Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
How Do Criminal Defence Solicitors Work?
10 Answers
How exactly do Criminal defence solicitors work from the point of their client being charged? How do they manage to obtain acquittals?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Usually by casting doubt on or discrediting the prosecution evidence to such a degree that the Magistrates, District Judge or jury cannot be sure their client is guilty. They can also find points of law on which to challenge the evidence or even on the validity of the prosecution in its entirety. The prosecution has to prove their case "beyond reasonable...
19:55 Thu 06th Aug 2020
Usually by casting doubt on or discrediting the prosecution evidence to such a degree that the Magistrates, District Judge or jury cannot be sure their client is guilty. They can also find points of law on which to challenge the evidence or even on the validity of the prosecution in its entirety. The prosecution has to prove their case "beyond reasonable doubt". That's quite a high burden of proof.
you can go to a crown court and watch them at work
Just turn up
unless you mean solicitor and not barrister ?
the solicitor sits in with the barrister and 'explains' and instructs
In the case I was a juryman - the defence tried to persuade us since he hadnt seen the assailant - it wasnt the defendant- altho the offence had obviously occurred, it was done by someone else
and for the second charge since the landing light was off and they didnt batter down the bedroom door - they also cdnt be sure it was the defendant.
this was the case where the defendants' relatives were assisting their relations' case by shouting - "it had better be acquittal!" as we went in
Just turn up
unless you mean solicitor and not barrister ?
the solicitor sits in with the barrister and 'explains' and instructs
In the case I was a juryman - the defence tried to persuade us since he hadnt seen the assailant - it wasnt the defendant- altho the offence had obviously occurred, it was done by someone else
and for the second charge since the landing light was off and they didnt batter down the bedroom door - they also cdnt be sure it was the defendant.
this was the case where the defendants' relatives were assisting their relations' case by shouting - "it had better be acquittal!" as we went in
once upon a time, yes, sanmac, see the first para here
https:/
https:/
//Also if the offence is either way, at what stage does the defendant know if it can remain in magistrates?//
If a defendant enters a "Not Guilty" plea (or declines to enter a plea) to an "Either Way" offence, the Magistrates undertake an "allocation" exercise (formerly known as "Mode of Trial"). They hear an outline of the allegation from the prosecution and then hear from the defendant regarding any lines of defence. Using their sentencing guidelines they then decide whether the trial is suitable to be heard in the Magistrates' Court of the Crown Court. This decision is essentially based on whether they consider their sentencing powers would be sufficient in the event the defendant is convicted. If they decide to retain jurisdiction the defendant then has the right to a trial by judge and jury in the Crown Court. If they decide it is too serious for them to deal with the defendant is sent to the Crown Court for trial. The defendant has a right to a Crown Court trial if the Magistrates decide they can retain jurisdiction but he has no right to a Magistrates' Court trial if they decide it must go to the Crown Court.
A defendant pleading guilty, or being found guilty following a trial in the Magistrates' Court can be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing if the Magistrates believe their powers are insufficient.
Normally a solicitor would instruct a barrister to represent his client in a Crown Court. However, since about 1971 (I think) solicitors have had the right to represent their clients in the Crown Court if he is appearing there either having been sent for sentencing from the Magistrates' Court or is conducting an appeal against a verdict and/or sentence handed down in the Magistrates' Court.
If a defendant enters a "Not Guilty" plea (or declines to enter a plea) to an "Either Way" offence, the Magistrates undertake an "allocation" exercise (formerly known as "Mode of Trial"). They hear an outline of the allegation from the prosecution and then hear from the defendant regarding any lines of defence. Using their sentencing guidelines they then decide whether the trial is suitable to be heard in the Magistrates' Court of the Crown Court. This decision is essentially based on whether they consider their sentencing powers would be sufficient in the event the defendant is convicted. If they decide to retain jurisdiction the defendant then has the right to a trial by judge and jury in the Crown Court. If they decide it is too serious for them to deal with the defendant is sent to the Crown Court for trial. The defendant has a right to a Crown Court trial if the Magistrates decide they can retain jurisdiction but he has no right to a Magistrates' Court trial if they decide it must go to the Crown Court.
A defendant pleading guilty, or being found guilty following a trial in the Magistrates' Court can be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing if the Magistrates believe their powers are insufficient.
Normally a solicitor would instruct a barrister to represent his client in a Crown Court. However, since about 1971 (I think) solicitors have had the right to represent their clients in the Crown Court if he is appearing there either having been sent for sentencing from the Magistrates' Court or is conducting an appeal against a verdict and/or sentence handed down in the Magistrates' Court.
// under British law the jurors asked the questions of the witnesses //
NJ should confirm they still can do - but they write to the judge
=
and then there is a set procedure - the judge in court but wivvart the jury reads out the question
and then goes froo the whole lardy dar again wiv da jury present
I wrote direct speech in the question to the judge
who poncily said - I am not sure if anyone can make sense of this !!!
and read it out
and in speech it made perfect sense. and he went 'oh'
(pluperfect subjunctive in northern dialect in the main clause confused the poor London based QC fellow)
even I thought when I was recording it - christ is this really what they said? - I did hear right didnt I
NJ should confirm they still can do - but they write to the judge
=
and then there is a set procedure - the judge in court but wivvart the jury reads out the question
and then goes froo the whole lardy dar again wiv da jury present
I wrote direct speech in the question to the judge
who poncily said - I am not sure if anyone can make sense of this !!!
and read it out
and in speech it made perfect sense. and he went 'oh'
(pluperfect subjunctive in northern dialect in the main clause confused the poor London based QC fellow)
even I thought when I was recording it - christ is this really what they said? - I did hear right didnt I
// However, since about 1971 (I think) solicitors have had the right to represent their clients in the Crown Court//
this is the same act that converted assizes to crown courts innit?
I was hooked out of my rooms at uni to see the judges in red sway down in their finery to the assize court - - for the very last time
judgie baby holding a posy against infection as he tottered darn da street =whistles bells and the you know
and I thought ( sozza fort) change Jesus not before its time !
this is the same act that converted assizes to crown courts innit?
I was hooked out of my rooms at uni to see the judges in red sway down in their finery to the assize court - - for the very last time
judgie baby holding a posy against infection as he tottered darn da street =whistles bells and the you know
and I thought ( sozza fort) change Jesus not before its time !
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.