Starmer defending terrorists

[tullah]

Defending the terrorist who masterminded killings, is he still standing for PM?

 

[Danllan]

Defending the terrorist who masterminded killings, is he still standing for PM?

Yes, he wants to be PM, that is why he is trying to secure the 'Muslim vote'...

 

[Hindsight]

Yes, he wants to be PM, that is why he is trying to secure the 'Muslim vote'...

Hi, I think you were a barrister? Not sure if you were a prosecution or defense barrister? But in your time did you ever defend someone who you actually thought was guilty? Or of a prosecutor prosecute someone you thought innocent?

 

[caveman]

I was under the impression that barristers in Chambers were handed a job to do by clerks, no picking and choosing.
I am possibly wrong though.
Entirely different than choosing a fight for gain, be that for profit or power.

 

[HatsOff]

Everyone is entitled to legal representation. It's a bit simplistic to think a lawyer defending a murder, rapist or terrorist is sympathetic to them.

 

[le bon paysan]

I was under the impression that barristers in Chambers were handed a job to do by clerks, no picking and choosing.
I am possibly wrong though.
Entirely different than choosing a fight for gain, be that for profit or power.

Correct.It's called Cab Rank. They take the next job they are qualified for. No choice.

 

[Danllan]

Hi, I think you were a barrister? Not sure if you were a prosecution or defense barrister? But in your time did you ever defend someone who you actually thought was guilty? Or of a prosecutor prosecute someone you thought innocent?

Yes, still am since I haven't been disbarred, but I am non-practising or, to use the current correct term 'unregistered'. I, as with most others on the Criminal Circuits, started with both prosecution and defence and then with time moved more to one side, in my case defence. However, nearly everyone will still do some cases the other way because it is good to 'keep one's hand in'.

'Thought' is the key word in your question; yes, many, many times I have thought or even been sure that my client was guilty, but what I 'thought' and what my personal feelings were, were of no relevance. A Barrister's first duty is to the Court i.e. 'justice', not his client and, if he knows his client is guilty he cannot make representations to the contrary. Meaning that he can't state or infer that his client didn't do whatever, nor that anyone else did or that is is possible that they did.

Nonetheless he can still offer what is termed a technical defence; this is when he will take apart the Prosecution's case, if he can, to the point where it will not allow the certainty a Jury requires to convict. Somewhat counter-intuitively, in the bigger picture this is actually a good thing, since it ensures that Prosecutions are always required to reach the standard of certainty of guilt necessary for conviction.

The other side of it, regarding when acting for the Prosecution, is the same; and there is a very clear duty for disclosure of anything favourable to the defence on the Prosecution.

The cab-rank rule, as mentioned by @le bon paysan, is a very important thing, since it guarantees no favouritism or dicrimination for / against potential clients, and, importantly, it insulates Barristers from attack when people say 'You represented that disgusting kiddy-fiddler / rapist / killer etc. etc.'; since the Barrister can honestly say, I had no choice - and, I myself have added at times, that anyone throwing brickbats would think themselves very happy to have Counsel represent them if they were falsely accused of something vile.

Yet there are occasions when the cab-rank rule will mean a Barrister legitimately refusing a case, in fact being obliged to do so, it then passing to the next available individual; this is, with a few rare exceptions, down to something termed 'professional embarrassment'. I can't remember all of the types off the top of my head, I think there are / were eight or nine but, most commonly, this will be because of inexperience of (i.e. lack of competence in) a relevant matter, conflict of interest, undue restriction of barristerial discretion, lack of time to do a proper job, possibility of a breach of confidence or an instructing solicitor having no credit, meaning his having been blacklisted by the Bar.

Hmm... sorry, that was a bit long, but I think it's important to explain that Barristers will alwaystake a case and do their best unless there is a very good reason not to.


Edit to add: I think it is also pertinent to point out that solicitors, too, owe their first duty to the Court, in fact they are - in this jurisdiction, and others - Officers of the Court (whereas Barristers are not) and will face significant punishment if they do not act accordingly.

I was under the impression that barristers in Chambers were handed a job to do by clerks, no picking and choosing.
I am possibly wrong though.
Entirely different than choosing a fight for gain, be that for profit or power.

Pretty much right, but see above.

 

[tullah]

So once you become a barrister do you give up all morals assuming Kneeler had some.
If so then stick to being a barrister but please don't put yourself forward as British PM. ..The two positions don't go and in hand.

 

[Hindsight]

Yes, still am since I haven't been disbarred, but I am non-practising or, to use the current correct term 'unregistered'. I, as with most others on the Criminal Circuits, started with both prosecution and defence and then with time moved more to one side, in my case defence. However, nearly everyone will still do some cases the other way because it is good to 'keep one's hand in'.

'Thought' is the key word in your question; yes, many, many times I have thought or even been sure that my client was guilty, but what I 'thought' and what my personal feelings were, were of no relevance. A Barrister's first duty is to the Court i.e. 'justice', not his client and, if he knows his client is guilty he cannot make representations to the contrary. Meaning that he can't state or infer that his client didn't do whatever, nor that anyone else did or that is is possible that they did.

Nonetheless he can still offer what is termed a technical defence; this is when he will take apart the Prosecution's case, if he can, to the point where it will not allow the certainty a Jury requires to convict. Somewhat counter-intuitively, in the bigger picture this is actually a good thing, since it ensures that Prosecutions are always required to reach the standard of certainty of guilt necessary for conviction.

The other side of it, regarding when acting for the Prosecution, is the same; and there is a very clear duty for disclosure of anything favourable to the defence on the Prosecution.

The cab-rank rule, as mentioned by @le bon paysan, is a very important thing, since it guarantees no favouritism or dicrimination for / against potential clients, and, importantly, it insulates Barristers from attack when people say 'You represented that disgusting kiddy-fiddler / rapist / killer etc. etc.'; since the Barrister can honestly say, I had no choice - and, I myself have added at times, that anyone throwing brickbats would think themselves very happy to have Counsel represent them if they were falsely accused of something vile.

Yet there are occasions when the cab-rank rule will mean a Barrister legitimately refusing a case, in fact being obliged to do so, it then passing to the next available individual; this is, with a few rare exceptions, down to something termed 'professional embarrassment'. I can't remember all of the types off the top of my head, I think there are / were eight or nine but, most commonly, this will be because of inexperience of (i.e. lack of competence in) a relevant matter, conflict of interest, undue restriction of barristerial discretion, lack of time to do a proper job, possibility of a breach of confidence or an instructing solicitor having no credit, meaning his having been blacklisted by the Bar.

Hmm... sorry, that was a bit long, but I think it's important to explain that Barristers will alwaystake a case and do their best unless there is a very good reason not to.


Edit to add: I think it is also pertinent to point out that solicitors, too, owe their first duty to the Court, in fact they are - in this jurisdiction, and others - Officers of the Court (whereas Barristers are not) and will face significant punishment if they do not act accordingly.


Pretty much right, but see above.

Thank you. Not too long at all. Super explanation. Best wishes.

 

[Danllan]

So once you become a barrister do you give up all morals assuming Kneeler had some.
If so then stick to being a barrister but please don't put yourself forward as British PM. ..The two positions don't go and in hand.

That's a rather stupid thing to write; I made it pretty clear - almost, but apparently not quite, even to the level of an idiot - that a Barrister has an absolute moral duty to justice and to the Court.

If you genuinely think that being committed to justice is amoral, you are clearly an idiot; if you wrote it because you think it would look 'smart' on an internet forum, you are an idiot; if you wrote it in an effort at some sort of trolling, you are an idiot.

I hope that this post is easier for you to understand.

 

[tullah]

That's a rather stupid thing to write; I made it pretty clear - almost, but apparently not quite, even to the level of an idiot - that a Barrister has an absolute moral duty to justice and to the Court.

If you genuinely think that being committed to justice is amoral, you are clearly an idiot; if you wrote it because you think it would look 'smart' on an internet forum, you are an idiot; if you wrote it in an effort at some sort of trolling, you are an idiot.

I hope that this post is easier for you to understand.

I was making the point that if a barrister can defend a full blown terrorist with the purpose of preventing him from being deported under the European Court human rights then surely morally he is not fit to be PM.

 

[HatsOff]

I was making the point that if a barrister can defend a full blown terrorist with the purpose of preventing him from being deported under the European Court human rights then surely morally he is not fit to be PM.

It is not a good point .

This is because there is a higher morality recognising that everyone having a right to legal representation.

And a practical consideration that he probably didn't have a choice in the case assigned to him.

And an obvious fact that providing legal representation to someone doesn't mean you are sympathetic to the individual.

 

[Danllan]

I was making the point that if a barrister can defend a full blown terrorist with the purpose of preventing him from being deported under the European Court human rights then surely morally he is not fit to be PM.

As has already been mentioned, it is a sh!t point.

And it will remain so unless you can offer an entirely convincing argument as to why it would be a good thing to have a Criminal Justice System which allowed / encouraged personal bias to be a factor in it.

I am a former soldier, I am not in the least bit squeamish and I would happily slot any number of people who I think are genuine dangers to my country and its people. And there are many, many others who share my view in this matter; and that is why it is a good thing that we don't have the power to mete out death sentences... because what I think and what is actual fact may not precisely coincide. Therefore it is rational to have an objective way to establish the facts, this was realised long ago and we call it the 'Criminal Justice System'.

A Barrister who convinces a Court that a defendant may not legally be removed from the country has not prevented the removal of that individual from the country, instead the law as it stands has done that. The Barrister has only and can only present the law as it should be correctly interpreted - as he is obliged to at law and by the Bar's own ethical code.

Fortunately the vast majority of people recognise that, should a Barrister mislead a Court to influence it to rule in a way he would prefer rather than as the law requires, this would be a very bad thing; hence its being not just immoral, but also criminal to do so.

If you think the law sucks, and it often does, get it changed; start a campaign, influence legislators, stand for election,

I look forward to reading you attempt at justifying the merits of personal preference taking precedence over objectivity in the Courts...

 

[tullah]

It is not a good point .

This is because there is a higher morality recognising that everyone having a right to legal representation.

And a practical consideration that he probably didn't have a choice in the case assigned to him.

And an obvious fact that providing legal representation to someone doesn't mean you are sympathetic to the individual.

And by coincidence he supported Corbyn and we know what he stood for. I think that's enough said and agree to differ.

 

[betweenthelines]

Terrorist? It's all a matter of timing


Mandela was a convicted terrorist who spent many years in prison.

Martin McGinnis (sic) was a terrorist before he became a Minister in the N I Assembly

Some people (probably a majority Worldwide) would regard Netinyahu as a terrorist.


Saddam Hussein and Col Gadafy were regarded as supporters of terrorism by the West, but is the World a safer place without them?

 

[SteveHants]

Christ, I agree with Danllan.

I'm off for a sit down.

 

[ollie989898]

Christ, I agree with Danllan.

I'm off for a sit down.

Well it is Christmas...

 

[Danllan]

Christ, I agree with Danllan.

I'm off for a sit down.

The thing about disagreeing with someone, meaning within a democracy, is that although we may well never see eye to eye on any number of minutiae regarding tax, the environment, welfare etc. etc. we are almost certain to agree on some fundamentals.

Such things as, for just a few examples, freedom of speech, the absolute necessity for Judicial independence, decent infrastructure and a functional tax system are more or less apolitical. The arguments almost always start, for some things anyway, on the way to achieve / sustain them.

It is the way of things...