Religion & Spirituality0 min ago
Max Clifford Charged On 11 Counts
http://
11 counts of indecent assault between 1966 and 1985, victimes aged from 14 to 19.
Perhaps we are now getting to the sharp end of all these investigations.
11 counts of indecent assault between 1966 and 1985, victimes aged from 14 to 19.
Perhaps we are now getting to the sharp end of all these investigations.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bibblebub. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Gromit:
Dr Johnson:
Sir, you do not know the cause to be good or bad until the Judge determines it...
Baron Bramwell:
A man's rights are to be determined by the court and not by his attorney or counsel... A client is entitled to say to his counsel: I want your advocacy, not your [decision]; I prefer that of the court. [Baron Bramwell was a senior judge]
It is not counsel's job to determine the guilt of his client. It his neither his duty nor must it be his concern. The client is not guilty until the magistrates or the judge, ruling on the law, and the jury, applying the law to the facts they find proved, have so decided. Counsel's duty is to ensure,fearlessly, that the best case for his client has been put with all evidence properly tested and the law properly applied, that's all. Anyone accused deserves nothing less.
This is a difficult concept for laymen to grasp. Every counsel has been asked "How can you defend a man when you know he is guilty ?" but that misunderstands the position. However overwhelming the case looks and however improbable the defendant's account may seem, you never know. Your only question to yourself after the verdict, whether "Not guilty" or "Guilty" is " Did I do my best for the defendant?" because it's just as worrying to think that you made mistakes but the man was acquitted as to think that you did and he was convicted. It's no consolation when you are prosecuting either. That Norman Birkett, Edward Cussen (who was a senior prosecutor) or Marshall Hall would have it done better, is no help either !
Satisfied, you accept the verdict.
Dr Johnson:
Sir, you do not know the cause to be good or bad until the Judge determines it...
Baron Bramwell:
A man's rights are to be determined by the court and not by his attorney or counsel... A client is entitled to say to his counsel: I want your advocacy, not your [decision]; I prefer that of the court. [Baron Bramwell was a senior judge]
It is not counsel's job to determine the guilt of his client. It his neither his duty nor must it be his concern. The client is not guilty until the magistrates or the judge, ruling on the law, and the jury, applying the law to the facts they find proved, have so decided. Counsel's duty is to ensure,fearlessly, that the best case for his client has been put with all evidence properly tested and the law properly applied, that's all. Anyone accused deserves nothing less.
This is a difficult concept for laymen to grasp. Every counsel has been asked "How can you defend a man when you know he is guilty ?" but that misunderstands the position. However overwhelming the case looks and however improbable the defendant's account may seem, you never know. Your only question to yourself after the verdict, whether "Not guilty" or "Guilty" is " Did I do my best for the defendant?" because it's just as worrying to think that you made mistakes but the man was acquitted as to think that you did and he was convicted. It's no consolation when you are prosecuting either. That Norman Birkett, Edward Cussen (who was a senior prosecutor) or Marshall Hall would have it done better, is no help either !
Satisfied, you accept the verdict.
we should bear in mind that being charged means he is to be tried
NOT that he is in any way guilty before the case and facts has been heard.
Lots of people are quitted on indictment ( = the jury find not guilty after all the razz matazz has died down. )
and apparently it is NOT a PR mans dream - there is no way you can spin something such as this and so you try to ignore it.
NOT that he is in any way guilty before the case and facts has been heard.
Lots of people are quitted on indictment ( = the jury find not guilty after all the razz matazz has died down. )
and apparently it is NOT a PR mans dream - there is no way you can spin something such as this and so you try to ignore it.
Good luck if a lawyer can find a defence, Gromit; that is part of the strength of the justice system that we live in and long may it continue. Often many cases where there are such 'controversial' decisions are a result of prosecution or police complacency.....However, in this case, Max Clifford is innocent until proven guilty and you ought to respect the professionalism and rights of his lawyers and also anyone else that he uses to help build his defence case.
To label them "scumbags" - well, I am really surprised as there are others on here that I would have expected to have such 'weighted opinions' and see such drivel and bile pour forth - not you though.
To label them "scumbags" - well, I am really surprised as there are others on here that I would have expected to have such 'weighted opinions' and see such drivel and bile pour forth - not you though.
Have seen worse sounding cases fall apart, DTC, but we'll have to see what progress can be made with the several complainants. Could well be runnable. There's a fair amount of mileage in why they came forward and in "the what attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?" line; the attraction of a wealthy, famous defendant, whom many people dislike anyway, to be picked off. If the complainant was old enough at the time, he can run a possible consent defence; that the woman agreed then , but had second thoughts years later when there was the prospect of a bit of cash and of playing the heroine to the world. (May prove to be enough; depends how the woman comes across)
DTCrosswordfan,
// Max Clifford is innocent until proven guilty and you ought to respect the professionalism and rights of his lawyers and also anyone else that he uses to help build his defence case.
To label them "scumbags" - well, I am really surprised as there are others on here that I would have expected to have such 'weighted opinions' and see such drivel and bile pour forth - not you though. //
That is because I did not label Clifford's lawyers 'scumbags'. I have not commented at all on the allegations, I merely gave a reason why I do not like the man.
I repeat, I have not hung an innocent man, made any comment on the allegations or presumed any guilt. I have not labelled his lawyers scumbags and I am totally perplexed why some posters are attributing things to me which I ave not said?
// Max Clifford is innocent until proven guilty and you ought to respect the professionalism and rights of his lawyers and also anyone else that he uses to help build his defence case.
To label them "scumbags" - well, I am really surprised as there are others on here that I would have expected to have such 'weighted opinions' and see such drivel and bile pour forth - not you though. //
That is because I did not label Clifford's lawyers 'scumbags'. I have not commented at all on the allegations, I merely gave a reason why I do not like the man.
I repeat, I have not hung an innocent man, made any comment on the allegations or presumed any guilt. I have not labelled his lawyers scumbags and I am totally perplexed why some posters are attributing things to me which I ave not said?
//Some lawyers are scumbags. It is their duty to represent clients but they often know when their clients are guilty and often get them off. Very horridle people get aquitted by the skill of a good lawyer who are only in it for the £££s. Personally, I could not help someone guilty of an evil crime get off, no matter how much money they gave me.//
Thought those words were yours, gromit. Do you specifically exclude, from that description, whichever lawyers represent Max Clifford?
Thought those words were yours, gromit. Do you specifically exclude, from that description, whichever lawyers represent Max Clifford?
Gromit the issue is that you wrote //But he represented the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, so he has always a scumbag in my book ever since.// This implies that you likely will have a similar opinion to those who also represented the murderers, i.e. their solicitors and barristers.
I come back to my basic argument - that everyone who is in a British court is entitled to representation and public relations to get themselves found not guilty, however guilty you may be.
Yes, there are lawyers and agents who you may think should act with more conscious but to start calling Max Clifford or anyone else a scumbag because of this is really OTT in my opinion.
And yes agree that commenting on these aspects of the case does not infringe or impact on the case being sub judice.
I come back to my basic argument - that everyone who is in a British court is entitled to representation and public relations to get themselves found not guilty, however guilty you may be.
Yes, there are lawyers and agents who you may think should act with more conscious but to start calling Max Clifford or anyone else a scumbag because of this is really OTT in my opinion.
And yes agree that commenting on these aspects of the case does not infringe or impact on the case being sub judice.
People who represent nasty murderers are not scumbags.
They are trying to preserve two important principles ...
(1) Everyone is considered as innocent until proved guilty by a court (NOT proven guilty by the newspapers)
(2) Everyone is entitled to a fair trial.
Upholding those principles is not always easy.
And it's not always pleasant.
But it IS important!
They are trying to preserve two important principles ...
(1) Everyone is considered as innocent until proved guilty by a court (NOT proven guilty by the newspapers)
(2) Everyone is entitled to a fair trial.
Upholding those principles is not always easy.
And it's not always pleasant.
But it IS important!
Max Clifford is not like a lawyer, not sure why he keeps being likened to one. He represented Lawrence's killers by choice to make money peddling their story. He can choose who he works for, and he chose racist killers.
A lawyer who takes on defence work is part of the process of seeing that justice is done. They are there to test the prosecution case and make sure innocent people do not go to jail. If their client is not innocent, and the prosecution prove it then they can take their fee and no one thinks ill of them.
When I referred to some lawyers are scumbags (not Clifford's) I was meaning rhose who specialises in getting known criminals off on technicalities when the evidence suggests they are guilty.
A lawyer who takes on defence work is part of the process of seeing that justice is done. They are there to test the prosecution case and make sure innocent people do not go to jail. If their client is not innocent, and the prosecution prove it then they can take their fee and no one thinks ill of them.
When I referred to some lawyers are scumbags (not Clifford's) I was meaning rhose who specialises in getting known criminals off on technicalities when the evidence suggests they are guilty.
Latest Posts
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News2 mins ago
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
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.