Skip to main content

Hints & tips number 5

To tell the truth, I've lost count of how many hints and tips I've done, so this could be number 5 or 3 or 4 or 6... I just don't know.

The theme of this tip is to TELL YOUR SOLICITOR WHAT OUTCOME YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE.  I always ask clients what they want and they usually look at me like I'm some kind of idiot who can't work out that they just want to a. get off; or b. get out of prison.

Quite often people mistake me for their doctor and tell me lies.  Now that's fine if you're trying to convince a doctor that your smokers cough is nothing to do with your 40 a day habit.  But, if you want to get out of the cells then there's no point in lying to me.

I was court duty yesterday and after several loooooong hours I finally got a client.  He was in for a minor shoplifting, but with 120+ previous convictions the likelihood his being released were very slim.  A fact I made crystal clear.  He instructed me that he has alcohol problems and was desperate for help from probation to sort himself out.  "Fine," says I.  "But, you understand the court will order a pre-sentence report and the chances are it'll be with you in prison?"  He said he understood.

In court, low and behold the judge orders the PSR within the punter remanded despite my most eloquent re-iteration of the defendant's promise not to commit any more offences and to turn up next time.  Amusingly, he had told me to ask the judge to give him just one chance to prove himself.  I made clear I wasn't going to do that as retort from the judge would have been, "Mr Defence Brief, if I release him this would be the defendant's 127th chance".

When I see the punter in the cells after the hearing he's furious.  It seems that his real objective was to be released as quickly as possible.  He is no longer interested in getting any help for his drink problem and is angry that I didn't just ask for him to be sentenced to prison today.  As I explained, if he told me he just wanted to be out ASAP then I'd done that - it's actually easier than arguing for a PSR with somebody who's been to prison so many times before for the same thing.

So, the moral of the story is this.  I'm not a doctor who is going to tell you to stop drinking or smoking.  If you want a particular outcome then tell me the truth about what you want and I'll tell you either how to get it or to stop wasting your time because it'll never happen.

I'm there to help, but if you don't tell me what you want then you'll never get what you want.


  1. But aren't most crims not the sharpest tools in the box so to expect any thinking skills apart from how to get the next hit, drink or bit of bling is unlikely.

  2. This reminds me of a client my (then) firm had, way back when I was a trainee. He had NFA and was an alcoholic, and was frerqently arrested for shoplifting, criminal damage etc.
    He sacked us after my principal took him at his word and tried to persaude the custody sergeant to bail him (and, which was the unforgivable part)did so sucessfully. apparently the client had in fact wanted to stay in overnight, where he would at least get meals. My Principal had started out thinking that what was he wanted, but felt he could not go against such very clear instructions...


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…