Interesting court case
Comments
-
I've heard all the arguments about defence lawyers:3 years...
http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/13950300._Out_of_control__New_Malden_mum_of_six_jailed_for_three_years_after_driving_into_autistic_cyclist_and_crashing_into_Kingston_salon/
Had previous it'd seem.The court also heard Pyne had previous driving-related convictions.
In March 2009 she was convicted of dangerous driving for drunkenly driving at more than 70mph on the wrong side of the road in the January of that year. She was disqualified from driving for 12 months and given a suspended sentence at the time, the court heard.
Defence counsel Lisa Bald called for a “justifiable act of mercy” and described the case as a “flash of anger that happened in seconds”.
She added: “She is not a woman prone to aggressive outbursts, she is not that type of person and this wasn’t an act of violence.”
I wonder if the defence actually believe the last statement
"They're only helping people who may have been unfailry accused"
"Everyone has the right to a fair trial"
"It's just part of the judicial system"
Etc. etc.
Fair enough, but I'm never less than amazed that someone has the complete lack of moral fibre necessary to, basically, lie through their teeth for a living. I mean - I know everyone's moral compass doesn't point in the same direction, but how could you sleep at night knowing you'd just said that with a straight face? About a woman who had driven drunk on the wrong side of the road, who drove a car FULL OF HER OWN OFFSPRING directly at someone with such force that she ploughed into a shop and caused 25 grand's worth of damage?
Defence lawyers. Same rung of society's ladder as IT Recruitment Consultants and Estate Agents
I think you're being a little unfair on them - innocent people still need defence lawyers - so we need a few ...
but if I was a lawyer I don't think I could defend someone I didn't believe to be innocent...0 -
True - note I said 'fair enough'. I understand all the arguments. It's just that, in cases like this, you have to have no conscience whatsoever to be able to 'turn off' any scruples and make the sort of statements she did. It just boggles the mind that someone can live with themselves after so patently lying to try and exonerate a nasty bit of work like that.Fat chopper. Some racing. Some testing. Some crashing.
Specialising in Git Daaahns and Cafs. Norvern Munkey/Transplanted Laaandoner.0 -
True - note I said 'fair enough'. I understand all the arguments. It's just that, in cases like this, you have to have no conscience whatsoever to be able to 'turn off' any scruples and make the sort of statements she did. It just boggles the mind that someone can live with themselves after so patently lying to try and exonerate a nasty bit of work like that.
How do you exonerate the guilty?My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Good point. Wrong word - maybe 'absolve' is better. Point remains though. Lying lawyer is lying.True - note I said 'fair enough'. I understand all the arguments. It's just that, in cases like this, you have to have no conscience whatsoever to be able to 'turn off' any scruples and make the sort of statements she did. It just boggles the mind that someone can live with themselves after so patently lying to try and exonerate a nasty bit of work like that.
How do you exonerate the guilty?Fat chopper. Some racing. Some testing. Some crashing.
Specialising in Git Daaahns and Cafs. Norvern Munkey/Transplanted Laaandoner.0 -
I can understand the defence putting forward a defence for the defendant - even mitigating circumstances - but yes - I agree, I find it indefensible that a defence lawyer could lie for the defendant - it of course, depends on if the defence lawyer knows it to be a lie ... they are, afterall, only working on their clients instructions - but no ... I couldn't do it...t's just that, in cases like this, you have to have no conscience whatsoever to be able to 'turn off' any scruples and make the sort of statements she did. It just boggles the mind that someone can live with themselves after so patently lying to try and exonerate a nasty bit of work like that.Lawyers do not decide anything. Think of lawyers as translators. Each side – the defendant and the state – have a version of events they wish to convince the judge or jury of. However, as if they were speaking a foreign language, they need someone to translate what they are saying. Lawyers are mouthpieces, telling that story the best way they possibly can.
This is where lawyers are very clever. When they are given a case, they will glance at it. However unlike many, they do not decide whether they think that defendant is guilty or not guilty. They trust the system, and that the jury will make the right decision. Because of that, they don’t bother deciding whether the person is guilty.
I don't think not deciding if the defendant is guilty or not is very clever though ... perhaps they do need to put aside their personal views ...0 -
It's not a lawyer's job to decide guilt. That's the jury's job. It's a lawyer's job to represent their client's best interests. There are processes. Lawyers don't glance at cases. Neither do they obtain scant information from their client in interview/conference. Their job, after piecing it all together, is to advise the client whether they are, on their version of events, likely to be convicted of an offence. This will come with a warning that, clearly, if the other side's version is preferred, then they will, likely, be found guilty. And that's the easy version where there is an alternative version.
Sometimes there is a clear admission of guilt. In such cases the lawyer can only a) represent a client who pleads guilty or b) test the prosecution case but not allow the client to give evidence in such a way as to knowingly mislead the Court (effectively it means that such clients will exercise their right to not give evidence).
Most lawyers sleep well because they deal with cases according to well set out rules and procedures. They also don't worry about dinner party conversations of "how can you act for someone you know is guilty" because of those clear processes. Mere suspicion of guilt is irrelevant. You act on your client's instructions.
In the present case the defendant has been convicted. The statement being made is in mitigation of the client. Again, a lot of that comes from the client's instructions. If the client has instructed the lawyer to say that she is not prone to violent outbursts then those are the instructions. It may well even be backed up by "evidence" in any pre sentence report which will have been read out but which will not have been reported. It's not for a lawyer to question whether the client is trying it on in that respect. But, also, in legal terms, the absence of any previous conviction for violent offences makes a statement about violent outbursts acceptable and not misleading. It will be given some weight by the Judge but not much. Hearsay evidence from people who claim that she's not very nice is not better or weightier evidence. Indeed, given that it is unreliable as a matter of fact, it is ignored.
But, I do have an issue with the advocate's words as they relate to violence. This was an attempted GBH charge. Had it only been dangerous driving then it may be, semantically and legally, correct to claim that it was not an act of violence. This, quite clearly, is. I would expect the Judge to have said something about that but, in an event, the Judge will have disregarded it for the purpose of sentencing. We know this because the Judge clearly stated that the car had been used as a weapon.
Pleas in mitigation happen every minute of every day throughout the country. They're all pretty mundane and concentrate on many aspects such as the character and antecedents history of the defendant. What's not been reported in this one is how the previous conviction was distinguished. And, this might not be popular, it can be distinguished in terms of the type of offence. Distinguished but, ultimately, probably ignored because this Judge considered that this Defendant needed to be sentenced to a custodial sentence.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
When I read that comment in the Surrey Comet I must admit my first thought was to wonder if the defence counsel was the victim of sloppy journalism/mis-reporting, given that it was such an absurd thing to say as the jury by their verdict had determined it was an act of violence0
-
When I read that comment in the Surrey Comet I must admit my first thought was to wonder if the defence counsel was the victim of sloppy journalism/mis-reporting, given that it was such an absurd thing to say as the jury by their verdict had determined it was an act of violence
There may have been more to it. Perhaps not a "premeditated act of violence" or something like that. Not unusual for there to be misreporting. The plea in this case, along with consideration of the pre sentence report, would have been fairly lengthy.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Bender; nice post. Eloquent and well-thought out - a credit to the thread. Annoying, too, as I had only just finished sharpening my pitchfork.Location: ciderspace0
-
It's not a lawyer's job to decide guilt. That's the jury's job. It's a lawyer's job to represent their client's best interests. There are processes. Lawyers don't glance at cases. Neither do they obtain scant information from their client in interview/conference. Their job, after piecing it all together, is to advise the client whether they are, on their version of events, likely to be convicted of an offence. This will come with a warning that, clearly, if the other side's version is preferred, then they will, likely, be found guilty. And that's the easy version where there is an alternative version.
Sometimes there is a clear admission of guilt. In such cases the lawyer can only a) represent a client who pleads guilty or b) test the prosecution case but not allow the client to give evidence in such a way as to knowingly mislead the Court (effectively it means that such clients will exercise their right to not give evidence).
Most lawyers sleep well because they deal with cases according to well set out rules and procedures. They also don't worry about dinner party conversations of "how can you act for someone you know is guilty" because of those clear processes. Mere suspicion of guilt is irrelevant. You act on your client's instructions.
In the present case the defendant has been convicted. The statement being made is in mitigation of the client. Again, a lot of that comes from the client's instructions. If the client has instructed the lawyer to say that she is not prone to violent outbursts then those are the instructions. It may well even be backed up by "evidence" in any pre sentence report which will have been read out but which will not have been reported. It's not for a lawyer to question whether the client is trying it on in that respect. But, also, in legal terms, the absence of any previous conviction for violent offences makes a statement about violent outbursts acceptable and not misleading. It will be given some weight by the Judge but not much. Hearsay evidence from people who claim that she's not very nice is not better or weightier evidence. Indeed, given that it is unreliable as a matter of fact, it is ignored.
But, I do have an issue with the advocate's words as they relate to violence. This was an attempted GBH charge. Had it only been dangerous driving then it may be, semantically and legally, correct to claim that it was not an act of violence. This, quite clearly, is. I would expect the Judge to have said something about that but, in an event, the Judge will have disregarded it for the purpose of sentencing. We know this because the Judge clearly stated that the car had been used as a weapon.
Pleas in mitigation happen every minute of every day throughout the country. They're all pretty mundane and concentrate on many aspects such as the character and antecedents history of the defendant. What's not been reported in this one is how the previous conviction was distinguished. And, this might not be popular, it can be distinguished in terms of the type of offence. Distinguished but, ultimately, probably ignored because this Judge considered that this Defendant needed to be sentenced to a custodial sentence.
Well Bender, as a much maligned Criminal Defence Lawyer I would like to thank you for a most excellent post.
I sleep easy because I advise on the law and evidence, often robustly and I have to say the vast majority of clients accept my advice. When they don't then they know there is a limit to what I or an advocate I instruct can say on their behalf. Then the relationship may break down and they may go elsewhere and start again with another lawyer, or increasingly, represent themselves.
Mitigation is often mundane but can be an art form. But let's be clear, the purpose is to advance what your client says, even when it appears absurd. I may advise against saying certain things on the basis a court will understanadably take against what is said and punish more harshly. Sometimes I refuse. Funnily enough I did today and was right to do so. But this Lawyer may have felt constrained to say what she said or might even have held the view that too many have which is that somewhat strangely, wielding a car is not the same as wielding a hammer!0
