Myth #2 – the scumbag criminals

There is a widespread misconception amongst the public that criminal defence lawyers’ clients are all, well, criminals. They will happily trot out the old “innocent until proven guilty” but few actually believe that. Most think the opposite: “guilty until proven innocent” because, after all “there is no smoke without fire”. Further, even if a defendant is not guilty of the crime that they are presently being tried for, they are probably guilty of a whole heap of other stuff, so best just lock them up now and have done with it.

The baddies

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not going to argue that all of my husband’s clients are angels. Far from it. Many are out and out criminals. The kind of people most of us will never have the misfortune to come across. Like the one who threatened to hunt my husband down and slit his throat. And that was after he’d persuaded the judge to give him the drug treatment order that he wanted and needed, rather than the custodial sentence that the public would probably have preferred him to get.

Thing is, the real baddies often take his advice and plead guilty. They take his advice because they trust him. They don’t trust the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and they certainly don’t trust the police. The government and gutter press would have you believe that all criminal defence lawyers encourage their clients to plead not guilty, so that their cases go to trial and they can earn more money in the form of trial fees. Not true. The lawyer will always act in the best interests of their client, and often that will mean advising them to pleading guilty. My husband and experienced lawyers like him know when to make that call. A lawyer that is greener than the criminal he is representing (the kind of lawyer we might be left with if Chris Grayling gets his way) couldn’t do that. An inexperienced lawyer will most likely go along with whatever the mouthy criminal (who often has no idea what will work out best for him) wants to do: “I’m not gonna plead!”. Leading to a trial that is a waste of everyone’s time and taxpayers money.

The goodies

Most lawyers don’t want to spend their time defending the indefensible. They would rather get the matter dealt with and move on. Because the next case might be one where someone really needs them, one where they can make a real difference. The next case might be one where an upstanding, law abiding, member of the general public finds themselves, to put it mildly, in a spot of bother.

Initially I was surprised that we haven’t heard more from this group, those who have “legitimately”, for want of a better word, benefited from legal aid lawyers in the past. The falsely accused, the victims of police and CPS blunders. I thought that they might all rally to the Save UK Justice campaign battle cry. All over the papers shouting about how if it hadn’t been for this barrister or that solicitor and our current legal aid system they would have a criminal record and be languishing in prison. But they have been silent. Maybe (like the majority of the public) they are unaware of what is going on. My husband proffered another explanation: they just don’t want to talk about it.

If you had been charged with something horrible, something that you hadn’t done, possibly spent time in prison awaiting trial, gone to court and (eventually) been found not guilty and walked free, would you want to speak publicly about it? After you’d been stuck in a nightmare for maybe a couple of years, perhaps lost your job, your partner, access to your kids, would you really want to go to the press and have it all raked up again? Some do, but they are few. Some defendants don’t even tell their families whilst it is going on, or after it is finished. Most just want to try and rebuild their lives, try and forget it ever happened. In any case, the press lose interest when people are found not guilty. Once the drama and scandal is over they go in search of the next big thing.

The untold stories

Over the next few posts I’m going to tell you the stories of some of the clients that fit into this category. The people that we hear so little about that the public don’t even realise they exist. These people who could be any one of us. The ones who, under the proposed system, would probably be advised to plead guilty.

First up will be Exhibit A – the “child pornographer”  if you haven’t already signed the Save UK Justice e-petition please do that while I’m writing for this next post.

About these ads

9 comments

  1. Brilliant. This needs to be shared far and wide. Those people who have been successfully represented and enabled to return to their lives could be the ones who could help us continue with our lives and, hopefully, our careers too! Keep the posts coming, a sterling job!

    1. Thanks for your comment Jolyon. Tell all your chums, particularly the non-lawyer ones p.s. yours is my most favourite of boys names.

  2. charles evans · · Reply

    keep going

    ps Gerry?

    1. Thanks for your comment Charles. My next post is now up.

      ps could be ;-)

  3. Joanna · · Reply

    Please keep posting! I love your insightful and honest articles! Criminal Lawyers need to be treated better for what they do.

    1. Thanks for your comment Joanna. My next post is now up.

  4. Timandra · · Reply

    Excellent reading – keep posting.

  5. engineer · · Reply

    There needs to be a financial incentive to plead innocent– when the case is garbage. Not pressure to plead guilty. I’m talking about the people who are innocent– they should not only have an opportunity to clear their name, but a chance to see the evil people who are prosecuting them maliciously brought to justice, as well as fined for their crimes, with the results accruing to the victim.

    In any legitimate case, if a real investigation is done, an innocent person should never be charged. IF the evidence is only circumstantial, there should be no way to convict. (That there is, shows the system itself is corrupt.)

    But it is often easier to pin it on the innocent than do a real investigation, and the system being slanted towards denying people a fair trial makes this profitable.

    Remove the profit motive and you’ll get more justice.

  6. […] And of course, there’s the other side – where the Jury vote Guilty even when the evidence is slip-shoddy, because the defendant was black, or (and this is a serious actual problem) they believe anyone who the police have arrested must be guilty. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 164 other followers

%d bloggers like this: