A legal question

[nightrider]

If for example Gaddafi was put in the dock there would be a prosecution and defence team, no doubt the prosecution people would have a fund of evidence to prove Gaddafi's guilt.

It would then be up to the defence team to prove his innocence, but in this instance I would say that everyone in libya would know that Gaddafi was guilty so therefore the defence team would try to defend someone who in their own minds would know is guilty?

So here is the question I have long pondered on our own home grown murderers such as Brady and Hindley the moors murderers.

Did their defence team believe that they were totally innocent of the murders that they were accused of? So do defence lawyers believe their client is innocent, are they in it for the money or does there come a time during the trial that they realise that their client is actually guilty?

As regards mob rule Brady and Hindley would have been kicked to death had the mob got to them it was only strenght of police numbers that protected them, so as you can see mob rule can quite easily happen over here in a civilised society.

[flicka]

Hi Malcolm

 

As I understand it in UK, not sure regarding International Law, so others more knowledgeable may well correct me.

 

Everyone as the right to a defence & if there are no willing Defence Council, the Court has the power to appoint a Defence Council.

Any Defence Council must defend the accused to the best of his professional ability, irrespective of that Council's personal feeling, thoughts, etc,, regarding the Defendant's guilt or not.

 

A open cheque book to spend undeterminable hours, days, months to gather information, evidence, mitigating circumstances, etc, & subsequent deferral of Court proceedings against the accused.

[francisgraham]

knight of the road - 2011-10-22 8:58 PMIf for example Gaddafi was put in the dock there would be a prosecution and defence team, no doubt the prosecution people would have a fund of evidence to prove Gaddafi's guilt.It would then be up to the defence team to prove his innocence, but in this instance I would say that everyone in libya would know that Gaddafi was guilty so therefore the defence team would try to defend someone who in their own minds would know is guilty?So here is the question I have long pondered on our own home grown murderers such as Brady and Hindley the moors murderers.Did their defence team believe that they were totally innocent of the murders that they were accused of? So do defence lawyers believe their client is innocent, are they in it for the money or does there come a time during the trial that they realise that their client is actually guilty?As regards mob rule Brady and Hindley would have been kicked to death had the mob got to them it was only strenght of police numbers that protected them, so as you can see mob rule can quite easily happen over here in a civilised society.

Mob rule can happen anywhere because every society has a proportion of people who aren't very bright and who can so easily be worked up into a lynch mob.

I well remember an incident some years ago during a time of some hysteria about paedophiles. A mob attacked the home of a woman who they thought was a child molester. They smashed windows and covered her house in graffiti. If she had been in I've no doubt that she would have been seriously injured or even killed.

She was a paediatrician, not a paedophile, but these morons didn't know the difference!

Fortunately we do have the rule of law so many of them were prosecuted and will think twice before joining the next mob!

As for your main question, it is offensive to suggest that defence barristers are in it for the money. Have you never heard of the 'Cab Rank Rule'?

Barristers have to take the next case that comes along. This is precisely because lawyers should not be able to pick and choose whom they defend. This ensures that everyone gets the best defence available.

I could quote many examples but here's one. Colin Stagg was found guilty of the horrific murder of Rachel Nickell, a brutal murder carried out in front of her child.

On the surface he was a despicable killer but, like all people, he was entitled to a defence. Despite an excellent legal team he was found guilty. Later, it was admitted that a terrible mistake had been made and he was completely exonerated and another man is now in prison for that crime.

You mustn't make the mistake of barristers trying to deny their clients' guilt either. Very often, it is known that they committed the crime but the defence's job is to try to mitigate the offence for whatever reason, from insanity to provocation etc.

There's an excellent example going on as we write in the trial of Vincent Tabak, who is charged with murder. He claims that he had no intention of murdering Joanna Yeates and that it was an accident and he hadn't wanted her to die.

He has pleaded guilty to manslaughter but he is charged with murder. His barrister's job is to defend him to the best of his ability and to be dispassionate. It may be true. He may not have intended to kill her and it could indeed be manslaughter and sensible people will wait to hear all the evidence, as will the jury, and will make up their mind.

Just imagine if you had a moment's lack of concentration and killed a pedestrian whilst driving. You didn't mean to kill the person. Another driver may have had just as bad a lapse of concentration and do nothing more than prang a lamppost.

But you now have distraught parents baying for your blood, and I promise you, there's no reason in cases like this, they cease to think straight, which is perhaps understandable.

Don't tell me that you wouldn't be employing the best defence counsel that you can afford, or ensuring that your state-provided team does its utmost to keep you from a long prison sentence!

[nowtelse2do]

francisgraham - 2011-10-22 9:37 PM

knight of the road - 2011-10-22 8:58 PMIf for example Gaddafi was put in the dock there would be a prosecution and defence team, no doubt the prosecution people would have a fund of evidence to prove Gaddafi's guilt.It would then be up to the defence team to prove his innocence, but in this instance I would say that everyone in libya would know that Gaddafi was guilty so therefore the defence team would try to defend someone who in their own minds would know is guilty?So here is the question I have long pondered on our own home grown murderers such as Brady and Hindley the moors murderers.Did their defence team believe that they were totally innocent of the murders that they were accused of? So do defence lawyers believe their client is innocent, are they in it for the money or does there come a time during the trial that they realise that their client is actually guilty?As regards mob rule Brady and Hindley would have been kicked to death had the mob got to them it was only strenght of police numbers that protected them, so as you can see mob rule can quite easily happen over here in a civilised society.

Mob rule can happen anywhere because every society has a proportion of people who aren't very bright and who can so easily be worked up into a lynch mob.

I well remember an incident some years ago during a time of some hysteria about paedophiles. A mob attacked the home of a woman who they thought was a child molester. They smashed windows and covered her house in graffiti. If she had been in I've no doubt that she would have been seriously injured or even killed.

She was a paediatrician, not a paedophile, but these morons didn't know the difference!

Fortunately we do have the rule of law so many of them were prosecuted and will think twice before joining the next mob!

As for your main question, it is offensive to suggest that defence barristers are in it for the money. Have you never heard of the 'Cab Rank Rule'?

Barristers have to take the next case that comes along. This is precisely because lawyers should not be able to pick and choose whom they defend. This ensures that everyone gets the best defence available.

I could quote many examples but here's one. Colin Stagg was found guilty of the horrific murder of Rachel Nickell, a brutal murder carried out in front of her child.

On the surface he was a despicable killer but, like all people, he was entitled to a defence. Despite an excellent legal team he was found guilty. Later, it was admitted that a terrible mistake had been made and he was completely exonerated and another man is now in prison for that crime.

You mustn't make the mistake of barristers trying to deny their clients' guilt either. Very often, it is known that they committed the crime but the defence's job is to try to mitigate the offence for whatever reason, from insanity to provocation etc.

There's an excellent example going on as we write in the trial of Vincent Tabak, who is charged with murder. He claims that he had no intention of murdering Joanna Yeates and that it was an accident and he hadn't wanted her to die.

He has pleaded guilty to manslaughter but he is charged with murder. His barrister's job is to defend him to the best of his ability and to be dispassionate. It may be true. He may not have intended to kill her and it could indeed be manslaughter and sensible people will wait to hear all the evidence, as will the jury, and will make up their mind.

Just imagine if you had a moment's lack of concentration and killed a pedestrian whilst driving. You didn't mean to kill the person. Another driver may have had just as bad a lapse of concentration and do nothing more than prang a lamppost.

But you now have distraught parents baying for your blood, and I promise you, there's no reason in cases like this, they cease to think straight, which is perhaps understandable.

Don't tell me that you wouldn't be employing the best defence counsel that you can afford, or ensuring that your state-provided team does its utmost to keep you from a long prison sentence!

Well a good straight answer, don't think anyone can find an argument there, and no name calling either. Are you going soft :D

[Dave225]

A lawyer can only defend someone if they are advised by the accused that they are innocent. If during any conversation the accused lets slip that they actually 'did it' then the lawyer must immediately withdraw. Similarly the lawyer must look at the evidence submitted by the prosecution and if he/she feels there is sufficient room for doubt then they can proceed witha not gulity plea. If they do not think there is room for doubt then they usually advise to plead guilty.and try for mitigation.

 

In cases such as Gadaffi which are more political and as a result of military action rather than criminal the Law is usually enforced by the prosecutuion authority of the winning side. This may introduce factors not normally present in a criminal trial. For example at Nuremberg defendants were convicted of crimes despite 'following orders' from the legal rulers at the time. However, not all the defendants were executed and some were released, so in this case having a defence lawyer did have some benefits. American troops executed and allowed the execution of SS troops at the relief of Dachau, but were not prosecuted. One could say this was justifiable considering the horrors of Dachau, but the SS troops executed were not actually the ones who had been in charge of the camp. Another example was General Yamas**ta of Japan who was hanged by the Americans for crimes committed by troops under his command, although he did not give the orders or was even present. Trials at the International Court in the Hague try to be scupulously fair, but the outcome is probably known well in advance. One could say these are a consequence of 'mob rule' because to have any other decision would not be acceptable to the population and may result in further conflict.

 

There are some things in this world which do not fit a 'black and white' scenario regardless of how civilised we try to be.

[nightrider]

As far as I am concerned it is a case of staying on the right track and keep away from the police and lawyers, apart from that I am in pain so its a case of a couple of pain killers and back to bed now I have had a sweet cup of tea, I'm having the day off tomorrow sod the work.

[LordThornber]

francisgraham - 2011-10-22 9:37 PMMob rule can happen anywhere because every society has a proportion of people who aren't very bright and who can so easily be worked up into a lynch mob.

I well remember an incident some years ago during a time of some hysteria about paedophiles. A mob attacked the home of a woman who they thought was a child molester. They smashed windows and covered her house in graffiti. If she had been in I've no doubt that she would have been seriously injured or even killed.

She was a paediatrician, not a paedophile, but these morons didn't know the difference!

Fortunately we do have the rule of law so many of them were prosecuted and will think twice before joining the next mob!

As for your main question, it is offensive to suggest that defence barristers are in it for the money. Have you never heard of the 'Cab Rank Rule'?

Barristers have to take the next case that comes along. This is precisely because lawyers should not be able to pick and choose whom they defend. This ensures that everyone gets the best defence available.

I could quote many examples but here's one. Colin Stagg was found guilty of the horrific murder of Rachel Nickell, a brutal murder carried out in front of her child.

On the surface he was a despicable killer but, like all people, he was entitled to a defence. Despite an excellent legal team he was found guilty. Later, it was admitted that a terrible mistake had been made and he was completely exonerated and another man is now in prison for that crime.

You mustn't make the mistake of barristers trying to deny their clients' guilt either. Very often, it is known that they committed the crime but the defence's job is to try to mitigate the offence for whatever reason, from insanity to provocation etc.

There's an excellent example going on as we write in the trial of Vincent Tabak, who is charged with murder. He claims that he had no intention of murdering Joanna Yeates and that it was an accident and he hadn't wanted her to die.

He has pleaded guilty to manslaughter but he is charged with murder. His barrister's job is to defend him to the best of his ability and to be dispassionate. It may be true. He may not have intended to kill her and it could indeed be manslaughter and sensible people will wait to hear all the evidence, as will the jury, and will make up their mind.

Just imagine if you had a moment's lack of concentration and killed a pedestrian whilst driving. You didn't mean to kill the person. Another driver may have had just as bad a lapse of concentration and do nothing more than prang a lamppost.

But you now have distraught parents baying for your blood, and I promise you, there's no reason in cases like this, they cease to think straight, which is perhaps understandable.

Don't tell me that you wouldn't be employing the best defence counsel that you can afford, or ensuring that your state-provided team does its utmost to keep you from a long prison sentence!

Excellent post Francis. In edit the my post hasn't quoted correctly, all the credit is for Francis not me!!Martyn

[Guest Peter James]

Yes it is another excellent post Francis.

 

I recall a case in Spain where a schoolgirl got pregnant. She blamed her teacher, and her brothers attacked and castrated the teacher.

It was later discovered that the teacher was innocent, the schoolgirl had been made pregnant by her own father. The schoolgirl had blamed the teacher out of revenge because he had told her off for some unrelated matter.

[nightrider]

I fully understand the cab rank rule that a lawyer would be appointed for the defence and that the accused can pick whoever he wants to defend him if he has the funds.

But what I am getting at is this, as the trial progresses and the appointed defence lawyer comes to the conclusion that his client is actually guilty what does he do? does he decline to act for the accused or does he carry on? if he does carry on how can he live with himself knowing his client is guilty.

Especially in a murder type case.

[Lord Braykewynde]

francisgraham - 2011-10-22 9:37 PM

Mob rule can happen anywhere because every society has a proportion of people who aren't very bright and who can so easily be worked up into a lynch mob.

I well remember an incident some years ago during a time of some hysteria about paedophiles. A mob attacked the home of a woman who they thought was a child molester. They smashed windows and covered her house in graffiti. If she had been in I've no doubt that she would have been seriously injured or even killed.

She was a paediatrician, not a paedophile, but these morons didn't know the difference!

Fortunately we do have the rule of law so many of them were prosecuted and will think twice before joining the next mob!

Yes, francis's post would have been good if only it were true. More scaremongering put out by the politically correct media and digested by some.I quote ......Just what is the truth? In August 2000, a female paediatrician consultant called Yvette Cloete was indeed labelled a "paedo" after a campaign by the News of the World to name and shame paedophiles in the community. The incident took place in Newport, Gwent, not in Portsmouth (where there had been anti-paedophile protests after eight-year-old Sarah Payne was murdered) or London. It was no doubt a very distressing incident for Ms Cloete, who decided to move home shortly afterwards. But there is no evidence that a mob was involved or of any threats or incidents of physical pressure or violence. "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?" says Chief Inspector Andrew Adams, of Gwent Police, who was the liaison officer in charge when news of this incident broke six years ago. He remembers very well that stressful night, when he gave 18 live interviews to various media outlets. "There was no big mob," he says. "Nothing like that happened. I know because I was there and I was involved. The lady was not in her home when it happened. She came home from work to see her door daubed with anti-paedophile graffiti. "When we heard about it we set about dispelling the rumours that she or anyone else in that house was a paedophile. We explained to the local community the difference between paediatrician and paedophile." Who did the graffiti? Mr Adams says he still isn't sure. "We think it was youngsters, probably someone in the 12 to 17 age bracket." And the community was outraged by the incident and "supportive of the woman involved", he says. Nevertheless, the story has taken on a life of its own, transformed into a dire warning about hysterical mobs who threaten the fabric of our nation. So has you see, no mob, no smashed windows or doors nor was the lady on the verge of being injured or even killed.Sorry francis, this isn't a personal attack on you but just trying to show that people shouldn't always believe what they read on forums.

[Lord Braykewynde]

LordThornber - 2011-10-23 7:31 AM

 

In edit the my post hasn't quoted correctly, all the credit is for Francis not me!!

 

Martyn

 

The reason the quote from FGs post hasn't come out correctly is because he's probably typing out his post in Word and then copy/pasting it into the reply box on the forum.

 

 

I just quoted him and it's come out the same as yours Lordy :-)