Criminal Justice I'm obviously talking about that programme that was on our screens a couple of weeks ago.
Criminal Justice or so they called it, apparently written by an ex barrister so some of it is factually correct was probably a helpful if not dramatic insight to the criminal justice system. I'm not a criminal geek however my mini-pupillage was obviously well worth it as I was nodding vigiorously in some places agreeing with applications to excluse evidence under PACE, saying oh this is very real etc.
Also you really felt for a guy who was of good character and had no understanding of how they cirminal justice system works, being thrown in at the vast deep end, being a murder suspect, being told to do this and that by various senior people. Most notably the woman QC, wow what a bitch. As I have never seen a QC in action I have no idea how mean they can be, is this an accurate reflection? Perhaps we should ask Myerson QC. Whatever was quite accurate was how that it could all of a sudden be very serious then the judge would say "lunch?". No no no cannot be sitting past 1 o clock for it is lunch time!
I then found myself in a bit of a shitter, it was quite obvious that on the initial evidence that he did it. So if you were the prosecution and were slamming his face into the puddle of mud which would eventually become his prison cell, would you then later feel guilty if he were found out to be innocent? Personal ethics come in here, would I want to get someone off who is obviously guilty or would I want to prosecute someone who is innocent? You do your job to the best of your ability, however I'm not sure how you can remain detached unless you want to turn into that QC.
Also you really felt for a guy who was of good character and had no understanding of how they cirminal justice system works, being thrown in at the vast deep end, being a murder suspect, being told to do this and that by various senior people. Most notably the woman QC, wow what a bitch. As I have never seen a QC in action I have no idea how mean they can be, is this an accurate reflection? Perhaps we should ask Myerson QC. Whatever was quite accurate was how that it could all of a sudden be very serious then the judge would say "lunch?". No no no cannot be sitting past 1 o clock for it is lunch time!
I then found myself in a bit of a shitter, it was quite obvious that on the initial evidence that he did it. So if you were the prosecution and were slamming his face into the puddle of mud which would eventually become his prison cell, would you then later feel guilty if he were found out to be innocent? Personal ethics come in here, would I want to get someone off who is obviously guilty or would I want to prosecute someone who is innocent? You do your job to the best of your ability, however I'm not sure how you can remain detached unless you want to turn into that QC.
6 comments:
A very nice analysis, LLLS, but I beg to disagree with you regarding this programme, which I unfortunately regard as fetid nonsense, which is a shame since the guy who wrote it also wrote the stunningly excellent 'North Square'. Perhaps its me - I cannot STAND the uncertainty of the criminal justice system, and applaud those who make their living within it - but the whole thing was too airy fairy and too up in the air for my tastes. It started well, but then degenerated into such sensationalism as to prompt Tim Dutton to issue a press release stating " Barristers are not at ALL like this"
Thats the problem with legal dramas- as with anything to do with the professions ( Casualty, Holby City, etc)-ya have to bend the truth in the name of Drama to keep Joe Public Interested......
Ah well i thought it was entertaining ! But I was at home with the family then so it was considered quality time with family if we all sat down nd watched it.
Obviously not all barristers are like that, most seem like genuinely nice people however, my only real dilemma was if I were to prosecute and send down someone who I thought was innocent... ah well who wants morals when you can have money as a supplement!
To be honest with you, and as cruel as this sounds, were I prosecuting, I dont think I would give issues of innocence much of a second thought, since the job at hand is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
However were I DEFENDING, and believed my client was wholly innocent, that, for me, would be a nightmare of Bibilical proportions.....
I'm too afraid to watch this thing, in case I get addicted. :)
In relation to prosecuting the innocent... The role of the prosecutors in the UK is not to secure a conviction, but to establish the truth (although, in real life some people forget that), so if the defendant is innocent, and if you are doing a good job,then in an ideal world he should get acquitted... Or something... :)
The trouble with thinking is that it hurts.
... although this could just be me.
By and large prosecutors and defence barristers can only really go on the evidence they have in front of them (normally a fairly substantial burden to disclose material facts), which is precisely what the jury have. There's not much scope to feel guilty I gather LLLS.
This is what I am told, inevitably it will turn out to be crackers but I'm hedging my career on it being so!
Ah so you want to be a criminal barrister too? Poor sod, I dont know why we do it, however seems to be you, BarorBust, and myself included in not making a fortunate at the other general common law sets.
What I noticed on my mini- was the amount of evidence that was excluded before the jury were sworn in was quite vast, though could have actually been very incriminating, ah well who am I to say that voir dires, should not be allowed..
Post a Comment