False claims about peoples character in court

[yorkie]

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/NEWS/117...or_bottle_attack_that_severed_man___s_artery/

Pub thug jailed for bottle attack that severed man’s artery

Isaac Edward Green, 19, rushed out of the Castle Howard Ox in The Groves on June 1 and used two bottles to hit the victims, said Peter Sabiston, prosecuting...

Mr Dunn said Green accepted that what he did was wrong.

He behaved out of character...

Nope, not out of character, he's known for being bigoted, homophobic, offensive, rude, aggressive (e.g. punching people in the face, twisting girls nipples etc) and generally obnoxious.

When you read that someone is behaving "out of character" or similar, it more often than not appears to be a false claim, and is in fact, totally within their character.

This is just one example out of many that I've seen.

Presumably taxpayers foot the bill for people like Chris Dunn to represent this individual and make false claims to the Court about how their defendants are really nice people, when the reality is about as far from the truth as you can get. Nice to know our money is being well spent :roll:

 

[deltic1989]

To be fair you could go into a solicitors firm, and into Parliament, and have the same chance of finding an honest man.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Presumably taxpayers foot the bill for people like Chris Dunn to represent this individual and make false claims to the Court about how their defendants are really nice people, when the reality is about as far from the truth as you can get. Nice to know our money is being well spent :roll:

That's not what happens though.

The barrister is paid to present the Defendant's case to the best of his ability. The barrister must not lie to the Court but it is not the barrister's job to act as judge. He presents the mitigation on behalf of the Defendant- "I done it but I didn't mean to, I'm a good bloke, honest guv"- and it is for the judge (and jury, if appropriate) to decide whether they consider it relevant or accurate. The judge will weigh up all the evidence- the Probation reports, the previous convictions list, the defence's mitigation- and decide what the appropriate penalty is.

I do a similar job in tribunals. It's not my job to decide if my client is guilty or innocent, it is the panel's job to decide that. It's not my job to decide if my client was acting out of character or was finally caught out, it's the panel's job to decide that. I'll always strongly advise my clients to own up to wrongdoing, but if they are adamant they are innocent then it's my job to help them make that case.

It's a real shame you've chosen to have a go at a barrister/solicitor who is a) just doing his job and b) will probably be working for the prosecution this time next week.

I'm sure the defendant is a nasty piece of work who should have the book thrown at him, but it's the judge's job to make that call, not the defence lawyer.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Nope, not out of character, he's known for being bigoted, homophobic, offensive, rude, aggressive (e.g. punching people in the face, twisting girls nipples etc) and generally obnoxious.

When you read that someone is behaving "out of character" or similar, it more often than not appears to be a false claim, and is in fact, totally within their character.

This is just one example out of many that I've seen.

Presumably taxpayers foot the bill for people like Chris Dunn to represent this individual and make false claims to the Court about how their defendants are really nice people, when the reality is about as far from the truth as you can get. Nice to know our money is being well spent :roll:

At the end of the day though:

1 - Everybody deserves the ability to defend themselves. If they cannot afford it then the tax payer funding the representation is only right. After all it could be me or you who is accused of something next week.

2 - In cases where the person in question has committed horrible acts, it still may be "out of character". Mental illness comes to mind here. For example elderly people with dementia often become very aggressive at certain things, even if normally they are calm and wouldn't dream of being aggressive.

Based on what you have mentioned about this case, I would probably agree that in this case it is a ridiculous comment. However I will always stand by the right for someone to have a legal defense (even in the case of the scumbag who assaulted me a couple of years ago).

 

[DarloRich]

You are wasting your time making a rational argument. The OP is obsessed with this kind of thing and has blind spot in this regard. His view is that the court system is joke, all legal people involved are evil liars and that the people before them should be, almost without fail, be strung up by the goolies.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It's funny how the OP's consistent opinion on this subject is that anybody he doesn't like doesn't deserve a defence in court.

 

[yorkie]

However I will always stand by the right for someone to have a legal defense (even in the case of the scumbag who assaulted me a couple of years ago).

As long as the Courts know to take such comments with a pinch of salt...

It's funny how the OP's consistent opinion on this subject is that anybody he doesn't like doesn't deserve a defence in court.

Not quite; my observation is that more often than not, when I recognise someone in the York Press found guilty of violent acts, the defendant who it is claimed to be acting out of character are, in reality, acted in a way that is not out of character!

I've seen this so many times, it's getting ridiculous!

The individual concerned in this case has finally been rightly jailed, but he has in the past got away with so much.

 

[Busaholic]

As long as the solicitor/barrister sticks to the job of mitigation (this is,it must be remembered,AFTER the defendant has been found guilty) then really they can spin a tale that might sound far-fetched in 'Alice in Wonderland' : it is usually a game and one that is well-understood by virtually all present and no magistrate or judge worth their salt will take too much notice if it's just the brief saying these things (he/she may only have met the defendant for the first time five minutes before the hearing) but a Probation report should carry more weight.

 

[Clip]

I've seen this so many times, it's getting ridiculous!

The individual concerned in this case has finally been rightly jailed, but he has in the past got away with so much.

It does happen a lot, however we employ judges and magistrates to apply the law as they see fit when in court. A lot of which doesnt get reported in the press. thats because it doesnt sell.

Remember, people get away with a lot and whilst I dont agree with it you can aplly this to ticketing infractions which you do seem to want to uphold yet will want to see others for other crimes be held to the highest account.

Not a bad thing but consistency in your arguments wouldnt go amiss especially with a view to the above posters comments.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . . Presumably taxpayers foot the bill for people like Chris Dunn to represent this individual and make false claims to the Court about how their defendants are really nice people, when the reality is about as far from the truth as you can get. Nice to know our money is being well spent :roll:

I wonder if you would find it helpful to spend a little time in the Criminal Court of Appeal (every weekday morning, in most of Courts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 in the Royal Courts of Justice) and hear how unconvincingly barristers go through the motions of attempting to portray their client as the hard-done-by or the exceptionally out-of-character victim of circumstances. I wonder if you would find even the merest sliver of an accusation by the state that the Criminal's representative made 'false claims'. I'd be surprised if you did.

And you really wouldn't need to wait for the decisions - it should be clear how unpersuaded the Appellants counsel are. I conceed that, sometimes, there have been errors in applying the sentencing guidelines and so a small adjustment or correction is made, but for the most part, 'spin' and/or 'public money' doesn't make much difference to the proecution of the guilty. I don't know where 'taxpayers foot the bill' would come into it.

Where I think you are much more likely to find 'false claims' are (to use current examples) the Litvienko enquiry, Mrs Murphy of Edinburgh v Associated Press, Tower Hamlets Forward "corruption", and Google v Max Mosely; but where's the taxpayer's money in these? Or the several claims against Chief Constables, where "taxpayer's money" is at stake - and look at the outcome of the recent challenge to the Chief of the Met over the Enfield riots after the Mark Duggan shooting . . . . . who, ultimately, had to pay up for the biggest arson in Europe?

 

[Busaholic]

I wonder if you would find it helpful to spend a little time in the Criminal Court of Appeal (every weekday morning, in most of Courts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 in the Royal Courts of Justice) and hear how unconvincingly barristers go through the motions of attempting to portray their client as the hard-done-by or the exceptionally out-of-character victim of circumstances. I wonder if you would find even the merest sliver of an accusation by the state that the Criminal's representative made 'false claims'. I'd be surprised if you did.

And you really wouldn't need to wait for the decisions - it should be clear how unpersuaded the Appellants counsel are. I conceed that, sometimes, there have been errors in applying the sentencing guidelines and so a small adjustment or correction is made, but for the most part, 'spin' and/or 'public money' doesn't make much difference to the proecution of the guilty. I don't know where 'taxpayers foot the bill' would come into it.

Where I think you are much more likely to find 'false claims' are (to use current examples) the Litvienko enquiry, Mrs Murphy of Edinburgh v Associated Press, Tower Hamlets Forward "corruption", and Google v Max Mosely; but where's the taxpayer's money in these? Or the several claims against Chief Constables, where "taxpayer's money" is at stake - and look at the outcome of the recent challenge to the Chief of the Met over the Enfield riots after the Mark Duggan shooting . . . . . who, ultimately, had to pay up for the biggest arson in Europe?

Only going by local newspaper reports from the deep SW, but every drunk driver, often two or three times over the limit, seems to have been persuaded as an act of mercy to get someone else home at 3 a.m. when they'd never before ever driven with a drop of alcohol in them; none of them ever come clean. They're repaid by the magistrate with a 2 or 3 year ban whereas I'm sure they'd get less if they hadn't persuaded their solicitor to come out with this twaddle.

 

[Antman]

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/NEWS/117...or_bottle_attack_that_severed_man___s_artery/

Nope, not out of character, he's known for being bigoted, homophobic, offensive, rude, aggressive (e.g. punching people in the face, twisting girls nipples etc) and generally obnoxious.

When you read that someone is behaving "out of character" or similar, it more often than not appears to be a false claim, and is in fact, totally within their character.

This is just one example out of many that I've seen.

Presumably taxpayers foot the bill for people like Chris Dunn to represent this individual and make false claims to the Court about how their defendants are really nice people, when the reality is about as far from the truth as you can get. Nice to know our money is being well spent :roll:

In fairness I think everybody is entitled to legal representation in court but I do wonder how much weight these "out of character" and similar mitigation/excuses carry? I can't imagine any defence lawyer saying "my client is an odious little scote who has done this sort of thing countless times before, he just happened to get caught on this occasion"!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Only going by local newspaper reports from the deep SW, but every drunk driver, often two or three times over the limit, seems to have been persuaded as an act of mercy to get someone else home at 3 a.m. when they'd never before ever driven with a drop of alcohol in them; none of them ever come clean. They're repaid by the magistrate with a 2 or 3 year ban whereas I'm sure they'd get less if they hadn't persuaded their solicitor to come out with this twaddle.

I was in the public gallery at a magistrates court and heard a drink driver telling the bench how he had been to a charity event to raise money for some good cause or other and people kept topping up his glass without him realising whilst he was busy talking about fund raising ideas..................I thought what a load of old cow manure and I suspect the magistrate thought the same!

 

[yorkie]

.... I do wonder how much weight these "out of character" and similar mitigation/excuses carry?...

Hopefully we can spread the word that these excuses are, in most cases I've seen, totally and utterly meaningless and in fact quite the opposite of reality. I do hope no-one actually believes any of their tosh.

 

[AM9]

Hopefully we can spread the word that these excuses are, in most cases I've seen, totally and utterly meaningless and in fact quite the opposite of reality. I do hope no-one actually believes any of their tosh.

I don't think that magistrates/Judges take them at face value anyway. They are just a part of the advocates' presentation of their client's case in the best light and it would take corroborated evidence of the defendant's behavoir to significantly sway any decision on a sentence.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Hopefully we can spread the word that these excuses are, in most cases I've seen, totally and utterly meaningless and in fact quite the opposite of reality. I do hope no-one actually believes any of their tosh.

There's a reason that we have a judge up the front and not a computer.

They're there to make a call on the truth of such statements, and are usually pretty good at judging this sort of thing.

 

[ilkestonian]

Hopefully we can spread the word that these excuses are, in most cases I've seen, totally and utterly meaningless and in fact quite the opposite of reality. I do hope no-one actually believes any of their tosh.

I doubt that the word needs spreading. I'd bet my bottom dollar that everyone who needs to know will already be well aware of these games and treat them with the contempt they deserve.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I doubt that the word needs spreading. I'd bet my bottom dollar that everyone who needs to know will already be well aware of these games and treat them with the contempt they deserve.

Exactly!
These sorts of 'character' reports are really only of use to any members of the press who might be in Court to lap up the emotive back-story of personal details. The Court will have heard the Evidence and will have applied the relatively strict tariffs of the Sentencing Guidelines, and will simply disregard any drivel that has no bearing on how to use those Guidelines.

The press, meanwhile, will enjoy making a scandal out of anything that can be redescribed to suit their own views.

 

[DownSouth]

Of course, if a junior lawyer has got things to the point that the guilty plea is in and they just need to wheel out a token statement which both they and the judge know is more for ritual than substance, it's actually a sign that they've done their job well. Better to quickly go through those motions than to have a trial with witnesses, evidence and so on.

If a lawyer starting out at the bottom of the food chain can't convince a garden-variety offender to cop a guilty plea for an open-shut case, they definitely won't have a chance of building up a professional reputation good enough to move up to more interesting stuff.

 

[Abpj17]

I wonder if you would find it helpful to spend a little time in the Criminal Court of Appeal (every weekday morning, in most of Courts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 in the Royal Courts of Justice) and hear how unconvincingly barristers go through the motions of attempting to portray their client as the hard-done-by or the exceptionally out-of-character victim of circumstances. I wonder if you would find even the merest sliver of an accusation by the state that the Criminal's representative made 'false claims'. I'd be surprised if you did.

And you really wouldn't need to wait for the decisions - it should be clear how unpersuaded the Appellants counsel are. I conceed that, sometimes, there have been errors in applying the sentencing guidelines and so a small adjustment or correction is made, but for the most part, 'spin' and/or 'public money' doesn't make much difference to the proecution of the guilty. I don't know where 'taxpayers foot the bill' would come into it.

Where I think you are much more likely to find 'false claims' are (to use current examples) the Litvienko enquiry, Mrs Murphy of Edinburgh v Associated Press, Tower Hamlets Forward "corruption", and Google v Max Mosely; but where's the taxpayer's money in these? Or the several claims against Chief Constables, where "taxpayer's money" is at stake - and look at the outcome of the recent challenge to the Chief of the Met over the Enfield riots after the Mark Duggan shooting . . . . . who, ultimately, had to pay up for the biggest arson in Europe?

^^ I'd really endorse watching a case for anyone that hasn't. Short soundbites in the press aren't representative. We had to visit a court as part of our A-Level General Studies. So I went along to Luton Crown Court to see what was on my sister and we somehow ended up watching half a day of the infamous Charles Bronson/hostage/'doll'/helicopter case - his family/friends were in the public gallery too. Many years later, I also had jury duty for an approx 2 week case.