Why would Courtenay gGriffiths choose to defend Charles Taylor?

[Bobbalina]

Please can someone explain this to me?

Everyone has the right to be represented in court & everyone is 'innocent until proven guilty'. Those are basics that apply to all of us in the interests of justice. A lawyer would see a high-profile case such as this as something juicy to get their teeth into.

I remember, back in the 80's, knowing someone who's husband acted as the defence counsel for an IRA member accused of murder. He was not sympathetic to the cause in the slightest but strongly felt that everyone deserved a fair trial.

I understand your point, however Based on his previous cases and his chambers I would assume that courtenay is Actually sympathetic to taylors case, so I am I interested in why he might think Taylor is in the right here?

He doesn't necessarily think Taylor is 'in the right' in order to defend him. No lawyer does. Taylor is his client and, professionally, whatever his personal feelings may be, he has to vigorously defend his client's interest as if he believes him 100%.

I'm not familiar with his other cases but know that he has a strong interest in civil liberties. The way it tends to go in the legal world is that if someone gets a reputation for having aptitude in a certain area of the law then they will be sought out by others in a similar situation wishing to make use of their expertise. If he becomes known as 'Mr War Crimes Trial Lawyer' then those are the jobs he'll get.

The adversarial system requires a strong defence as well as a strong prosecution to get to the truth. Otherwise it's a kangaroo court, there's no justice and it would be no better than the type of grubby regime people like Taylor typify.

Because it is his job.

Being a defence advocate is a job. Often your client(s) repulses you as does what they stand for/have done. But you don't defend them because you agree with or even believe them. You defend them beacuse everyone is entitled to a defence and it is your job to act in their interests and defend them to the best of your ability.

The rules of the Bar also state that you are not allowed to refuse a case (except in some exceptional cases) so to a certain extent you have to take what you are given.

I don't understand your suggestion that he or his chambers would be sympathetic to Taylor.

Did anyone see Mia Farrow on the witness stand on Monday? Mia Farrow alleged that Graca Machel had suggested that Mia and the children shouldn't be photographed with Charles Taylor and that he should have left. Mr Griffiths then goes into the character of Graca Machel; that she was a socialist revolutionary, fought in wars, and was no stranger to the underground.

i was that this would be allowed as it's calling for speculation, and seemed a bit that the fact a woman was a revolutionary, means they cannot be scared of specific men? Didn't follow that logic, but more to the point, couldn't understand how Mia Farrow was allowed to speculate on Mrs Machel's state of mind.

I saw some of Mia Farrow (although not the bit to which you refer Ilove) she struck me as extraordinarily flaky.

I accept this all happened a while ago but it wasn't as if she didn't know what she would be asked about. She didn't seem to know what she knew.

I did see an extraordinary line of questioning from the judges when Farrow was asked if she was confusing what she said had happened with the film "blood diamond" which Farrow had already said she hadn't actually seen in full. Very bizarre!

I find it hard to believe that in practice successful barristers don't get to pick and choose their cases?

Presumably they just tell their clerks what they want or don't want to do?

Barristers can choose particular cases. It still doesn't mean that they agree with the client or condone the crime, however. It just means it's a particularly interesting or lucrative case.

You seem to be having trouble understanding this?

Well I would say sometimes it does mean they agree with the client or condone the crime, sometimes it doesn't. That's my point.

Chil1234 your comment "You seem to be having trouble understanding this?" is somewhat patronising. My question isn't about how the legal system is set up to work, or even how it generally works, but what is going in in one particular case with one particular barrister.

Then you'd have to ask Courtenay Griffiths directly to get anything other than a speculative answer.

Well indeed I would.

I have posted here inviting speculation!

My speculation is that no-one in their right mind would condone or agree with Charles Taylor's alleged actions. And certainly not a lawyer with a case history that includes civil liberties. I further speculate that the chance to exercise his legal expertise at a high-profile war-crimes trial was seen by Griffiths as a good career move.

Had he lived, someone would have doubtless had to defend Adolf Hitler. And there would have been a small queue of eager lawyers hoping to get the call....

Well I appreciate your speculation and I accept that this will be the majority viewpoint and may indeed be correct, but I am really looking for alternative hypotheses...

OK.... Alternative hypothesis. Griffiths admires Taylor's moral fibre, intellectual courage and leadership qualities, believes him to be innocent of all charges and that he is only in front of a war-crimes trial because the predominantly white international community despise any black man (like himself) that has dared to succeed in life.....

...yes I am thinking along the lines of is there a greater good that might be served by getting Taylor off regardless of whether he is guilty or not...

The report of the trial in the Times today said that Griffiths' defence was focusing on why the International Court brought African leaders to trial while completely ignoring the blatant and as-bad-if-not-worse human rights abuses elsewhere in the world e.g. Iran.

FWIW, I agree completely with Chil's original hypothesis but speculate that if another reason is required he is testing why the ICC go after comparatively easy targets and whether there is some sort of racist/neo-colonialist agenda in doing so.

Also, if asked 'do you want to be the most high profile barrister in the most high profile trial in the most high profile location of th decade (at least)' most ambitious barristers will accept the work while intensely disliking their client and everything they stand for.

Aah that makes more sense to me, azazello, thank you

Interesting points but we can't let appalling criminals off because there are other, equally disgusting criminals in the world.

Someone's got to defend him.

A good defence counsel is going to go for any perceived weakness in the prosecution case in order to get the best result for his client. So even if the defence is focusing on why the International Court is bringing African leaders to trial etc.... that still doesn't mean it is why Griffiths took the case.

It's called 'playing the man, not the ball'...