First of all (evidently) - I am not a lawyer and have no legal training. I am a man in the street.
The other evening a watched a documentary called "24 hours in police custody". The significance of 24 hours is it is the maximum time someone can be held in police custody without charge. (The police have 24 hours to put together a sufficiently strong case for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to agree a charge can proceed.)
The documentaries are filmed as cases unfold including camera in interviews. No actors are involved. There is no commentary. You see what happens as it happens.
I précis below the case I watched as it unfolded. I do so because I found the programme a thought provoking insight into how our legal system operates. Of course it was interesting. As a law abiding citizen I found it disturbing.
Here is the précis :
Of course I understand there is a fundamental principal in our law that every defendant has the right to legal representation and that the solicitor/barrister nominated has an obligation to present the best case possible in their clients defence.
However does that really extend to the solicitor intervening and conspiring with the client to fabricate a bogus defence and take the lead in such? It should not.
In my view the solicitors actions were appalling. I found it genuinely surprising that she was able to do it without challenge or recourse. Of course the police officers were dismayed but there was nothing they could do about it. It appeared par for the course. They had to take it on the chin and without recrimination.
Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Everyone is innocent until proved guilty. Of course the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We understand you can choose not to answer questions - to offer no evidence in defence. We know your lawyer is there to help you present the best possible defence - BUT - is it right a solicitor can take the lead to knowingly fabricate a defence - for the solicitor in effect to knowingly lie?
It should not be.There is something wrong with our system. The solicitor should be there to promote a fair trial - not conspire to fabricate and perpetuate a lie. There is no professional or moral justification in that. The defendant raped an innocent woman at knifepoint. Given the chance there is the likelihood he could do it again.
Ps. subsequently it is apparent that it is commonly understood on the streets that claiming "learning difficulties" is a good tactic. You get concessions that make it more difficult for the prosecution to make their case.
The other evening a watched a documentary called "24 hours in police custody". The significance of 24 hours is it is the maximum time someone can be held in police custody without charge. (The police have 24 hours to put together a sufficiently strong case for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to agree a charge can proceed.)
The documentaries are filmed as cases unfold including camera in interviews. No actors are involved. There is no commentary. You see what happens as it happens.
I précis below the case I watched as it unfolded. I do so because I found the programme a thought provoking insight into how our legal system operates. Of course it was interesting. As a law abiding citizen I found it disturbing.
Here is the précis :
- A 15 year old youth was arrested at home on an allegation of rape of a woman at knifepoint.
- Police had semen DNA which was a match with the youths DNA.
- Almost the first thing the defendant was asked by the Custody Officer was did he have any learning difficulties (evidently a legal requirement). He immediately said yes - he had a learning difficulty - he had difficulty understanding long words.
- The subsequent interview was filmed and recorded. There were the two interrogating police officers - the defendant - and his legal representative.
- The young man proceeded to "no comment" every question the police asked.
- He was then asked the banker question "how do you explain that your semen was found on the woman's clothes?" (Obviously the revelation the police had matching DNA evidence was a game changer.)
- At that point the solicitor jumped in and asked for a break so she could talk to her client in private (which she had the right to do.)
- On resumption - the solicitor asked to read a statement on behalf of her client. " I was told by a friend the woman was a prostitute. I approached her and she agreed to have sex with me for money. She laid down on the ground (the police had previously referred to muddy, grass stained clothes ). They had consensual sex - but he didn't have the money to pay and ran off. She is upset about non payment so she is now claiming rape".
- Shortly after the interview was terminated.
Of course I understand there is a fundamental principal in our law that every defendant has the right to legal representation and that the solicitor/barrister nominated has an obligation to present the best case possible in their clients defence.
However does that really extend to the solicitor intervening and conspiring with the client to fabricate a bogus defence and take the lead in such? It should not.
In my view the solicitors actions were appalling. I found it genuinely surprising that she was able to do it without challenge or recourse. Of course the police officers were dismayed but there was nothing they could do about it. It appeared par for the course. They had to take it on the chin and without recrimination.
Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Everyone is innocent until proved guilty. Of course the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We understand you can choose not to answer questions - to offer no evidence in defence. We know your lawyer is there to help you present the best possible defence - BUT - is it right a solicitor can take the lead to knowingly fabricate a defence - for the solicitor in effect to knowingly lie?
It should not be.There is something wrong with our system. The solicitor should be there to promote a fair trial - not conspire to fabricate and perpetuate a lie. There is no professional or moral justification in that. The defendant raped an innocent woman at knifepoint. Given the chance there is the likelihood he could do it again.
Ps. subsequently it is apparent that it is commonly understood on the streets that claiming "learning difficulties" is a good tactic. You get concessions that make it more difficult for the prosecution to make their case.
No comments:
Post a Comment