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.

Maybe it is. Muck slinging and shaming victims with rape myths however is not.

Thank you Gertrude, that makes sense. I still think it was a shocking remark though!

" if they admit to their barrister they're guilty, they can't allow them to enter a not guilty plea."

You can allow them to enter a NG plea, you just can't put forward any defences such as self defence or an alibi or misleading the court in any way, such as allowing your client to give evidence you know to be false, such as the victim consented when he's admitted they did not.

But you can defend it by putting the prosecution on full facts and arguing they haven't discharged the burden of proof.

In reality you'd recommend that you recuse yourself as it's so limiting, but you can represent someone on a not guilty basis where they have admitted guilt to you.

Out of interest, is that referral now limited to the incident with the Press or will they also look at his entire performance in the case?

To be fair I didn’t listen to his mitigation- it was just that bit about now working on the basis the defendant was guilty

If he’s crossed a line you’d hope the BSB would deal with it, especially as he’s already referred himself

The barrister has to present anything possible, short of untruth, that could -

a. Show Brand's crimes in a less serious light, e.g. his argument that it's not as bad to rape a woman following on from consensual sex, as it is to rape an unknown woman out of the blue.
b. Offer extenuating circumstances in terms of Brand's state of mind, situation at the time of the crime.
c. Invoke sympathy for Brand's loved ones and dependents who will be affected by his prison term
d. Demonstrate as best he can that Brand has taken steps since the crime to 'be a better person' - charity work, rehab and so on.

That is the barrister's job - if he didn't do that to the best of his ability, he would be in breach of his oaths, in contempt of court and at risk of being disbarred.

It might be a load of old baloney, he might completely disagree in private that circumstances can affect the gravity of a rape, he might, in non-barrister mode, not even want Brand's sentence to be reduced - but he's taken on the role of a barrister, so he has to do his job.

It's like a doctor would have to treat or resuscitate a known serial killer if he turned up on their operating table - they can't allow their personal feelings to affect the job they do and the oaths they have taken in order to be registered to practise.

I assume it will be limited to the interaction with the journalist.

Wakey Wakey to the real world.

That is what I thought. Hopefully it doesn't mean they can't have another referral for the same case with the email/kiss comments and the rest.

Quote from the BBC live updates page:

‘The defence barrister now argues the woman who Brand anally raped was "not particularly vulnerable - she must have felt sufficiently confident [going to his house], considering the sort of persona, and the sort of sex he would engage in".’

Apologies if I’ve misunderstood this as I’ve had very little sleep, but is he saying we have to accept we may be anally raped if we decide to go into the house of a promiscuous man?

https://www.magistrates-association.org.uk/blog/how-alcohol-complicates-sentencing/

Yes, theoretically it is. In reality, how it's used in actual court proceedings is much more mixed, and IMO not given the weight it should be, given that alcohol use typically features in at least 40%+ of violent assaults.

And I don't think it necessarily does contradict it. The victim didn't initiate or cause the situation. The "but for" test - but for the offender, it would have been neutral/irrelevant that the victim was drunk. But they are less able to deal with the offender's actions due to being intoxicated.

Brand's appeal could focus on inadequacy of defence, but as much as I dislike this KC and how he's conducted himself, (and I get the elements where he's doing his job I feel in this party of the legal system) I don't think he would meet this criteria for appeal

It's just horrifying that he is saying these things in a professional capacity and in public.
I expect he would see it as rape if he popped to RBs house and RB started to have anal sex with him without his consent

Yes and that if a man acts this way he is allowed to claim she knew it was coming and thus not really rape, it seems
Maybe that is why there seem to be so many dickish and promiscuous men on dating apps - who knew it was a legal defence?!

Of course they won’t look at his entire performance, unless he has broken his professional code of conduct somehow.

It’s the Judge’s job to ensure the proceedings are conducted in a way that complies with the law and guidelines. If he didn’t intervene to stop a line of questioning, or to reprimand IW for making certain statements, that’s on him. Not on IW. Thats literally what the Judge is there to do (or not do, in this case).

Court isn’t like an HR meeting; you can’t just say something isn’t fair or should be against the rules because you don’t like it. I accept it’s upsetting, but the whole case is upsetting.

His barrister is doing exactly what a barrister is supposed to do. And gets paid for.

I could not do that job.

I think he's specifically addressing whether she was vulnerable or not, rather than saying that she should have expected to be raped. If she was vulnerable - say, if she'd had learning difficulties - it would potentially have a bearing on how the judge viewed the sentencing.

Its a defence barristers job to get their client the lowest sentence possible. Thats how it works, they will pull out the all the stops but ultimately the judge decides the sentence. We might not like it but thats how it works

You're being both dangerous and ridiculous OP. Of course people must be free to make their pleas in mitigation to courts. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

And it's not like there isn't plenty to slag Brand's barrister off over! But this is him doing his job how he's supposed to do it.

She gets it. She’s expressing dislike for it.

I was attacked by a male barrister. They are all so incredibly narcarristic.

I have been arguing with them all day on X..they lack a sensitivity chip and can't seem to look further than " he was only doing his job". It's been exhausting.

He’s self reported to the bar council for his disgraceful verbal attack on a journalist after the verdict so hopefully he’ll get a serious rap on the knuckles for that. As for the rest - it’s their job.

But he was doing his job. I acknowledge it’s not a nice or endearing one, but remember he will likely also be prosecuting cases as well as defending.

Do you mean attacked physically!?

A shit, sniff, one.