• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Defendant ordered to represent herself

Mojo

Mostly harmless
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
42,869
Location
Nor Flanden
Woman charged with perverting course of justice told to represent herself in legal first

The barrister who was originally instructed has had to withdraw after a disagreement arose.

Barristers have been operating a ‘no returns’ policy since April in protest at their pay and conditions. This means that they are refusing to pick up cases if other barristers are unable to represent a client – for example, if another case has overrun.

On Monday, barristers are due to start wholesale strike action over funding concerns. Four in five criminal barristers voted for the walkout.

Guidance issued by the judiciary after the ‘no returns’ policy was introduced, states: “If a defendant wishes to be represented it is likely to be an exceptional case where a judge orders a trial to proceed where the only reason why they are not represented is the Criminal Bar Association action.”


The only results I can see happening here are an acquittal or an application under Article 6 of the ECHR.
 
The US judicial system might just work - if we had twice the number of judges, five times the number of clerks and ten times the number of public defenders.
 
I haven't been following the backstory about barristers on strike. UKians don't have a right to legal counsel? Wasn't aware of that. Also, how impoverished are these lawyers, exactly, to be striking?
 
I haven't been following the backstory about barristers on strike. UKians don't have a right to legal counsel? Wasn't aware of that. Also, how impoverished are these lawyers, exactly, to be striking?

A Twitter post I saw suggested the median for junior barristers (i.e. those who are not Queen's Counsel) to be less than £13K per annum.
 
I haven't been following the backstory about barristers on strike. UKians don't have a right to legal counsel? Wasn't aware of that. Also, how impoverished are these lawyers, exactly, to be striking?

It's complicated...

But is another example of how we now have the society the Conservatives always said they wanted. If you are poor you will not be able to take a case to court, or get legal representation.
 
A Twitter post I saw suggested the median for junior barristers (i.e. those who are not Queen's Counsel) to be less than £13K per annum.

Yikes. I had no idea.

It's complicated...

But is another example of how we now have the society the Conservatives always said they wanted. If you are poor you will not be able to take a case to court, or get legal representation.

That's the sickening part. In the States, if you cannot afford a lawyer, you get one for free. We have a long way to go in these public defenders being paid properly, and have fair workloads, but it's at least in theory guaranteeing a legal professional.

The idea of someone being forced to navigate the judiciary solo, with no training, especially if poor, bodes as ill as you get.
 
In the States, if you cannot afford a lawyer, you get one for free.


In theory that’s the case in the UK, but the barristers are independent practitioners paid for by Legal Aid. In practice you have to be pretty skint to qualify for legal aid, so there are plenty of people who can’t really afford representation but don’t qualify, and the legal aid rates aren’t enough for or the barristers to live on.
 
Last edited:
Yikes. I had no idea.



That's the sickening part. In the States, if you cannot afford a lawyer, you get one for free. We have a long way to go in these public defenders being paid properly, and have fair workloads, but it's at least in theory guaranteeing a legal professional.

We don't have lawyers the same way you do in the USA, we have solicitors and barristers, the difference is that a barrister pleads cases in courts.

It appears she does have legal representation, but not in court.

So she has a solicitor but no one to plead the case for her in court. This is because we used to have a very good "legal aid" system, a barrister would take on a defence case and charge "legal aid" rates. Because the conservatives wanted a "smaller state", and wanted to spend less they have reduced when someone is entitled to legal aid and also reduced the renumeration for barristers taking on legal aid cases. The Conservatives have achieved their aim which was to make justice only affordable to the well off as it used to be in the good old days.


The idea of someone being forced to navigate the judiciary solo, with no training, especially if poor, bodes as ill as you get.

Yes it does, albeit it isn't quite as bad as that but not far from it.

It is the judge that needs censure in this instance.
 
Because the conservatives wanted a "smaller state", and wanted to spend less they have reduced when someone is entitled to legal aid and also reduced the renumeration for barristers taking on legal aid cases. The Conservatives have achieved their aim which was to make justice only affordable to the well off as it used to be in the good old days.


“Open to all, like the Ritz Hotel.”
 
Who is actually striking? Are all UK barristers employees of the government?

No, they are private practices but prosecution and legal aid defense is paid by the government at rates they set. If you or anyone else is interested I would definitely recommend The Secret Barrister's first book, I just finished it myself & it scared the living **** out of me.
 
Well I'm pretty sure SCOTUS will overturn our right council soon for the exact same reason, can't have poor people getting justice.
 
We don't have lawyers the same way you do in the USA, we have solicitors and barristers, the difference is that a barrister pleads cases in courts.

It appears she does have legal representation, but not in court.

So she has a solicitor but no one to plead the case for her in court. This is because we used to have a very good "legal aid" system, a barrister would take on a defence case and charge "legal aid" rates. Because the conservatives wanted a "smaller state", and wanted to spend less they have reduced when someone is entitled to legal aid and also reduced the renumeration for barristers taking on legal aid cases.
....

In the US, "ineffective assistance of counsel" is an important ground for appeal. In the UK, if someone with a bad lawyer or no lawyer is convicted, can he appeal on that basis?
 
Poor people in the US are already kinda screwed on this front. The public defender's office (or equivalent in some jurisdictions) is generally less prestigious than the public prosecutor's office. It's generally less funded, less well-paid, and less politically advantageous.

You go to court as a criminal defendant, there's a good chance you're facing an, ambitious prosecutor, who's looking to leverage their conviction rate into high political office. A prosecutor who is being well-paid, and whose office is receiving lots of funding, to indulge and enable that ambition.

And if you're too poor to afford a good lawyer of your own, you're probably being defended by a public defender who may mean well, but is woefully over-worked, and woefully underpaid. They may be a public defender because they lack the skill, experience, or drive to be a good lawyer making "good lawyer money" somewhere other than the public defender's office.

More and more, I've come to think that if we want to do something about the excesses and misconduct of public prosecutors, especially the unconscionable rise of the plea deal in lieu of trial, we need to start by elevating the public defender's office. We need to make that office a place where ambitious legal minds go, to get paid what they are worth, to get political acclaim for their efforts.
 
Poor people in the US are already kinda screwed on this front. The public defender's office (or equivalent in some jurisdictions) is generally less prestigious than the public prosecutor's office. It's generally less funded, less well-paid, and less politically advantageous.

You go to court as a criminal defendant, there's a good chance you're facing an, ambitious prosecutor, who's looking to leverage their conviction rate into high political office. A prosecutor who is being well-paid, and whose office is receiving lots of funding, to indulge and enable that ambition.

And if you're too poor to afford a good lawyer of your own, you're probably being defended by a public defender who may mean well, but is woefully over-worked, and woefully underpaid. They may be a public defender because they lack the skill, experience, or drive to be a good lawyer making "good lawyer money" somewhere other than the public defender's office.

More and more, I've come to think that if we want to do something about the excesses and misconduct of public prosecutors, especially the unconscionable rise of the plea deal in lieu of trial, we need to start by elevating the public defender's office. We need to make that office a place where ambitious legal minds go, to get paid what they are worth, to get political acclaim for their efforts.
Agree 100%.

(Time and date noted. :) And I'd add public school educators to that list. )
/derail
 
Last edited:
.....
You go to court as a criminal defendant, there's a good chance you're facing an, ambitious prosecutor, who's looking to leverage their conviction rate into high political office. A prosecutor who is being well-paid, and whose office is receiving lots of funding, to indulge and enable that ambition.
.....

Realistically, a large percentage of charges are resolved with plea bargains, especially at the federal level. A public defender will likely try to get you a decent deal, rather than risk everything at a trial.
 
Realistically, a large percentage of charges are resolved with plea bargains, especially at the federal level. A public defender will likely try to get you a decent deal, rather than risk everything at a trial.

Realistically, the prevalence of plea deals is another symptom of the same problem.
 

Back
Top Bottom