Hints and tips

Once in a while I will be providing useful hints and tips as and when something occurs to me.

Today I have a hint and a tip for defendants in criminal trials.

Hint - Your lawyer knows more about both the law and your case than your friends.
Tip - If you listen to your friends advice over that of your lawyer then expect to end up in prison!

This week I have been conducting a trial at a Crown Court.  For reasons that are beyond me, yesterday the defendant showed up with a friend who insisted that she a) refuse to give evidence in her own defence; and b) call a particular witness.

This causes problems.  First, the defendant declined a solicitor when interviewed by the police and made some damaging remarks that she now needs to explain - clearly she cannot do that without giving evidence.  Secondly, the witness the friend insists is called gave a statement that says the defendant is guilty!

Thankfully, I gave the client my hint and tip last night and this morning she showed up without the friend and ready to listen to sense.

Comments

  1. Oi3 November 2010 at 21:11

    Uh-Huh.
    So now you have convinced her that telling the truth to the cops was a mistake.
    I guess now a few adjournments before being found guilty anyway, will help you pay the office rent - shame about the cost to the country though.....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4 November 2010 at 10:03

    Surely whether you go to prison or not depends upon whether you committed the offence? NOT who you listened to for advice? I think you have given the game away. Just advise them to tell the truth, strange concept as it may seem to you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Defence Brief4 November 2010 at 11:33

    No, as in most jurisdictions our criminal courts operate on an adversarial basis. That means that each side puts forward their case according to their instructions.

    In my case, the defendant's instructions were that she was not guilty. She now states that she was confused in interview and was talking about events that happened outside the scene not at the scene - in this case it makes a big difference. Also, the witness is one whose details were provided to the police (in fact the witness is a police employee working in a local custody suite) but the officers decided not to take a witness statement from her.

    You (and the jury) may or may not believe the defendant's current instructions, but I would be worried about anybody who thinks that she should be deprived of the right to put forward her version of events.

    Because we operate an adversarial process each side must pick what evidence it uses. Just as we decided not to use the witness who was damaging to us, the Crown decided that one of their witnesses was damaging to them and chose not to use that witness.

    I am not allowed to advise a client to lie and I would not do so. However, as long as we have an adversarial system lawyers from both sides will have to take tactical decisions about the presentation of their case.

    If you don't like the system then maybe you should propose an alternative system that could work and provide justice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Defence Brief4 November 2010 at 14:10

    Oi, I meant to ask how you know that she was telling the truth to the police during interview? I certainly don't know if she was telling the truth then or now or at neither point. Criminal trials in the Crown Court have juries to decide points just like that. It's their job to decide who is telling the truth, not mine, the prosecutor's, the police or the judge's.

    If you would like to start a petition to have me appointed as ultimate arbiter in all disputes then I would be happy to accept the position... although would you really want to live in a medieval society where one man can decide the fate of anybody in his kingdom... which seems to be the ultimate end to your plans for me to pass judgment on all those I meet.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous4 November 2010 at 20:40

    'you should propose an alternative system'

    OK, try this for size:

    Advise them to tell the truth.

    Everything else is smoke and mirrors, and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tom (iow)4 November 2010 at 22:03

    So he/she advises the defendant to tell the truth. Defendant says they are innocent. We're back where we started aren't we?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous5 November 2010 at 08:59

    But he knows her friend wants to say she did it in court............. and he advises her not to let this happen.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous5 November 2010 at 21:53

    gadget is correct as usual....

    some simple advice of "tell them what happened" seems to be appropriate.....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tom (iow)6 November 2010 at 17:25

    But it is obvious that this statement (not from a friend if you read it again) is claimed to be incorrect, so you want them to admit evidence they think is incorrect, and then try to explain it. Why should the defendant have to do that? They are presumed innocent.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Defence Brief6 November 2010 at 21:42

    And as I said, the police were given this witnesses details from the start and she was easy to find working as she did in a police custody suite. But, the police chose not to do their jobs (fancy that). So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't ride to your rescue Gadget.

    Anon, my advice to her was almost word for word "tell them what happened" funnily enough she didn't tell the jury the same story as the witness.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous9 February 2011 at 08:49

    'the police chose not to do their jobs (fancy that)'

    but she was obviously charged, so someone met a CPS evidence threshold didn't they! Oh wait, that would have been a police officer.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Defence Brief9 February 2011 at 16:30

    So they did part of their job and just didn't bother to do the rest... brilliant.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are items referred to in s.9’s as exhibits bound to be served?

  Background - CPS served a witness statement on me that exhibited two BWV clips that are potentially relevant to the Crown’s case and may have some relevance to the defence case insofar as they are likely to show the lighting and weather at the time events happened. Somebody has listed the clips as unused material rather than putting them in the exhibits folder that accompanies the served evidence. This raised an interesting (to me anyway) question about whether a party who exhibits an item in a statement is bound to serve it on their opponent. At court the judge took the view that the Crown were at liberty to classify items exhibited in s9s as unused material if they chose not to rely upon them in evidence. I took the view that if they are exhibited then they must be served along with the witness statement that exhibits the item and that the solution to a situation where the Crown say they are now unused is to edit the witness statement to remove the reference, by agreement with ...
More gibberish >>

Is there twice as much violent crime in the UK versus the USA?

Image
The tweet from Charlie Kirk I came across a screenshot of a Twitter post while on Facebook this morning. The original post now has 11,000 retweets and 23,000 likes on Twitter. As you can see from the picture somebody called Charlie Kirk, who is a right-wing American commentator, claims that there are 933 violent crimes in the UK per 100,000 people. This is more than double the rate he claims for the USA where he says there are only 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The UK doesn’t feel that violent to me, so is it true? We’re all gonna die According to the FBI, in 2016 there were 1,248,185 violent crimes committed across the whole of the USA. That is an increase of 4.1% on the 2015 figure but still represented only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people . So, Mr Kirk appears to be slightly overestimating the violent crime in the USA. I should say that I am using the 2016 figures as those are the latest available on the FBI website, so maybe he has slightly differe...
More gibberish >>

Driving without insurance

Image
Insurance is a contract that remains in force until it expires or is cancelled As you may, or may not, know I specialise in motoring law and most of my work involves defending people accused of drink driving . With the drink driving often come other road traffic offences such as driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. It’s driving without insurance I want to talk about today because I think far too many police officers, solicitors, barristers and judges miss a key legal point when looking at these cases. I’ve received prosecution papers today for somebody accused of driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. The no insurance element is claim that the suspect did not tell the insurer about the disqualification. In his statement, the police officers says, “ [I] contacted [the insurer] who called me back informing me they would not consider the insurance policy valid as there were no convictions disclosed.” Looks like an open an...
More gibberish >>