If You Were A Lawyer...

[nailedit]

how would you feel about having to defend the likes of Huw Edwards and child abusers?

I can understand giving a defence for almost everything from drug possession to murder but crimes against children is in a league of its own. Not something I could do if I were a lawyer.

[Peter Pedant]

It shows the need for a defence lawyer - one who believes you didnt do it wd be an advantage

[nailedit]

//It shows the need for a defence lawyer - one who believes you didnt do it wd be an advantage//

How is it an advantage if their client pleads guilty?

[sandyRoe]

Nailedit

Even if someone pleads guilty they deserve to have their mitigation presented in the best possible way.

A barrister might look to present evidence from a psychiatrist, and anyone else whose evidence could lighten the sentence.

[sandyRoe]

I think in the recent past a woman who was the victim of a sexual assault would have her private life put under the microscope.

What was she wearing?  Was she 'asking for it'?

The defence brief could say, hand on heart, I've only been defending my client.

[fiveleaves]

Everyone has a right to a legal defence. If you start thinking that a person's alledged crimes are so horrenduous he should not be defended in court, then you are starting on a very dangerous path indeed.

If a defendant says to his lawyer, "I did it", then the lawyer is obviously not allowed to state his client's innocence in court.

A lawyer is obliged to act in a professional manner towards his client, even if the said client is a total scumbag

[New Judge]

“you do it because the case for the defence has to be made out”

Only if the prosecution case had been made out first, Peter. Otherwise there is “No Case to Answer” and no defence need be advanced.

“ PP, I don't believe that Edwards had a Newton hearing so no relevance to my O.P anyway.”

No he didn’t. But he did disagree with some of the prosecution’s “statement of facts”. However, a Newton Hearing is only required if the Magistrates or judge believes it would make a significant difference to the sentence depending on which version was considered. The Chief Magistrate did not believe it would so no hearing was necessary.

“A barrister cannot advance a defence of not guilty in a case where s/he knows their client to be guilty.”

That’s not strictly true. But such knowledge severely limits what a barrister can do. First of all he must establish that his client is definitely guilty according to law and that he Is likely to be found guilty having seen the evidence.  Having done so, his next duty is to advise his client that it is in his best interests to plead guilty. If his client still insists on pleading not guilty and the barrister agrees to continue to represent him, he cannot advance arguments that will mislead the court. He cannot, for example,  put scenarios which he knows to be untrue to witnesses in an effort to discredit their evidence. And finally he cannot take his client to the witness box and see him give evidence which he knows to be untrue.

For that reason, when faced with that situation, most barristers cut and run.

[Peter Pedant]

And finally he cannot take his client to the witness box and see him give evidence which he knows to be untrue.

this makes me laugh seeing a lawyer shred evidence and then plead the opposite in front of a judge....

but  heigh ho it was 25 y ago - none of the parties cd believe it when the judge said - so what?.