Jo Cox Trial

[12gauge82]

Follow a criminally aided solicitor and barrister around for a few days. It is a pretty miserable job. Everyone deserves to be represented, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the basics of proper justice.

I understand proper justice perfectly and I suggest you hang around the victims of some of these animals and then watch the offenders laugh and joke in prison at the expense of their victims often times after getting away with many other horrendous crimes due to technicalities all thanks to barristers who would represent the devil himself if it paid well. Edited November 18, 2016 by 12gauge82

[Winston72]

Law of the land = everyone is innocent until proven guilty and entitled to a fair trial, i am in no way defending criminal behavior, but everyone who setting themselves up as judge jury and executioner maybe living in a country that doesn't suit their beliefs, id love to hear a reasonably argued alternative solution. to a public vote of guilt by non defended trial

[12gauge82]

Law of the land = everyone is innocent until proven guilty and entitled to a fair trial, i am in no way defending criminal behavior, but everyone who setting themselves up as judge jury and executioner maybe living in a country that doesn't suit their beliefs, id love to hear a reasonably argued alternative solution. to a public vote of guilt by non defended trial

I don't disagree with that but if I knew my client was guilty, particularly of a heinous crime I couldn't morally defend them or get them off on a loop hole which is what some of these barristers and solicitors do.

[NickS]

The majority of criminal lawyers don't make huge amounts of money - certainly not if the rely on legal aid cases. If they want the big bucks they go for a career in commercial law. Those small-town jobbing solicitors choose criminal law do so as they believe in the basic principle of innocence until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial, where it is the prosecution's job, not the media's, to prove the defendant's guilt.

[achosenman]

We have an adversial system in this country. What "everyone knows" is many times proven to be wrong on closer inspection.

 

The hand wringing because she was an MP or mother, seems to suggest her life was more valuable than another persons.

 

Culpability in this case would seem simple at first glance. However if you follow the error chain further back, I suspect that there is enough blame to go around, including those in Westminster who have wilfully squandered taxpayers money while cutting back on vital services in the community. "Care in the community", anyone? Translation: Shut mental care facilities and turf out the patients to fend for themselves.

 

I suppose a good lynching is cheaper though.

 

Atb

Edited November 19, 2016 by achosenman

[digger]

I have a nagging feeling he will find a way to commit "suicide"

[Lloyd90]

I have a nagging feeling he will find a way to commit "suicide"

I wouldn't be surprised if he's "found hanging" or something! He took out an MP ...

 

Can that act be shown to go 'unpunished' ?

[Winston72]

I don't disagree with that but if I knew my client was guilty, particularly of a heinous crime I couldn't morally defend them or get them off on a loop hole which is what some of these barristers and solicitors do.

Yeah solicitors seem to be a special kind of blood sucking vampire, but then again I'm not keen on traffic wardens either

[old man]

I don't disagree with that but if I knew my client was guilty, particularly of a heinous crime I couldn't morally defend them or get them off on a loop hole which is what some of these barristers and solicitors do.

That puts you in a minority Sir?

[Chris Bb]

I don't disagree with that but if I knew my client was guilty, particularly of a heinous crime I couldn't morally defend them or get them off on a loop hole which is what some of these barristers and solicitors do.

 

Before going any further, note that my knowledge of the legal system is largely only down to watching all episodes of "Rumpole of the Bailey".

 

If a lawyer knows that his client is guilty isn't he supposed to not represent an "innocent" plea? I had thought (probably wrongly) that the best the lawyer could do in that case would be to represent his client with mitigating circumstances, go for a reduced sentence due to technicalities or offer a "guilty but insane" plea.

 

If said lawyer knows his client is guilty then, as has been said, representing an "innocent" plea is, to me, morally wrong.

[12gauge82]

 

Before going any further, note that my knowledge of the legal system is largely only down to watching all episodes of "Rumpole of the Bailey".

 

If a lawyer knows that his client is guilty isn't he supposed to not represent an "innocent" plea? I had thought (probably wrongly) that the best the lawyer could do in that case would be to represent his client with mitigating circumstances, go for a reduced sentence due to technicalities or offer a "guilty but insane" plea.

 

If said lawyer knows his client is guilty then, as has been said, representing an "innocent" plea is, to me, morally wrong.

Quite right, as a solicitor you can't knowingly tell a jury, judge etc something you know to be false but there's a big difference between knowing, believing and suspecting and when speaking to your client there's ways to ask questions without incriminating the client, that is of course if you stick to the rule book, some of these solicitors know full well what they're defending but don't care as it turns the money, and they can hide behind 'ensuring everyone gets a fair trial', or as already mentioned if their client is bang to rights, they'll happily get them a reduced sentence they know full well they don't deserve, by exploiting any loophole they can, or mitigation which they know full well they shouldn't get. Of course there are good ones out there who have morels and I've been lucky enough to meet a few in my time.

[NickS]

Any "loopholes" that exist are the fault of the law-makers or those who are responsible for enforcing it, not the defendant or their lawyers. On another thread we can read how clever people feel about getting off a parking ticket on technical grounds. However frustrating it may be at times, I would hate to live in a country where the courts are not independent and are just a tool of the state or buckle under pressure from the press.

[remmy1100]

Quite right, as a solicitor you can't knowingly tell a jury, judge etc something you know to be false but there's a big difference between knowing, believing and suspecting and when speaking to your client there's ways to ask questions without incriminating the client, that is of course if you stick to the rule book, some of these solicitors know full well what they're defending but don't care as it turns the money, and they can hide behind 'ensuring everyone gets a fair trial', or as already mentioned if their client is bang to rights, they'll happily get them a reduced sentence they know full well they don't deserve, by exploiting any loophole they can, or mitigation which they know full well they shouldn't get. Of course there are good ones out there who have morels and I've been lucky enough to meet a few in my time.

its disgusting how anyone can stand up or be forced by law to defend someone they know to be guilty ,wonder how theyd feel if they got a rapist off who went on to rape there wife or daughter,but back on topic hes probably going down mental health route for a softer regime in a hospital wing than in mainstream high security unit once sentenced

Edited November 19, 2016 by remmy1100

[Vince Green]

Most good defence lawyers can find holes in even the most watertight cases. One of the ways is to divide the police officers evidence. Its hard to remember every last detail of a fight that happened in a dark wet pub car park six months ago. Put yourself in the copper's shoes for a minute

 

So where was PC Jones standing when you CLAIM the defendant hit you?

 

Now you know that PC Jones has already been asked that question (and you have no idea where he was standing) but if you answer is different to the one PC Jones gave the barrister is going to tie you up in knots.

 

So suddenly the trial has been derailed from the defendant hitting you to whether you can remember where PC Jones was, which is totally irrelevant but that's why he's a barrister and you aren't.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Vince Green

[12gauge82]

Any "loopholes" that exist are the fault of the law-makers or those who are responsible for enforcing it, not the defendant or their lawyers. On another thread we can read how clever people feel about getting off a parking ticket on technical grounds. However frustrating it may be at times, I would hate to live in a country where the courts are not independent and are just a tool of the state or buckle under pressure from the press.

Legally yes the loopholes are the fault of 'law makers' but when a rapist, murderer, child abuser, granny basher, burglar, murderer of an innocent mp with a family and children etc, etc, ect and a solictor gets them off with it (or lesser sentence etc) and the solicitor hides behind 'it's the law makers fault' it's outrageous and disgusting, hence my 'I don't know how they sleep at night' comment.

Anyway I'm not going over my thoughts on blood sacking solicitors any further as it's turning into a rant and I'm going way off topic. My thoughts are with Jo Cox's family and may the guilty person Rot in jail (don't get me started on the faults in the prison system)

Edited November 19, 2016 by 12gauge82

[UKPoacher]

Most good defence lawyers can find holes in even the most watertight cases. One of the ways is to divide the police officers evidence. Its hard to remember every last detail of a fight that happened in a dark wet pub car park six months ago. Put yourself in the copper's shoes for a minute

 

So where was PC Jones standing when you CLAIM the defendant hit you?

 

Now you know that PC Jones has already been asked that question (and you have no idea where he was standing) but if you answer is different to the one PC Jones gave the barrister is going to tie you up in knots.

 

So suddenly the trial has been derailed from the defendant hitting you to whether you can remember where PC Jones was, which is totally irrelevant but that's why he's a barrister and you aren't.

 

That is why it is important to write a comprehensive statement as soon as possible after the incident and not to be drawn into answering anything on the hoof six months later.

[NickS]

Am I right in thinking that police officers, unlike other witnesses, are allowed to consult their notebooks when giving evidence?

[Vince Green]

That is why it is important to write a comprehensive statement as soon as possible after the incident and not to be drawn into answering anything on the hoof six months later.

Yes but no but! how do you write a comprehensive statement when you don't get back till two hours after your shift was supposed to end because there was a fatal RTA (which you weren't involved with) but suddenly you are the only PC covering half a county despite having a nose bleed and you have a DD woman in the back of your car who has peed herself?

[UKPoacher]

Am I right in thinking that police officers, unlike other witnesses, are allowed to consult their notebooks when giving evidence?

 

The officer has to ask permission from the Magistrate or Judge. Usually this is granted. Other witnesses may also refresh their memory by looking at their statements under the same rules.

 

Yes but no but! how do you write a comprehensive statement when you don't get back till two hours after your shift was supposed to end because there was a fatal RTA (which you weren't involved with) but suddenly you are the only PC covering half a county despite having a nose bleed and you have a DD woman in the back of your car who has peed herself?

 

Under the rules of PACE once you put someone in custody that is all you deal with until your statement which may include, house searches, seizure of property, forensic and CCTV evidence, etc is completed.

[NickS]

Thanks for the clarification.

[NickS]

Most good defence lawyers can find holes in even the most watertight cases. One of the ways is to divide the police officers evidence. Its hard to remember every last detail of a fight that happened in a dark wet pub car park six months ago. Put yourself in the copper's shoes for a minuteSo where was PC Jones standing when you CLAIM the defendant hit you?Now you know that PC Jones has already been asked that question (and you have no idea where he was standing) but if you answer is different to the one PC Jones gave the barrister is going to tie you up in knots.So suddenly the trial has been derailed from the defendant hitting you to whether you can remember where PC Jones was, which is totally irrelevant but that's why he's a barrister and you aren't.

If this was actually true, there would be very few convictions and our prisons would not be full to overflowing.

[Lloyd90]

If this was actually true, there would be very few convictions and our prisons would not be full to overflowing.

There are plenty of good barristers and solicitors like that I've seen a few, the thing is they know they can get a lot of people off and charge a fortune hence only very rich people can afford them!

 

I know several people who pleaded guilty to minor offences for traffic violations etc because they would have to take several days off work to go to court, pay legal fees, etc.

 

If you don't have a lot of money you have to get a cheap solicitor, miss work (probably unpaid if your a low skills/poorly paid worker) and have any other expense you may acquire. It is as I like to call it -

 

Justice for those that can afford it!

[NickS]

There is a saying that is something like "It is equally against the law for a rich man to sleep under a bridge as it is a poor man" which illustrates your point. The law should be equally accessible to all but the practicalities mean it isn't. A lot of large firms take on "pro bono" cases and although you are unlikely to get a big name legal eagle for nothing, those that do this have access to some very good advice and guidance.

[old man]

its disgusting how anyone can stand up or be forced by law to defend someone they know to be guilty ,wonder how theyd feel if they got a rapist off who went on to rape there wife or daughter,but back on topic hes probably going down mental health route for a softer regime in a hospital wing than in mainstream high security unit once sentenced

I don't think anyone in the legal profession can be forced to defend someone, all have aright to decline? They do it for the wages?

 

A barrister I encountered on a long train journey was a marvelous companion for 4 hours.

He said all court rooms were stages where drama was enacted, much like the soap operas of TV fame

 

I have his name and number, he will be my representative should I ever be unfortunate enough to need one.

[NickS]

It does take a certain type of person to take that stage as a barrister and there is certainly a corollary with acting. I have yet to meet one who is boring but they will happily and confidently argue a case from either side, depending on how they have been cast.