Warburton's?
I truly can’t wait to hear his defence lawyer….where do you even startMaybe it’s all a conspiracy theory
We all funded your whole career and retirement pal.
Did you leave the prison?
Everyone is entitled to a defence, that is a fundamental right. Why is the lawyer unscrupulous? That train of thought is dangerous imo.
And here was I thinking the police were part of the justice system, beholden to its principles.
Not sure what you mean? What relevance has Police involvement in this?
Not my whole career, unless you paid to watch me at Blackpool in the 70’s and as far as I’m aware tax payers wouldn’t have paid my wages at British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. However your other input is greatfully received pal, thank you.
For a legal representative to represent a client, technically they have to act on the belief that they are innocent of what they have been charged with, whether they actually believe it in private.
I don't think that's true, they just have to not knowingly lie or mislead the court.
Absolutely nothing....unless you count the personal comments unleashed on the unsuspecting readers of AVFTT by one of their former stalwarts.
'unleashed'....epic
exactly, by your own admission, if they then know that their client is guilty, by association with the facts, the lawyer/barrister is both lying and misleading the Court if they are protesting their clients innocence.
Not really because guilt is a state a person enters into once a jury decides. A lawyer cannot 'know' a person is guilty because in a a strictly legal sense, guilt is a binary state that exists only upon a verdict (and this is why it shouldn't be used colloquially by people when referring to public judgement). Until then they are legally innocent. If a person wants to enter a not guilty plea the state should not have the power to force them to, I'm sure the reason for this should be obvious.
Foggy, you are obviously a well read and eloquent fella, but morally and ethically that's BS. Ive dealt with enough of them over the years to know their views and how they operate.
They aren't views, it's just objective fact. This is my point with the Russell Brand debate. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a thing that only exists in the very specific theatre of the justice system. Colloquially, we know that the murderers of Lee Rigby were guilty. However in the realm of the judiciary, they were innocent until proven, and the state of guilt is only ascertained once a jury delivers it's verdict and not before.
but they do.Most defence lawyers would be redundant if they didn't.
My bringing up the Brand incident was to highlight what 'innocent until proven guilty' means. It does not refer to what we 'think' even if we think it with 100% certainty. It refers only to a legal state that does not exist without a jury/judge verdict.
Its the job of a defence barrister to protect their client, if they didn't exist what would prevent the police from drumming up additional charges for all and sundry. Checks and balances are important and just because the defendant many be gaming the system (just like Dale Creegan may have) it's isn't defence barristers fault. Let's recall the recent case of the guy who had been wrongly convicted of rape, the police had acted appallingly. I wouldn't want them to have a free reign in court without challenge, no matter what the circumstances. In your eyes would this be an arbitrary decision that people are denied a defence lawyer?
No, Shandy, I totally agree with you in 99.9% of cases, however Kalife just beggars belief as did the detritus that killed Lee Rigby
You make good points foggy and obviously some on fact, but we will have to agree to differ. Perhaps after dealing with Civil and Criminal detritus over the years I have got entrenched with my views......maybe
Excellent post!
Fair enough but if this applies to 0.1% of cases it's not an issue really to protect the principles of the criminal justice system.
