Skip to main content

Stockholm Syndrome

Sometimes I get little theories in my head; this is one of them.

For those of you who haven’t heard of it (there maybe somebody), Stockholm Syndrome is the phenomenon whereby captives form an attachment to their captors.  The phrase first appeared following the Norrmalmstorg robbery when bank employees were held hostage and later refused help from the authorities and defended their captors in public.

Those of us to work with suspects and defendants often see a fledging state of Stockholm Syndrome taking hold of some of our clients.  It usually happens with clients who are new, or relatively new, to the system and particularly among those who would not normally expect to be involved with the Criminal Justice System.

I recall one client who was accused of a number of very serious sexual offences.  I have no doubt that he was innocent and, after hearing evidence from his accusers and from him the jury rejected the evidence against him completely.  He was held by the police for a number of weeks because he became ill in custody and so was under police guard at hospital until he was fit to return to the police station.  Afterwards he was put in prison to await trial.  He was terrified by everything.  The thing I remember about him most was that he was really upset that the police thought he was a rapist and a paedophile.  He wanted them to like him.  He was desperate to be liked by the people who had power and control over him.  They hated him.

In more normal police station cases (the sort that last less than 24-hours) you see certain types of client who will take your advice, usually to answer no comment, but then ask “how will the police react?”  They genuinely feel the need not to upset the officers.  I don’t think this is fear that they’ll be beaten up or kept locked up any longer than necessary.

As well as my other work, I run a drink drivingsolicitors firm in London.  Something that surprised me when I moved into that specialisation was the pressure felt by defendants in court.  When I am with a client in a court room the problem is easily manageable.  But, the problem often arises where clients decide to attend a first appearance by themselves to enter a not guilty plea in the misguided belief that it will save them money (it won’t because the first appearance is a quick hearing and doesn’t take much solicitor time, the majority of work is done in preparation for the trial).

Thankfully only a few clients chose to go it alone at the first appearance, but the typical pattern I find is the client speaks to me saying he’s been accused of drink driving.  He says he wasn’t the driver or whatever, but says he wants to attend court alone at first.  I make it clear this is a bad idea but tell him what he should do.  After the hearing I call the client and discover that the client pled guilty.  Usually the reason given is along the lines of “the clerk said I didn’t have a defence”.  I have little doubt that the real reason is a loss of confidence and an underlying desire to take the path of least resistance – in effect to get on with the court staff and magistrates.


The moral of the story is that whether somebody is facing a criminal allegation, whether it is drink driving or something more serious, that person is in a very vulnerable position when they step into a police station or a courtroom.  Anybody who is accused of a crime should take legal advice from a qualified solicitor.  The prosecution will always be prepared by a lawyer and represented by somebody who has been trained to present the prosecution’s case.  Why would anybody not want to have a solicitor on their side?

Comments

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…