Safe Speed Forums

Erm... sorry? Are you suggesting that anyone who actually commits a crime should receive no representation?

_________________
Carl Prescott

No, just that they should find another lawyer who does not know they are guilty. In your post you use the word "representation". This is absolutely OK. I used the expression "defend" to imply the process of obtaining a not guilty verdict as opposed to pleading mitigation.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I've never heard that before, but even if it is true it makes little or no practical sense.

For example, let's say that someone is up for speeding but (say) the witness statement from the prosecution hasn't been signed, or some such procedural error.

The whole point of the procedures surrounding such things is to prove things to a sufficient criminal standard. Without the procedure being followed there is no longer proof beyond reasonable doubt and therefore guilt cannot be ascertained to a legally acceptable standard.

So in this situation, if the defence advocate is aware of such a flaw in the evidence, what conclusion should he draw as to the guilt of the accused? He knows that the evidence is insufficient to satisfy a court of guilt, surely he can only make the same presumption and therefore defend a Not Guilty plea?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

The only conspiracy to pervert the course of justice that I see is the chilling effect the police have put on your legal system. A defendant will no longer trust going to his solicitor for honest legal advice because he'll be afraid the police will be listening in or grab the solicitor's notebook in the next raid. That's exactly the effect the cops seem to be after here.

It's the basis for the "attorney client privilege." I thought we learned that bit from the UK?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney/client_privilege

Even the guilty are entitled to representation in court. The plea of "not guilty" does not mean the client is innocent, it means that it's up to the government to prove it.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Indeed. If it were otherwise then anyone pleading NG but found guilty would also inherently be guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Mind you, if this lot keep going the way they are then it could end up that way. Puts me in mind of Blackadder goes forth!...

Darling:
May it please the court, as this is clearly an open and shut case, I beg leave to bring a privete prosecution against the defence council for wasting the court's time.

Melchett:
Granted. Council, he is fined fifty pounds for turning up. This is fun! This is just like a real court...

...etc...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I agree entirely with this. The lawyer knows from his examination of the evidence and procedures that his client is not guilty and thus he can defend him.

In the event that, having examined everything and found there to be a valid case and the client admitting the action in question, is the lawyer then obliged to advise the client to plead guilty and then represent him in mitigation? Or is it reasonable for the lawyer to effectively say "let's take a chance that they can't prove it"?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I would say it is the job of the lawyer to represent the wishes of the client. Clearly if he can see no chink in the case against him you would expect him to advise a guilty plea, but ultimately if the client wishes to plead NG then his job is to defend him, surely? As for his own beliefs or conclusions about the client's guilt, I was always under the impression that his job was to set this aside and act as advocate, and leave the decision making to the court. Quite apart from anything else, his own beliefs might be wrong.

And in any case, no matter how strong the evidence against him, can he ever rule out the possibility that the client might actually be innocent? That his own testimony might introduce reasonable doubt in court, after which there should be no possible outcome other than a verdict of Not Guilty?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I do ... some think they are more equal than others ... but Revolutions have been known to eat their own children before now..

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

A court ist supposed to be objective und decide purely on the evidence put before it. It the defence lawyer finds a chink in that evidence - then he ist honour bound byt virtue of membership of Law Society (which ist to Lawyers what the Football Association, General Medical Council und British Medical Association und General Teachers Council CIMA/ACA/ACCA, etc are to other profesional bodies und if the lawyer does not mediate, cast the doubt of guilty beyond reasoned doubt. or seek to mitigate outcome if client plead guitly... then he get into rouble with the professional ethics und standards body.. like every other professional does...

A lawyer who argues a case should not then be arrested und accused of perverting courses of justice just because he argued the case so well that the CPS had gto concede defeat und courts acquit.

To go along this line .. make kangaroo courts... the same as Hitler/Stalin/Stasis courts seem to have... und ist not justice.

After all .. they took us to war recently because the Iraqi dictatorship was conducting the legal system in pretty much the same way ... (after it was proven that the other widely propanded reason was found to be a )

Plus ça change

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

A solicitor or barrister is an officer of the court, not simply a lawyer. Professional ethics (should) prevent a lawyer from representing a client on a 'not guilty' plea on the grounds that he did not commit the offence if the client has admitted to the lawyer that he did commit the offence. It doesn't prevent him from representing him on a guilty plea or on a not guilty plea on other grounds.

What this boils down to is Acpo (a private company) looking after their own interests.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Reported in the Daily Mail today is that the circumstances of Freeman's (appropriate name, huh) case is that he declared in court that his client had not received a NIP but it was later found that he had, indeed, received one. I guess that this will revolve around if he knew that he was lying in court.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Quite... the client may not have disclosed this NIP to him or declared to him that he had not received one.

He can probably argue that he genuinely believed the client when the client declared in a witness statement to him - which this client will have signed as being true.

They may find this difficult to prove und it smells very much of an attempt to discredit this lawyer just because he can "outsass" them in court.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

In a nutshell: when did lawyers become judge and jury?

But everyone has a right to a legally qualified person speaking on their behalf .. to mitigate, argue for a reduced sentence, commute a death sentence to a penal custodial one.. und even if all evidence suggests person ist guilty - yet still insists they are innocent .. then to look at the evidence against und look for something to cast a doubt in mind of judge/juror. That ist the job.

Also .. in the case of the cot death mamas - whereby the child died of natural cause - but a so-called "expert witness" proclaimed otherwise - lawyer und family still worked to find evidence to counter the original evidence .. und justice eventually prevailed - und to add insult to injury - even then they refuse adequate compensation for this wrongful accusation to those families.

But on the evidence as originally presented .. it seemed clear cut cases.

So then .. all not quite as it appear .. und why to no person should we deny justice or a defence lawyer.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

I refer my honourable friends to the answer I gave earlier - and to Observer's post below which clarifies my point beautifully.



I too think this is a case of intimidation by the "Gestapo". I suspect that Mr Freeman is not easily intimidated.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Serious matter if true but, imo, there's absolutely zero chance that Freeman would lie about that. He wouldn't risk his career to get a client off a poxy speeding ticket. I'd be very surprised if he didn't push his client hard on the truthfulness of such an assertion and, if he had any doubt that his client was not telling the truth, he would have refused to defend him on that basis. At the same time, if he was satisfied that his client was telling the truth, he would have fought tooth and nail to defend him because non-service of a NIP within 14 days is (in law) absolutely fatal to a speeding case (and exactly the type of technicality that Freeman is renowned for winning on), even though the police/partnerships try to con joe public into believing that it's not. That is PTCOJ, but they're never picked up on it.

Of course, this all depends on whether the CLIENT has been arrested previously and has CONFESSED that he had received the NIP and had told his solicitor that he had. It is difficult to imagine any other situation in which the police would search a solicitors premises. Of course, in such a case (collusion and perverting justice) they would be justified in witholding legal representation during their questioning.

It says in the paper that the lawyer claimed that his client had not been served with a NIP ahead of the case. Later enquiries seemed to reveal that the client had been served with these papers.. but the question remains as to when the person received them.. and the date or post mark on the envelope will matter.

I rather think his client told him he had not received these papers and did not produce them.. in which case he will have attacked the case on the basis of the lack of NIP within required date. This is hardly perverting the course of justice..

Had the client produced the NIP - then Freeman would have looked for some other evidence to mitigate or advised the person to accept fact he was copped speeding.

As Observer points out.. too many do not realise the 14 day period and pay up on the basis of the menacing tones of these letters - which themselves pervert the course of justice.. and let's look at the Manchester case of the speed camera placed in the wrong speed limit zone, M4 fiasco, Folly Bottom, the speed cam in Humberside which nicked everyone for travelling at 84 mph regardless of speed (only came to light because some geezer set his cruise control and speed recorded was identical on each occasion he received a NIP.. as was everyone else's

(Bogey-brush - bless 'im - he has his uses had the link on his website when it came to light in 2003 - so I am told by one of the Swiss mob.)

There are countless others .. but hey .. most pay up and shut up without question. The ones who are pinged and don't pay? Half of them do not have a licence.. stole the car or bought a throw away and never registered it.. .. and these are the ones who cause the crashes and maim and kill...

I do doubt if Freeman did not do the homework on this and it does smell fishy considering he has a reputation of finding each and every loophole to get the best outcome for his clients. A smear campaign .. I fear.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.