If You Were A Lawyer...

[nailedit]

how would you feel about having to defend the likes of Huw Edwards and child abusers?

I can understand giving a defence for almost everything from drug possession to murder but crimes against children is in a league of its own. Not something I could do if I were a lawyer.

[naomi24]

I don't think lawyers are expected to morally defend their clients.  They just do a job.  Separating the job from personal feelings must be very difficult in some cases though.

[ToraToraTora]

They don't have to, the ones that do treat it as a technical exercise. In training lawyers are expected to be able to argue both sides despite their own views.

[sandyRoe]

An accused person is considered innocent until they are convicted.

A lawyer presents his clients case and tries, as best he can, to discredit the evidence of the prosecution.

It was said during the 1970s it was difficult to get barristers to defend Irish people accused of terrorist offences.

At least 12 of them were famously found to have been wrongly convicted.

[Peter Pedant]

Defending the indefensible, unfortunately many make a lot of money out of it but it's the law. 

you do it because the case for the defence has to be made out

and  I am sure nailedit you have been in court and thouoght " Am I in the wrong room?  None of this happened - it is another case" but alas it isnt.

Today Obit in the Times - widow Harris - Rolfie's widow. They had a daughter ( Bindi) now name changed. It came out that one  of the complainants had been assaulted by evil child molester Rolfe - whilst Bindi was in the room !

( I forgot that - I did remember " if you dont give me another £100 000, I will go to the Police" He didnt and the petitioner did.)

even that madman who pointed a gun at Trump deserves a defence

 

[davebro3]

mania rules!

[Canary42]

Unfortunately that's the way UK courts work. I've seen prosecution witnesses very cruelly treated by barristers (and of course the judge, their learned friend, never intervenes unless it's the other way round and the witness is giving the barrister some stick)

[Peter Pedant]

It was said during the 1970s it was difficult to get barristers to defend Irish people accused of terrorist offences.

no it was worse tha that - I read Gerry Hunters biog - dont, it  is  awful. Full of innocent Oirish framed by evil svengalis, Home sec, down.

Gerry - who remember was Oirish but hadnt done it - said to  Lord Wigoder QC - " when you get me off, I will get alot of money" - he did  of course 20 y later

silk wiggie said " that is not what the evidence shows".

Judgie baby - Lord  Taylor ( Peter Taylor) was asked  if he  wished to apologise for the injustices done to the Oirish defendants, and sniffed froo his vinaigrette - 

"If the police decide to lie to me there is  nothing I can do about it".

Gerry Hunter got his lots of money and it mainly went up his nose...

NOT one of British Justice's great victories

[Peter Pedant]

it's the other way round and the witness is giving the barrister some stick)

yes, I have seen wiggie sniff " no this system here is that I ask the questions and YOU answer them"

In a jury trial - I am not sure how this goes down

[jackthehat]

A barrister cannot advance a defence of not guilty in a case where s/he knows their client to be guilty. They have a find mitigation to put before the judge and jury.

It is not the barristers job to judge his/her client before or during the trial; it is their job to argue points of law, alibi, medical matters and challenge witnesses.

And, Huw Edwards notwithstanding, many of their clients actually will be innocent.

[nailedit]

//and  I am sure nailedit you have been in court and thouoght " Am I in the wrong room?  None of this happened - it is another case// err, no. I'm not a child abuser though.

 

 

 

[nailedit]

Canary @ 18:41

I once attended crown court with one of my sons friends who was charged with assault (ABH I think, but not sure) but he was pleading self defence. The prosecution barrister was horrendous to him, not letting him finish his answers to questions, raised voice, etc. Judge said nothing until my sons mate caved in and shouted "Let me answer the question for once"

The judge told him that any more outburst like that would not be tolerated and yet he had endured 20 minutes of abuse from prosecution barrister.

 

[Peter Pedant]

Oh and I have seen a lawyer commit perjury -

You know the look back study of the GOS orthopod? and The one for Brad Williamson in Manch? My employer did one for another doctor 1995 - which contained the sentence " This virtually exonerates Dr X  .... " (*)

so it was not disclosed ( civil case - possibly OK) but instead was shredded - oops not really OK.  and the lawyer pleaded the opposite under oath - "Dr X's practice screamed guilty guilty guilty."

civil case remember - so I complained to the judge ( once I had got the document wh took 6-8 m) post facto

and the judge said - "I am so wise that I can ignore all that, ------ and ----- I wd have found him guilty anyway"

Phew, thank God for British Justice ! I have  posted about this before but I think all the posts have been deleted as grossly un-mimsy.

Current GOS case . There was one a few years ago- R v Lee and Murphy, ( vincristine in the wrong place: pt died) the private investigation report was given up the day before the trial. Trial abandoned. A hanger on at GOS said " we all knew one had been done which said clearly it wasnt their fault. We just cdnt get a copy"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114654/

The wiggies were left explaining to the parents that altho they had referred / treated the two junior doctors as evil baby killers who hardly deserved to live,  for at least a year - they werent. And they were dropping the case

so I might be un-mimsy but I am still on track - people need professionals to plead a defence

[Canary42]

Yes, nailedit, the one environment where bullying is still permitted.

[Peter Pedant]

"Am I in the wrong room?  None of this happened - it is another case"

 err, no. I'm not a child abuser though.

Neither am I BUT the first instance of - " I think I must be in the wrong court" - was a coroners case in 1990. Good portrayal in a series called Cardiac Arrest - the most junior doctor gets completely screwed

[nailedit]

Sandy

//An accused person is considered innocent until they are convicted.//

But Huw pleaded guilty.

My question was about how can you defend (or mitigate) the undefensible crime of child sex abuse?

It's just unimanigable to me how anyone (even if its your paid employment) to mitigate for the likes of people who get their rocks of viewing child porn, never mind the likes of others who actually commit child rape.

(And once again, its not child porn. Its child rape)

[Peter Pedant]

mania rules!

hi Davebro - which bit escapes you? I will do a LadyBird version (but not the whole lot)

[Peter Pedant]

But Huw pleaded guilty.

yeah but no but

if you plead gulty then the facts may not be tested - so there are procedures for " guilty but  it wasnt like that" - 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_hearing

 

[nailedit]

//Yes, nailedit, the one environment where bullying is still permitted.//

Abolutely Canary.

My one time in court for a trial was 11 years ago (all my many other court appearences were guilty pleas)

It was an eye opener to say the least. Even my own (legal aid) barrister tried get me to plead guilty on the morning of my trial, what the hell?

The lies, twisting the facts and the half truths coming out of the prosecutions mouth made me want to stand up and shout to the jury "just find me guilty now because who are you going to believe? A drunk from a council estate or an oxford educated barrister?"

Had a split jury so at least someone believed me. Still a majority guilty though.

 

 

[nailedit]

PP, I don't believe that Edwards had a Newton hearing so no relevance to my O.P anyway.