How Low Will Some Defence Lawyers Sink In An Effort To Defend Their Clients?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539093/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-guilty-child-neglect-says-lawyer-bizarre-courtroom-speech.html

/// A lawyer defending a woman who was caught drink-driving while her small child was at home alone has accused Madeleine McCann's parents of child neglect. ///

/// He told magistrates at Merthyr Tydfil, south Wales: 'The parents of Madeleine McCann were guilty of child neglect for leaving their little girl much longer than my client. They were never prosecuted.' ///

[FredPuli43]

Very poor advocacy. First, saying that the parents of an abducted child were never prosecuted in Portugal is daft to start with.Second, saying that someone else got away with murder is no defence or mitigation when your client is charged with murder. Third, and worst, the last thing you do is mention, by name, a headline case which has attracted enormous public sympathy for the parents, and denigrate the parents. The way you play that, if you must, is to say that we all know of cases where, understandably, child neglect is not prosecuted, it being only a feature and, while you make no criticism of the CPS, your case is one like that; the gravamen is the drink problem and the client being over twice the limit and going out in a car, crashing it in these circumstances.

[ichkeria]

And I for once in turn am in agreement with NJ about the McCanns.
It is unbelievable that they could go out for an evening like that. Not that that should imply that they deserved what happened of course.

[jno]

with the greatest and most humble respect M'Lord Justice Puli, I disagree. Saying X did this and wasn't even prosecuted, my client did less and therefore deserves punishment at the lower end of the scale, seems reasonable, though I might have put it in more wheedling terms myself. Child neglect appears a rather more nebulous concept than murder, and it's worth establishing whererabouts your client stands on a spectrum of neglectful behaviour.

But the nub of this is the "enormous sympathy for the parents", which I suspect is not entirely true. Sympathy for their loss, yes, but as comments here have shown, it's widely thought they were at least partly to blame. The fact that newspapers mention them every couple of weeks doesn't mean that the public at large thinks of them as good role models for parents.

Somewhat risky advocacy, I would have said, but not poor.

[whiskeryron]

ladybirder - "Is checking on your children every half an hour really child neglect?"

No it's not.

Leaving your children in an unlocked ground floor room in a foreign country so you can go to eat dinner is child neglect.

I have three daughters. At the ages when they were too young to be left alone anywhere, on holiday or not, either they came out with us when appropriate, and if not, one or other or both of us stayed in.

Part of deal you make with your children when you have them is that you will protect them and keep them safe. If that means you cannot leave them alone while you go to a restaurant, then that's the end of the evening out.

I really can't see that there is any argument there..

Well said Andy I totally agree with you.

WR.

[FredPuli43]

"We have your argument, Mr Jno. What is your next point?" :) ['We', because I am, deservedly, Lord Justice, so must be with others. This is one of the stock ways of politely telling counsel to move on because they don't like the present point much!]

The point is that he should have used more 'weasely' indirect reference, as said. He should have avoided giving the name of the McCanns.

[sherrardk]

My dad sits as a Magistrate at that court, wonder if he was there that day?

[FredPuli43]

The lower you stoop the higher the bills? Strangely, the highest paid advocates don't stoop as low as this one, steve. That may be why he is in Merthyr Magistrates' Court ! He's probably a solicitor. Hope so, anyway. He won't be a Bill Clegg QC if he makes mistakes like that.

[FredPuli43]

Steve that's an old canard. It was old when Dr Johnson refuted it in the C18. It's not our job to decide guilt. There are rules about what to do if a lay client freely, and evidently honestly, tells counsel he is guilty. After all, we can't put a case, suggesting positively a version of events which is clearly false. One problem is that clients will sometimes say they are guilty when analysis shows they cannot be; often they have misunderstood the law. A common example is that of managers when there is false accounting going on or someone taking some of the stock. They often think that because they are liable as managers, seen from a civil viewpoint, they must be liable under the criminal law and guilty.