Not sure you are getting this.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Client says to barrister "I don't think I am guilty because of x"
Barrister says to Court "My client's case is that they aren't guilty because of x"
Printable View
Not sure you are getting this.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Client says to barrister "I don't think I am guilty because of x"
Barrister says to Court "My client's case is that they aren't guilty because of x"
I don't want anyone to think I'm arguing against everyone on here, but the lawyer might have lost his case simply because he wasn't persuasive enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by MKHIBEE
I can't work out whether you're pretending not to understand this (as I suspect Sultana is doing) or whether you just need to read up on a defence barrister's role.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Sounds like a very honourable profession.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think it's perhaps that fairly late in life I'm realising that people are paid enormous sums to argue that black is white. Hope they sleep well at night.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Without that process, most people would have to go to Court without legal representation.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
This is how the law works. Its all in rhetoric. The lawyer lays out their clients case not their own thoughts or positions on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Or perhaps he didn’t lie enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
What happens if the client is guilty but pleads not guilty?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
They're not guilty until the Court decides. It's part of the defence's job to make sure the process is correctly applied to their client.Quote:
Originally Posted by MKHIBEE
A quick AI summary:-
A barrister can represent a client who has admitted guilt but insists on pleading not guilty. However, the barrister cannot present a positive case for the client's innocence if they know the client is guilty. They can still argue for mitigating circumstances to potentially reduce the sentence.
In any fair democratic legal system both parties in the trial get a strong defence on what they want put up. If a lawyer said no i don't believe you, one they would correctly be disciplined and two open up the nation to gross miscarriages of justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by MKHIBEE
I can't believe im defending people's right to a strong and unbiased defence, but here we are
I'd agree with that haQuote:
Originally Posted by MKHIBEE
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by MKHIBEE
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
What if his client committed the crime but pleads not guilty?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
See my post above.Quote:
Originally Posted by MKHIBEE
It's up to the court then to prove his guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by MKHIBEE
Have you never watched any court room dramas or followed real life cases? It's not perfect and the law "is an ass" but the alternatives are way worse.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
We could save a lot of money on senseless trials by just having defence lawyers decide if someone is guilty or not. **** it, let's have them decide on sentencing while we're at it.
Am I doing this right? :greengrin
I have followed live cases and watched tv. My comments were slightly tongue in cheek.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Well that was a complete waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by MKHIBEE
I hope your tongue and your cheek are happy.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
VeryQuote:
Originally Posted by Kato
New YouGov poll out and it aint looking good.
https://x.com/search?q=yougov&src=typed_query&f=top
Sir Starmer u-turn number 271 PM set to announce welfare climbdown in deal with Labour rebels - BBC News
up the Rebs
So Labour have decided not to go through with their proposed cuts - thats a good thing right? And shows that a) the party itself still has a real voice and b) Starmer actually listens, for self preservation or not, which can only be positive?
He'd have faced a confidence vote if he hadn't compromised.Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
He's changed tack now on winter fuel payments, grooming gangs enquiry and benefits. All in the space of a few weeks. Not a great look. I actually have some sympathy with what he's trying to do as the benefits system is out of control.
Bottom line, it all plays into Reform's hands.
Whoever is elected in Scotland 2026 is going to face a similar challenge and make some tough decisions on benefits. It's going up significantly in Scotland with spending on devolved social security benefits expected to increase from £6.9bn in 2025–26 to £9.4bn in 2030–31. It's going to be an issue for someone as it's unsustainable.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I actually feel quite sorry for him on the benefit system front as well, obviously anyone unable to work or struggling should get help, but the UK seems to be a complete outlier in regards to people who can work but for whatever reason have slipped through the net, seems like it's been easier to throw money at them instead of addressing the issues and helping them, hopefully they are putting plans in place to help these people back into work or give them the training and support they need which will in turn help with the benefit bill, none of it will happen quickly thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
What about the spending on tax breaks for rich people? Seems unsustainable and not conducive to a healthy society. Not to mention the growing rate of disparity not being healthy for a countries security.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
Why not cut some of those benefits?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
That should be part of the discussion and looked at yes as well as some kind of reform of benefits. Both may be able to balance each other off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato