Milly Dowler family's court ordeal 'appalling'
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ise-Casey.html

Bob and Sally Dowler were made to feel as if they and not Levi Bellfield, their daughter’s killer, were on trial, she said.

Their ordeal in the witness box, enduring intense cross-examination about intimate aspects of their lives, is just the latest “shocking” example of grieving families being treated as an “inconvenience” in the system, she added.

Miss Casey listed a series of example of victims being effectively ignored. She cited the case of a family who had to sit close to relatives of their loved-one’s killer as they laughed and joked through the trial.

One mother unable to bury her dead baby for almost a year because of constant requests for fresh post mortem examinations from the defence, she said.

Another woman was not told that her father’s killer was being released until she bumped into him in the street.

Disgusting it goes on the the UK...

I dont think the police can be blamed for having her father down as a suspect. There were good reasons for that as far as I can see.

Chip

That may be true but this is about the defense tactics.

In the UK courts, some defence solicitors / barristers will sink to depths beyond belief. So long as they are lining their pockets, often will legal aid funds, they are able to sleep at night with no regard for victims.

you cannot cherry pick bits of the justice system

we have an adversarial justice process

that is what leads to this sort of X examination technique by the defence - a very tough call

but on the specific point I wholeheartedly agree, no parent should be put in that situation, prob the Judge's fault

and boy I hope Bellfield has a fvcking tough time in the slammer

The CPS knowing the nature of some of the evidence, made an application for reporting restrictions during cross examination. The judge refused it.

Here is the CPS statement.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_sta...trial_process/

Yes and no. Levi Bellfield was already serving a life sentance for two murders. The defence barrister would have known this. He would also have known Bellfield was guilty. If that is the case why pursue such an aggressive case against the Dowler family, and put them through more pain. Bellfiled was never going to be found not guilty. Totally unneccsesary.

Everyone should e-mail the Barrister concerned and tell him EXACTLY what a nasty piece of work he is ........

I remember SN members sending e-mails to the Barrister of that Pikey Scum, Brendan, who was claiming damages from Martin for shooting him in the arse as he ran away from the Farmhouse he went to rob .................. the Barrister concerned and his Company pulled out of supporting the scumbag :thumb:

We, the general public, are much more powerful than we think - as long as we operate as one.

There were some quite near the edge comments posted yesterday by Jeffrey Samuels (Bellfields barrister) - where he made claims based on this trial about just how formidable he was in the courtroom.

Must take years practising at the bar right enough to loose every shred of humanity you possess, to reduce a heartbroken, grief stricken woman, to a state of inconsolable crying. Shame on you sir, and shame on the Judge who allowed this to take place in his / her court.

Barrister was simply doing it to earn money, at anyone's expense.
No conscience, no thoughts for a family who have suffered the loss of a daughter/ sister, no morals. Similar characteristics to thieves ironically

I am sorry but it just too easy to blame it soley on the barrister

as i said prob a crap judge

Barristers often get asked how they can defend people they must know are guilty

the answer is always the same -- our system of justice demands they defend their client to the best of their ability, and they trust the prosecution will do likewise - it is, in reality that simple

and fiddling with this, is imo a slippery slope

what is the alternative, random summary justice?, where lawyers refuse to defend someone because the do not like the "cut of their gib"

if we don’t like it then, fine, let’s change it -- but we need to be careful as otherwise a lot more innocent people will spend a lot more time behind bars

Lawyers = same breed as recruitment consultants and estate agents.

He was attacking the Father is the lowest way possible not defending his client per se.

he may well have been (and problably did)

but that's why we have judges -- he should have stepped in

but it is sloppy thinking to condem a whole system based on this

No need to apologise.
A solicitor / barrister should defend an individual who claims their innocence. They are innocent until proven guilty.
Where the system falls down, is where the defendant admits their guilt to their solicitor. The defence team elect trial , thereby putting the victim in the position of potentially having to relive their experience in court. Then on the day of trial,knowing that the prosecution evidence is overwhelming, plead guilty. The defence then ask the judge to be lenient as their defendant pleaded guilty!!
The innocent should be defended, the guilty should be encouraged to own up to their crimes and take the punishment.

Those defending Bellfield have a duty to do their best to get their client off but they were, IMHO, close to the edge as they must have known that Bellfield was guilty and the argument that they have to accept what their client tells them (i.e. not guilty) wears pretty thin.

I wonder if there have been cases where a defendant has not been able to find anyone to defend them? But I think we know the answer to that as there will always be some greedy b,astard lawyer trying to make a make a name for himself.

I do think the judge in this case called it wrong.

dl

i know someone who was part of the legal team for Jonathan king the dirty pedo.i ask him how live with himself.knowing who he was defending and what he had done.he said as it was his first high profile case.it was for the experience he needed to gain from it.as he knew he wouldn't win.and sh*t loads of cash plus a better standing at his law firm.but i know he turned to drink to cope:rolleyes:

I was under the impression that if a defendent admits his/her guilt to the barrister, the barrister cannot defend him/her

I imagine the barrister was doing what he saw as his job, ie. to cast doubts in the jury's mind about Belfield's guilt. Certainly most upsetting for the family of course.

It has to be down to the judge to see fair play when necessary.

I think Belfield deserves to be strung up!

Les

The barrister has to withdraw if defendant says he is guilty but wants to plead not guilty.

If guilt is admitted then all barrister can do is to plead mitigation and tell the court that guilty party was abused as a child/mental health problems/insanity etc.

But it's all semantics really as it still leaves the defendant the option of saying to his lawyer "I'm not guilty myself but just suppose someone in a similar situation did this or that what do you think should happen etc etc" Example Chris Huhne could be asking his lawyer about the "hypothetical" instance of someone getting his wife to take the wrap for a motoring offence and what would the lawyer advise in that "hypothetical" situation.

dl

I am with you. It is a ridiculous assertion to say the barrister knew he was guilty.

They never ask and a defendant will never tell.

And our justice system requires that a defendant is presumed innocent until found guilty.

Overall I think it was a poor judge - to change what happened here would be to change the whole system!

As a practising criminal barrister I can say that we are not permitted to represent someone who tells us that they are guilty but does not want to plead guilty. It is against our code of conduct to do so.

We have a responsibility to put the clients case-however distasteful we think it may be. Failure to do so could result in a complaint being made against you to the Bar Council, which in turn could lead to your parctising certificate being suspended or withdrawn.

I am always sad and upset when I read the abusive comments about me (yes when someone says all barristers are....... *insert your chosen word* it does make it about me) especially when people have no idea what the job is really like. People read what the press report thinking that it is all truth. I do have to say that I was shocked reading the comments of s70rjw-if I remember rightly, you are/were a serving police officer. For you to make such a sweeping and nasty statement about myself and my profession was uncalled for.

I both prosecute and defend. My code of conduct prevents me from refusing to act in a case (for either the prosecution or the defence) for any personal reason so if I have a dislike of a defendant, the crime or indeed, don't agree with the prosecution of a particular case, I still have to represent that party regardless.

I am not money grabbing and I am not evil. I don't earn a fortune and I live in a two-up, two-down house. I am very busy and am rarely out of work. In some cases, my hourly rate works out at less than the minimum wage. Our fees are fixed and unless the case is privately paying (extremely rare and tend only to be motoring matters) we have no say whatsoever in what we earn. Alot of the work I do, I end up doing for nothing.

But, I love my job. That is why I do it. Sometimes, you really make a difference to someone's life and that makes it all worth while.

People who criticise myself and my profession would be the first in line to want someone like me to represent them if they ever found themselves in the dock of a courtroom-even if it was to try and save a driving licence for example. We must all remember that every single one of us could one day end up in the dock of a court; how many times have each of you said they'd kill someone if they hurt their family/broke into their house etc. I know that I am more than capable of finding myself in the dock of a court, after disturbing a burglar in my house a couple of years ago. He walloped me and if my husband hadn't hit him and pinned him to the floor, I dread to think what I would have done.

Just because we do what we do, does not make us incapable of sympathy or understanding. It's just a shame that most people would choose to believe what the press shove down your throat or are blinded by your own prejudice.

But would you admit that there is often a financial incentive to break that code, especially when nobody else knows what has been said between the client and Barrister?

If it's part of the code of practice then they could be disbarred and then not able to earn at all.

That's not the question I asked.

Plus you have a "don't ask, don't tell" culture. It could be quite obvious to a Barrister that their client is guilty as sin, but because he/she doesn't admit as such then they are free to represent them.

Now a Barrister could argue that everyone has a right to council, which is very noble of them, IF they were doing if for free!:lol1:

So there is a tension between conscience and cash, like most things I suppose?

Surely the question you asked is what keeps them on the straight and narrow and abiding by their code of conduct and not breaking the rules

I answered it but i will expand for the hard of thinking:) There are far bigger financial incentives - say keeping your large salaried job for instance and reputation and not being disbarred from practising the profession you have trained and qualified in, something that took you 6+ years of hard slog to get - and reducing your earning potential to next to nothing in comparison.

But how would anyone find out what was said?

Maybe you should not judge all others by your own standards;), some people do do the right thing.

Well I didn't know that I must say.

So if I can afford it I can insist that any barrister I want has to represent me if I am charged with something? Surely not?

dl

I am getting fed up reading this!