Thread: Law & Order is STUFFED.

Ian lawyer can defend on a not guilty plea in that instance by testing the crown case but not run a positive case and not attack the credit of the crown witnesses.

Cheers

Originally Posted by V8Ian

I thought a legal representative was compelled to be truthful, ie if a client admitted a crime to his representative, said advocate could not defend a not guilty plea, but only mitigate the offence by presenting the reasons in the best light.

Theoretically, but if the client insists on pleading not guilty, the lawyer is in a difficult position. The lawyer is supposed to try to present the client's case in the best possible light to ensure the accused gets a fair trial.
It may be that a person might might make an admission to the instructing solicitor, but that might not be passed on to the barrister taking the case.

This isn't Rumpole, it gets murky in real life. Lawyers, prosecutors and judges all drink together after the day is done.

Will be interesting to see what comes out in the royal commission.

A fair trial or a better outcome is usually determined by the size of the defendants wallet or his/her access to free legal council.
The ONLY Real winners at court are the lawyers.

Originally Posted by trout1105

A fair trial or a better outcome is usually determined by the size of the defendants wallet or his/her access to free legal council.
The ONLY Real winners at court are the lawyers.

You obviously have not seen a number of Magistrates in particular when self-represented litigants appear against a Barrister...it can be Barrister v Mag. Whilst what you say has some truth trout most Judges and Magistrates try very hard to do justice to the parties irrespective of quality of case preparation and representation. Admittedly however, as you would expect, if you have a very well prepared.case and good representation (all costs.money) you have better prospects.

Cheers

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Theoretically, but if the client insists on pleading not guilty, the lawyer is in a difficult position. The lawyer is supposed to try to present the client's case in the best possible light to ensure the accused gets a fair trial.
It may be that a person might might make an admission to the instructing solicitor, but that might not be passed on to the barrister taking the case.

This isn't Rumpole, it gets murky in real life. Lawyers, prosecutors and judges all drink together after the day is done.

Will be interesting to see what comes out in the royal commission.

Mick it is possible for a solicitor not to pass on the admissions. It represents a breach of their ethical obligations. If.after running a positive case, say part way through the trial, if a client makes an admission of guilt to counsel or to the solicitor to counsel the Barrister will need to advise the client that the plea needs to be changed to guilty and if he doesnt give those instructions that the Barrister will then withdraw acting for the accused....then follow through on either course.

Cheers

Mick also these days unless on circuit court there (and even there I understand the practice has largely died off) is no socialising with Judges after Court. Even though Judges rely on Barristers in Court there is a lot of separation especially where there is an ongoing trial.

Cheers

Yes, I know a bit about how it works. Not criticising the magistrates at all, they try very hard to see everyone gets a fair trial. Lawyers are a mixed bag.

Originally Posted by Pickles2

Well, I'm different, I don't care how the evidence is "procured" or where it comes from, as long as it's "THE TRUTH", and I'd say what this Lawyer has told to Police is "the truth". The Crims don't have any rules, so why do those trying to target them have to have rules, jeez, it's like having one hand tied behind your back.....looks to me the rules are heavily in favor of the bad guys.
I'm now waiting to be hammered.
Pickles.

Crims don't have rules; ergo, those who don't have rules are crimsoned. You are advocating Anarchy.