The DUP thread

[David McKeown]

Sue a barrister? Be nice to live in that world but the most would be discplinary matter. Under the adversial system its viewed as "fair play".

The Lucy Letby case was particularly awful in this regard.

Well, if the legal system ever wonder why such a low proportion of rape and sexual abuses cases come to court - the courts need to take a good look in the mirror.

Ahh that old nonsense.

No surprise at not taking criticism of the legal system well.


Its hardly an opinion limited to me as well, see here

Attending court can be hugely intimidating for victims of crime. Many will find the experience highly-retraumatising. For rape victims, this is particularly the case.

Special measures are ways to help victims to give their best possible evidence in court. An exceptionally effective one is known as 'Section 28' after the clause in the statute which introduced it.

S28 says that a complainant may have their evidence videoed by the police (instead of making a written statement) which is then served on the defence. The defence then have time to prepare and when they are ready will cross-examine the complainant which is also video recorded. These two videos then become the complainant's evidence for the trial, to be played whenever it takes place.

A huge advantage is that once the recordings are done, the complainant has finished with the proceedings. They can get on with their life and take therapy if they need to. This gets them out of the court queue, saving them perhaps years of anxious waiting. Completing their evidence close to the time of offence also aids memory recall and helps to reduce the distress experienced by some witnesses when giving evidence to a full courtroom at trial.

S28 was piloted long ago and was rolled out nationally for vulnerable complainants from the start of the pandemic. I worked with the Criminal Bar to press for this rollout and the Government response was excellent. However, that limits the use of S28 mainly to child victims. It is good news that the Deputy Prime Minister has resolved to roll it out also for 'intimidated' witnesses which includes adult rape complainants. After its announcement in December, it has since been rolled out to a total of 26 out of approximately 85 Crown Courts in England and Wales. This is excellent and this work must be sped up even further. There are clear views amongst some criminal justice professionals that this should be the default way in which all sexual assault complainants give their evidence. The courts have been using video evidence for almost two decades and S28 is too beneficial for victims not to be used throughout the court system in England and Wales.

Most of that's not correct although it's 5 years old at this stage. For example complainants in sexual cases are automatically entitled to special measures including evidence via video link.

Third party disclosure isn't combed through by either the defence or the prosecution but rather by a Judge who concludes if any of it is relevant to matters at issue at the trial. It's limited and only the relevant information is disclosed.

Despite all of that the victims commissioners report doesn't seem to criticise the defence at all.

In 2018 former High Court Judge Sir John Gillen conducted a comprehensive review of prosecutions in Sexual Offence cases.

This was the opening paragraph

t has not been the intention of this Review to reinvent the wheel. Whilst I am satisfied that much needs to be changed in terms of the law and procedures relating to serious sexual offences, it cannot be ignored that in recent years there have been many improvements made in the law relating to such offences.

These improvements have occurred in the treatment of complainants, in the
standards of investigation, in a far more coherent and enlightened approach to prosecutions than before and in improved court processes and procedures.

The report recommended lots of further improvements the vast majority of which has been implemented.

So when someone posts the Courts need to take a look at themselves as if they don't, it's simply ill informed nonsense.

Is the system perfect?  Absolutely not but it is a system that is constantly striving to improve.

[David McKeown]

I've always wondered how a defence solicitor/barrister can seperate their own opinion from the trial itself.
Even if they believe the defendant is guilty they still need to do everything they can to get a not guilty verdict, which I couldn't do.

It's not our job to establish guilt or innocence and we will honestly give our clients our advice on what will happen but ultimately we act on instructions and we test the evidence to ensure everyone has a fair trial.

What we don't do is invent defences or present a case other than the one given to us by our clients

So for example if a client tells us they are guilty we don't call them to give evidence to say they are innocent nor do we put any positive case on their behalf.

Similarly we don't plead people guilty unless they tell us they are guilty.

At that point our feelings don't come into it.

[David McKeown]

Why would a direct descendent and another close relation make the accusations if they were not real?

They destroyed familial relationships in bringing the case.
They aren't going to gain monetary.
Indeed, they are more likely to lose out financially (inheritance).


I though the (at least what was reported) defence barrister's arguments yesterday were disgusting and the judge really should have pulled him on it.

Small wonder that so few rape crimes come to court if the defence are allowed to carry themselves like that.

Thought the defending barrister comments been horrible whole way through, basically said the victims were lying every time he questioned them

I would have thought a high ranking barrister would be able to come up with a better line of argument than - eh, you're a liar.

A barrister is only as good as their instructions. We don't come up with lines of argument in criminal trial.

[David McKeown]

I've always wondered how a defence solicitor/barrister can seperate their own opinion from the trial itself.
Even if they believe the defendant is guilty they still need to do everything they can to get a not guilty verdict, which I couldn't do.

Sure, isn't shedloads of money [legal aid] a wonderful thing?

If only it was.

[David McKeown]

I've always wondered how a defence solicitor/barrister can seperate their own opinion from the trial itself.
Even if they believe the defendant is guilty they still need to do everything they can to get a not guilty verdict, which I couldn't do.

Sure, isn't shedloads of money [legal aid] a wonderful thing?

Biggest gravy train about.

If the plug was pulled in this in the morning quite a few of the high profile legal practices in this country would take some hit.
[/

Thought the defending barrister comments been horrible whole way through, basically said the victims were lying every time he questioned them

Would be interesting to see how it would go with a defamation case if Donaldson is proven guilty.

It'd certainly clip the wings of fukkers like Kieran Vaughan.

Well that would need a law change so I wouldn't have thought that's likely at all.

Didn't realise you could say whatever the f you wanted in court and get away with it.

Thought it was reserved for parliament where you can do anything but (quite ironically given this case) call someone a lair.

There's good reason for why claims made in court are protected. It would have a serious detrimental impact on justice if it didn't.

[David McKeown]

I've always wondered how a defence solicitor/barrister can seperate their own opinion from the trial itself.
Even if they believe the defendant is guilty they still need to do everything they can to get a not guilty verdict, which I couldn't do.

Sure, isn't shedloads of money [legal aid] a wonderful thing?

Biggest gravy train about.

If the plug was pulled in this in the morning quite a few of the high profile legal practices in this country would take some hit.

Yes I imagine if you ended most business main stream of funding overnight they'd suffer.

What would also happen is you'd destroy the justice system. You'd have a two tier justice system and you'd increase public costs.

[DaleCooper]

CPS data. 60% of rape cases brought end up in a conviction.

https://archive.ph/8gNBN


Unfortunately the squeaky wheel gets the grease and the 2% figure bandied around by ideological activists may put people off coming forward [Baroness Stern made this point]

Nadia Whittome MP put this figure out in Parliament and was approvingly quote tweeted by Angela Eagle MP who agreed with her that "rape has essentially been decriminalised".

[playwiththewind1st]

I've always wondered how a defence solicitor/barrister can seperate their own opinion from the trial itself.
Even if they believe the defendant is guilty they still need to do everything they can to get a not guilty verdict, which I couldn't do.

Sure, isn't shedloads of money [legal aid] a wonderful thing?

Biggest gravy train about.

If the plug was pulled in this in the morning quite a few of the high profile legal practices in this country would take some hit.

Yes I imagine if you ended most business main stream of funding overnight they'd suffer.

What would also happen is you'd destroy the justice system. You'd have a two tier justice system and you'd increase public costs.

The barristers themselves have been having a right good go at destroying the justice system from within recently, with people having to appeal to their better nature & practically beg them to put aside their industrial action on a case by case basis, so as to permit a few handpicked extremely serious cases to proceed. Surely the proposed financial settlement will increase public costs, will it not?

[David McKeown]

I've always wondered how a defence solicitor/barrister can seperate their own opinion from the trial itself.
Even if they believe the defendant is guilty they still need to do everything they can to get a not guilty verdict, which I couldn't do.

Sure, isn't shedloads of money [legal aid] a wonderful thing?

Biggest gravy train about.

If the plug was pulled in this in the morning quite a few of the high profile legal practices in this country would take some hit.

Yes I imagine if you ended most business main stream of funding overnight they'd suffer.

What would also happen is you'd destroy the justice system. You'd have a two tier justice system and you'd increase public costs.

The barristers themselves have been having a right good go at destroying the justice system from within recently, with people having to appeal to their better nature & practically beg them to put aside their industrial action on a case by case basis, so as to permit a few handpicked extremely serious cases to proceed. Surely the proposed financial settlement will increase public costs, will it not?

Strange solicitors and barristers are blamed for that when fees last increased in 2005 and were lowered in 2011 and 2016. Don't think many costs have fallen since then. 

The settlement reached after 6 months is apparently well within available budget and is not only significantly below inflation but means in real terms that fees are lower than in 2015 and even 2005.

On the other hand the minister who could have paid the money 6 months ago only made an offer a week ago. It's still significantly below what lawyers who do non criminal work get paid by the state. It won't kick in until at the earliest next February. But yes it's the lawyers to blame.

I am aware that at the top end fees are eye watering but it's for extremely complex and difficult cases and it's paid to a very small number of lawyers. There is however a lot of misinformation out there.

[Tony Baloney]

I've always wondered how a defence solicitor/barrister can seperate their own opinion from the trial itself.
Even if they believe the defendant is guilty they still need to do everything they can to get a not guilty verdict, which I couldn't do.

Sure, isn't shedloads of money [legal aid] a wonderful thing?

Biggest gravy train about.

If the plug was pulled in this in the morning quite a few of the high profile legal practices in this country would take some hit.

Yes I imagine if you ended most business main stream of funding overnight they'd suffer.

What would also happen is you'd destroy the justice system. You'd have a two tier justice system and you'd increase public costs.

The barristers themselves have been having a right good go at destroying the justice system from within recently, with people having to appeal to their better nature & practically beg them to put aside their industrial action on a case by case basis, so as to permit a few handpicked extremely serious cases to proceed. Surely the proposed financial settlement will increase public costs, will it not?

Strange solicitors and barristers are blamed for that when fees last increased in 2005 and were lowered in 2011 and 2016. Don't think many costs have fallen since then. 

The settlement reached after 6 months is apparently well within available budget and is not only significantly below inflation but means in real terms that fees are lower than in 2015 and even 2005.

On the other hand the minister who could have paid the money 6 months ago only made an offer a week ago. It's still significantly below what lawyers who do non criminal work get paid by the state. It won't kick in until at the earliest next February. But yes it's the lawyers to blame.

I am aware that at the top end fees are eye watering but it's for extremely complex and difficult cases and it's paid to a very small number of lawyers. There is however a lot of misinformation out there.

Some of the lads would prefer only the richest people get legal representation.

[Main Street]

Why would a direct descendent and another close relation make the accusations if they were not real?

They destroyed familial relationships in bringing the case.
They aren't going to gain monetary.
Indeed, they are more likely to lose out financially (inheritance).


I though the (at least what was reported) defence barrister's arguments yesterday were disgusting and the judge really should have pulled him on it.

Small wonder that so few rape crimes come to court if the defence are allowed to carry themselves like that.

Thought the defending barrister comments been horrible whole way through, basically said the victims were lying every time he questioned them

I would have thought a high ranking barrister would be able to come up with a better line of argument than - eh, you're a liar.

A barrister is only as good as their instructions. We don't come up with lines of argument in criminal trial.

in a case where there's a guilty plea, can you not (in a casual conversation) ask your lawyer for their objective opinion on appropriate sounding  mitigations, before you splurt out your own grand plan.

[David McKeown]

Why would a direct descendent and another close relation make the accusations if they were not real?

They destroyed familial relationships in bringing the case.
They aren't going to gain monetary.
Indeed, they are more likely to lose out financially (inheritance).


I though the (at least what was reported) defence barrister's arguments yesterday were disgusting and the judge really should have pulled him on it.

Small wonder that so few rape crimes come to court if the defence are allowed to carry themselves like that.

Thought the defending barrister comments been horrible whole way through, basically said the victims were lying every time he questioned them

I would have thought a high ranking barrister would be able to come up with a better line of argument than - eh, you're a liar.

A barrister is only as good as their instructions. We don't come up with lines of argument in criminal trial.

in a case where there's a guilty plea, can you not (in a casual conversation) ask your lawyer for their objective opinion on appropriate sounding  mitigations, before you splurt out your own grand plan.

The lawyer will take your instructions on appropriate mitigations but they come from the client not the lawyer.

[Killala]

Does the wife have any bearing on the deliberations ?. I thought I saw where she can only be found not guilty. Don't really understand that to be honest.

[DaleCooper]

Does the wife have any bearing on the deliberations ?. I thought I saw where she can only be found not guilty. Don't really understand that to be honest.

The circumstances are analyzed without her present due to mental health reasons. 4 psychiatrists reviewed her and judge ruled accordingly.

[David McKeown]

Does the wife have any bearing on the deliberations ?. I thought I saw where she can only be found not guilty. Don't really understand that to be honest.

The Jury will be deliberating on whether or not she committed the acts alleged. That is different to if she is guilty or not. It's somewhat artificial mind as they won't be able to consider an alternative version of events to the evidence put forward by the prosecution