Thread by @phatsilk_qc, Being a criminal defence barrister - a guide for the uninitiated.1. If [...]

Being a criminal defence barrister - a guide for the uninitiated.
1. If you are determined to demonise those who defend, none of this will change your view. You are not interested in logic or reason.
2. If you aren’t, may I offer up some thoughts about what I do and why

3. I believe with all my being in a system of fair and open justice, where each and every participant is treated fairly, with dignity, and respect.
4. I cannot force the Government to fund the system adequately to ensure this happens. I do my best with what’s there.

5. I am not alone - all colleagues in the Criminal Justice System (CJS) do the same.
6. I work in an “adversarial” system of justice, which I believe is the fairest system most likely to expose both truth and lies. I am an unwavering supporter of juries.

7. The adversarial system is based on the core idea that, in a trial, the two sides are responsible for the evidence they rely upon and the present their cases and their arguments to a judge and (in the Crown Court) a jury. The judge decides law and maintains a fair trial

The jury APPLY the law as directed by the judge to the facts as they find them to be. A guiding principle of our system is that we only want criminal convictions (and the consequences from them) if a jury are sure of guilt. Nothing less will do. Juries apply this test

Day in and day out in all our courts; sometimes they convict, sometimes they acquit. For every person who has an anecdote about a jury not working properly, I have heard a dozen where they have. It is a further core principle that they try the case in the evidence in court

This is an essential safeguard. Juries hear detailed evidence over days and, sometimes weeks. The have to put their emotions and prejudices to one side and look at what is ACTUALLY demonstrated to be true and what is mere speculation. During a trial jury members usually take

Copious notes and it is not uncommon for notes to be sent to the judge asking questions which, if relevant, are put to witnesses or the lawyers. The judge must ensure that the jury only receive relevant evidence and are not allowed to speculate. It is fallacy to believe that

Judges rush to hide relevant material from juries. If anything, the usual complaint is that judges are less robust than they should be in denying the prosecution the ability to present material to a jury. What of the advocates?

Each side instructs advocates of their choosing. Each has a professional duty to present their client’s case fearlessly and without concern for their person views, SUBJECT to a duty never to behave in a dishonest or unprofessional way or deliberately to lie to the court.

As a defence advocate this means that I am obliged to use what few skills I possess to ensure that my client plays their full part in the trial, to ensure that their voice is heard, their case put fully before the jury and that the trial is conducted fairly.

The prosecution lawyer has the same responsibility for their client - which is the state. Each side also looks after the welfare of its own witnesses. So, my job is to do what my client (or any of us) would do if involved in a trial and they had the skills of an advocate.

So, the question is, if YOU were on trial and you had my skills what would you want to ensure? If you deny the offence you would expect to question, test and challenge every single witness who helps the prosecution to say you’re guilty, wouldn’t you? You would want to challenge

Any behaviour by the prosecution or investigators which broke the rules which apply to fair investigations and trials. You would expect to try and undermine the case strategy of the skilled prosecutor (backed up by the resources of the state) who is trying to prove your guilt

and you would want to ensure that you had a sound and persuasive strategy yourself. You would want to be able to tell your side of the story as clearly as you could and call such witnesses as you needed to l, for them give their evidence clearly and, finally, you would want to

Make your final submissions to the jury as clearly and persuasively as you can. If you have had a fair trial and are then convicted then the one thing you CANNOT say is that you were only convicted because the system is unfair. If you are guilty you have to face up to that

However -if the system has let you down, if something went wrong, you would want to be able to identify what went wrong, articulate it and draft your grounds of appeal. If, which is difficult, you get permission to appeal then you have 3 senior Court of Appeal judges to convince

Well, if you could do all that then you are in the tiny percentage of people who come before the criminal courts who can. Legal knowledge, strategic ability and advocacy skills are not given at birth. They require training and dedication. Those who practice them spend hours

Preparing their cases, often going further than they have to for the fee they are being paid -why? Because we believe in a system where that vast overwhelming majority of people who DON’T have those skills are not disadvantaged, subject to injustice and lives Improperly ruined.

That system only works we let those judging do their task and we focus on doing our role to the best of our ability. The system also depends on the prosecution being similarly represented (again something over which I have no control).

I do not pre-Judge my clients’ cases. I have had too many cases where something has emerged during the evidence to show that my first instinct was wrong. In any event, that is not my role. It is my role to permit every defendant, however unattractive the allegation or they are

The same rights as I have set out in this (far too long) thread. If convicted fairly then I know that I have done everything reasonably possible for them And they can have no justifiable complaint. Those who carp from the sidelines can say what they like but don’t pretend

To possess the moral high ground. Ensuring rights for everyone, however uncivilised, is the mark of a civilised country. It requires integrity and courage. I am proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with my colleagues Who believe this. One day, you may be grateful for us!

Apologies for typos and errors. One day twitter will install an “edit” button...

Latest Threads Unrolled: