None taken - nothing like a good generalisation, is there?

If the Police can't get their ducks in a row and meet the evidential burden on them, that's their problem - despite this government's best efforts, an individual is still innocent until proven guilty. If evidence to substantiate a charge is deemed inadmissible, or the prosecution has not complied with its procedural obligations, the charge should rightly be dismissed.

Any solicitor who did not take advantage of that kind of procedural irregularity would be failing to be acting in their client's best interests and, at least in theory, open to a negligence claim.

 

[QUOTE=reg,Oct 31 2006, 12:04 PM] Don

 

Exactly - if the 'loophole' is there, it's up to the law-makers to close it, if the evidence is not sufficient it's up the the law enforcers to gather it more effectively and if the case isn't watertight, it's up to the CPS to make it that way.

People are always very quick to judge when it comes to this kind of thing, but if it was you facing the loss of your licence and an 'immoral' barrister suggested you might be spared the loss if he acted on your behalf and exploited a situation he knew would get you off - what would you do?

 

I am not saying the legal profession is anything other than what it states on the tin. There has to be a defence of someone who is in the wrong and it is my belief rightly or wrongly that the lawyers involved would know that their client is in the right or wrong. For the lawyer representing the party in the 'wrong' this by definition is immoral no? I don

 

No!

1. Even someone who is guilty as sin is entitled to a defence.

2. A lawyer cannot represent someone whom he KNOWS (as in, the client has admitted it) is guilty. It his instructions are to enter a not guilty plea when he knows that the proper plea should be guilty on the basis of the client having told him that he did it, he should recuse himself and refuse to accept further instructions.

(Of course, the obvious answer to that is just not ask the question in th first place if you don't want to hear something that makes you have to drop the case.....)

3. You don't even get as far as considering whether someone is guilty or not guilty of an offence if the prosecution fails to jump through the relevant procedural hoops and adduce evidence sufficient to prove its case.

I understand your point of view, even if I don't accept it. What I particularly don't agree with is your use of the word "immoral".

(FWIW, I'm a commercial lawyer so don't have to wrestle with this kind of question.)

 

I guess that