilty, they can't allow them to enter a not guilty plea. And they aren't allowed to mislead the jury (which I personally would argue the statements above are verging on...)

His Barrister has actually had to refer himself to the standards board as a result of his conduct on this case, but not because of what he said in the trial.

I didn't say that he wasn't able to say it. I said it was arguably misleading and I stand by that. Even given he wasn't convicted of the other rapes, he was convicted of other sexual assaults. Those are offences which are directly related to each other, and therefore even though he was only found guilty of one rape, IMO it should be enough to see that there is a pattern and repeated behaviour, therefore not an isolated incident.

Which is why I believe the law in this area should change, as part of the overhaul re rape myths etc.

I think the same for alcohol - unless it is the very first time you have ever drunk, or you were spiked, then use of alcohol should be an aggravating factor in criminal law, not a mitigating one - it is your responsibility to manage alcohol consumption so as not to negatively affect your judgement/behaviour/interactions with other people. If you're unable to do that, you shouldn't be drinking in the first place.

Does mitigation include trying to minimise the crime of rape?

Bring drunk at the time of committing a crime is already an aggravating not mitigating factor. Which makes sense in some ways as above it's your responsibility to manage your behaviour when drinking.

But it kind of contradicts the fact that a victim is seen as particularly vulnerable if drunk.

Well, he got Brand a year off his sentence for finding witnesses who could vouch for his good conduct, so I think the barrister did a sterling job.

I'll ensure he represents me if anyone falsely accuses me of a crime.

I couldn't be a defence barrister, it might be his job, but it's immoral.

Yes, but all those people could be on the jury when any of us are in court for a crime we might-or might not-be guilty of! That's what is so worrying!

I heard the sentencing. Thats completely separate to the barrister pleading for leniency because the criminals children are upset.

We’re obviously not his defence barrister so our opinions on his statement are largely irrelevant. He was paid to do a job, mitigation is part of the process.

He's come very close to victim blaming, he has repeatedly used rape myths (Did you scream?? -no??) And his cross examination has been aggressive, almost as if he wanted to put others off the idea of coming forward. He had an angry outburst at a female journalist, publicly stated that justice wasn't done. The Bar standards board have a fair amount that they can use against him.

He may be doing his job, but he also has to do it to a prescribed standard...he referred himself to the BSB, obviously trying to mitigate his own punishment.