Latest news with #barristers
South China Morning Post
6 days ago
- South China Morning Post
Charting a course in AI seas: why barristers are still captains of legal ship
The full title of 'barrister at law' apparently traces back to 16th century England, providing pleading and advocacy services. Since then, little has changed. Around that time, in the mid-16th century, something else happened in Europe: the Scientific Revolution. Since then, everything has changed. The name and the services of barristers have not changed, but in the last quarter of a century, digitisation and the internet have brought about evolutionary changes to the way barristers provide their services. More and more legal resources have become digitised and accessible through the internet – gone are the days when barristers had to compile a database or run to one compiled by others; a few clicks in front of a screen (including the clicks required to confirm your purchase) will give you access to any legal database you will ever need. Technologies have hitherto nudged barristers on in the services they provide, by opening up to every barrister oceans of legal databases and voyages their biological brains are capable of charting.
BBC News
08-07-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Jury-free trials recommended to save courts from 'collapse'
Thousands of cases that would normally be heard in front of a jury should be decided by judges alone, according to recommendations made by a former senior Brian Leveson was asked by the Lord Chancellor to come up with a series of proposals to reduce the backlog of cases in the criminal are almost 77,000 cases waiting for trial in the Crown Court in England and Wales - meaning some defendants and victims are waiting years for reviewing the state of the criminal courts, Sir Brian suggested "fundamental" reforms to "reduce the risk of total system collapse." But some barristers argue juries are essential for fair justice - and scrapping them is wrong. To fix what he calls a broken system, Sir Brian has suggested having judge-only trials for certain cases such as fraud and recommendation involves having more out of court resolutions like wants a new division of the Crown Court with two magistrates and a judge to handle less serious offences, and to increase the number of sentence reductions for guilty pleas at the first opportunity is all about shortening the process in the hope of cutting the big backlog. "Our criminal justice system stands at a critical juncture," said Sir Brian who was requested to look into the matter in December last year."It is well recognised that justice delayed is justice denied but the record and rising court backlog means victims, witnesses and defendants are waiting months, sometimes years, for cases to come to trial - unable to move on with their lives," he Brian noted the proposed changes are designed "to transform our courts into a system that provides appropriate and fair decision-making."He continued: "It also takes a proportionate approach to trial processes while maintaining the fundamental right to a fair trial."These are not small tweaks but fundamental changes that will seek to make the system fit for the 21st century." The proposals would mean more cases will be heard in the magistrates' courts, with jury trials reserved for the most serious way, offences with a maximum custodial sentence of two years or less, such as possession of drugs, bike theft and voyeurism, could face lower penalties of 12 months imprisonment or in cases for offences including assault of an emergency worker, stalking and possessing an indecent photograph of a child would also no longer be able to choose a jury trial. 'Radical change' Not all lawyers agree with the suggested changes, however. And in response, Mary Prior KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said: "Any fundamental change is going to require the criminal barristers who prosecute and defend in the Crown Court to believe that this is the best way forward."As this is such a radical change to the criminal justice system we will be listening to what our members say. There is a lot to digest."Manisha Knights, Solicitor Advocate with MK Law, said: "Our jury system is central and pivotal to our justice system."With juries comes diversity whereas the judiciary still very much lacks it. The right to be tried by one's peers should not be removed or be diluted in any way, shape or form."But the Magistrates' Association welcomed the review, saying it will speed up justice for thousands."Magistrates are ready and willing to support these and other initiatives aimed at reducing the pressure on Crown Courts," said Mark Beattie, national chair of the Magistrates' Association."We urge the government to implement Leveson's recommendations as soon as possible. Every day that they aren't in place, is a day when victims, witnesses and defendants have to wait for justice."Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said: "As Sir Brian rightly identifies, criminal justice in this country runs the risk of "total system collapse" unless we take the radical steps needed to reverse years of decline."It cannot be right that in London more than 100 trials listed are for 2029. This is intolerable for victims and all parties who rely on a properly functioning court system to provide closure from what are often traumatic experiences, made worse by persistent delays."He added: "I welcome this report and look forward to working with partners across government to deliver the bold reforms that are now a necessity, not an option." Among the recommendations are: A reclassification of certain offencesThe creation of a new division of the Crown Court with two magistrates and a judge to handle "less serious offences", which would include some theft, burglary, and fraud offencesGreater use of out of court resolutions - which would allow the police to deal quickly with lower level, often first time offending - including increased use of cautions and conditional cautionsRemoval of the right to elect trial in cases where the maximum sentence is two years' imprisonment with reclassification of some offences to "summary only" (meaning they will only be heard in a magistrates' court)The threshold for criminal damage being dealt with as a summary only offence to be increased from £5,000 to £10, sentence reduction increased to 40% for guilty pleas at first opportunity, encouraging quicker case resolutionJudge-alone trials introduced either by election on the part of the defendant or for the most complex cases The review recommended the immediate implementation of key reforms but acknowledged that many of the changes will take time to introduce, and "must be managed carefully to ensure the public is never put at risk". The government says it will now consider all of Sir Brian's recommendations, and will respond in full ahead of legislation in the Chancellor and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood said in a statement: "I have already lifted courts funding to record levels, funding 4,000 more court sitting days than under my predecessors."But swifter justice requires bold reform, and that is what I asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose."She added: "As part of our Plan for Change, I will do whatever it takes to bring down the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims."A second review focusing on court efficiency will be published later this year.
BreakingNews.ie
25-06-2025
- BreakingNews.ie
Trial of High Court claims against Andrew Tate brought forward to next summer
The trial of civil claims against social media influencer Andrew Tate is due to be held months earlier than originally planned after a High Court judge said she was 'very keen to get on' with the case. Four women are suing the former professional kickboxer over allegations of sexual violence, including that he grabbed one by the throat on several occasions in 2015, assaulted her with a belt and pointed a gun at her face. Advertisement Tate's barristers told an earlier court hearing that there was 'total denial of wrongdoing'. In written submissions for a hearing on Wednesday, barristers for the women said that following a preliminary hearing in April this year, a 16-day trial had been listed to start on February 22nd, 2027. But Mrs Justice Lambert told the court in London that she was 'very keen to get on' with the case and that it should be listed sooner, fixing the trial to start on June 22nd, 2026. The trial could last up to five weeks, with a further preliminary hearing expected to take place at a later date. Advertisement She said: 'We just need to make this happen, really. 'It is not in anyone's interests that this case goes into the long grass of 2027.' Following the short hearing, the four claimants said: 'We welcome the judge's decision to bring our case forward. 'We've already spent years waiting for justice, and so it's of some comfort to hear that Andrew Tate will face these allegations in a court earlier than the original plan of 2027.' Advertisement The hearing in April was told that the case is believed to be a legal first as it will consider whether allegations of coercive control, in a civil context, could amount to intentional infliction of harm. Judge Richard Armstrong said that the claimants were 'seeking damages likely to reach six figures'. The women are bringing a civil case against Tate at the High Court after the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute in 2019. Three of the British accusers were the subject of an investigation by Hertfordshire Constabulary, which was closed in 2019. Advertisement In court documents, one woman suing Tate claimed he 'would strangle her or grab her by her throat if she spoke back to him or said anything that he did not like… until she told him that she loved him or apologised for whatever he demanded at the time'. She said he, and his brother Tristan Tate, 'played good cop and bad cop to manipulate her', and that Tate allegedly put her in a headlock or whipped her with a belt if she did not get out of bed and do work for his webcam business. The documents also allege Tate 'had weapons, including firearms, which were often pointed at her' and that he had 'indicated to her that he would like to kill someone if he could'. Tate said that her account was 'fabrication' and a 'pack of lies', and has previously described the allegations as 'unproven and untested'. Advertisement In a statement, a spokesperson for Tate previously said: 'He denies ever threatening anyone with a firearm, engaging in non-consensual acts or subjecting any individual to physical or psychological harm. 'These are civil claims, brought years after the alleged events and following a CPS decision not to pursue criminal charges. 'It is deeply troubling that such graphic and one-sided accounts are being publicised before any judicial assessment has taken place.' The statement added: 'Mr Tate will defend himself vigorously and remains confident the truth will prevail.'
Yahoo
01-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Readers reply: Should barristers have to defend the ‘indefensible'? Or should they be able to refuse clients?
Is the 'cab rank' rule for barristers fair? It means every accused party in the UK gets the legal representation they're entitled to – but it also means barristers may have to defend people who have done things they feel are indefensible. J McBride, Birmingham Send new questions to . The error Mr McBride makes is in assuming the client is guilty and that his barrister is trying to get him off. The defence barrister is there to test the prosecution's evidence since the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the client is guilty as charged. We've all read about cases where exculpatory evidence has been withheld, forensic results contaminated or mistaken identity has led to wrongful conviction. You cannot expect a layperson to know the rules of disclosure, the admissibility of evidence or the scope of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. He needs a professional to ensure his rights are protected. Beyond that, if the prosecution evidence cannot be discredited, he will be convicted. Guilty or innocent, the cab rank system enables justice to be served: the guilty to be convicted and the innocent to be acquitted. Nicky Ottaway JP, Surrey Surely a barrister is defending the person not the offence? A barrister is never defending the indefensible: they are defending a person who may or may not have done the thing that is indefensible. It is for the state to prove that the defendant is guilty of the indefensible. Whenever we see a barrister being questioned over their morality when taking the task of defending the accused in such a case we are witnessing somebody calling for a potentially innocent person to be convicted unfairly for a crime of which we know only limited detail. John Close, by email After 20 years as a barrister, and another 20 as a judge, I would suggest the rule is more often observed in breach than observance. Barristers' clerks, who make the bookings, are well aware of what work each barrister is willing to do or not. If the work is not to the taste of the relevant barrister, they will be 'unavailable', or the fee will be preposterous. Martin Kurrein, Norfolk How can you repeatedly defend a client you know is guilty? Surely it turns you into a liar as well, but it's what some barristers are known for, and take pride in. And ripping into victims who are already traumatised because it's your job to discredit them, irrespective of the facts. Yet the law is supposed to be about justice. LorLala Everyone is entitled to have a defence. Not necessarily the best defence if they don't have money. Professionals have to deal with offenders no matter what they have done. They are still human beings, even if we disapprove strongly with their actions. Offenders may have mitigating circumstances, which need presenting to the court. One has to put one's personal feelings to one side in order to work with them. scouser58 The age-old answer to this kind of question talks about legal representatives not making value or guilty/innocent judgments against clients accused of horrible things as that's the job of juries and sometimes judges. However, I have a better answer: think 'Testing the system, not defending an accused person.' Barristers represent accused people to ensure that the legal system itself is fair, robust, impartial and following its own rules. With every case they essentially run a legal system MOT, and make sure that if someone is eventually found guilty or innocent they can be assured that the result would have been the same no matter the person involved. That's the theory. But we all know it doesn't always work like that. Ferg Ferguson, by email It should not be for us to predetermine the optics of a particular case and based upon that, decide if we will represent someone. That would be justice in the court of public opinion, where emotion, rather than evidence and procedure, is the driving force. Tasaddat Hussain, barrister, Manchester The cab rank rule is needed to prevent younger barristers from being unable to access more complex and high level cases in order to help them learn – it is almost guaranteed that senior barristers would cherrypick cases if the cab rank rule was not in place. As an aspiring barrister, I would defend the indefensible that the cab rank rule has forced me to take on, even if I know I am bound to lose against the prosecution. Because, through that trial, we will have found the truth, and brought justice to the victims of any indefensible crimes. tacobrit If a defendant cannot secure representation, his trial would not be fair. A legally qualified barrister versus a layperson does not afford equality of arms. A criminal trial of an unrepresented defendant takes considerably longer than a trial of a represented defendant and incurs far greater costs. Moreover, a barrister representing a defendant in a rape trial will know the rules of what questions are not permitted to be put to a victim of rape; an unrepresented defendant would not and, regardless of a judge's attempts to keep the defendant 'in line', the victim would endure a more harrowing ordeal than would otherwise be the case. Gary Blackwell, by email I was always asked how I could defend someone I thought was guilty but never how I could prosecute someone I thought was innocent. For me the whole point of defending or prosecuting was to help the jury arrive at the right verdict. If, having fought my client's case as vigorously as permitted, he or she was convicted, then the likelihood of guilt was increased and therefore justice served. John Maxwell, by email While it may mean that barristers must sometimes defend individuals accused of indefensible acts, this is a cornerstone of a fair legal system. The role of a defence barrister is not to endorse the crime but to ensure that the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, a burden that protects the innocent. Defending the 'indefensible' strengthens the legal system. It sharpens the skills of defence barristers and maintains a high standard of scrutiny for all prosecutions. As the saying goes, 'It is better that 12 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted.' The cab rank rule, therefore, is not only fair, it is essential for justice. Lola Ogunjobi, Kent Related: Should back gardens be sacrosanct, or are loud phones and speakers OK? The cab rank rule is correct and gives barristers, especially younger barristers, the opportunity to improve their experience. Something that cannot be obtained from law books. nlygo My experience was that the so-called 'cab-rank' rule is capable of being avoided by barristers which explains why, in areas of the law such as personal injury or professional negligence, barristers tend to represent either claimants or defendants but seldom both. Much of that is, I suspect, attributable to specific barristers' chambers building up a reputation for either claimant or defendant work. However, I believe it would be a great mistake to abolish the rule. Even though its operation may be imperfect, it embodies important principles which ought to be preserved. Edward Coulson, North Yorkshire If barristers choose who to defend, the public and politicians can accuse them of condoning in some way the behaviour of a person who is ultimately found guilty of a dreadful crime. As it is, the barrister can say with perfect truth 'Everyone, has the right to a defence and I have no choice but to do the best I can to present that defence, irrespective of my beliefs.' Working in IT, I don't get a final choice on what I do. Unless there is a clear conflict of interest or it places the barrister's mental health at serious risk, the cab rank rule should apply. Lewis Graham, Hertfordshire
The Guardian
01-06-2025
- General
- The Guardian
Readers reply: Should barristers have to defend the ‘indefensible'? Or should they be able to refuse clients?
Is the 'cab rank' rule for barristers fair? It means every accused party in the UK gets the legal representation they're entitled to – but it also means barristers may have to defend people who have done things they feel are indefensible. J McBride, Birmingham Send new questions to nq@ The error Mr McBride makes is in assuming the client is guilty and that his barrister is trying to get him off. The defence barrister is there to test the prosecution's evidence since the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the client is guilty as charged. We've all read about cases where exculpatory evidence has been withheld, forensic results contaminated or mistaken identity has led to wrongful conviction. You cannot expect a layperson to know the rules of disclosure, the admissibility of evidence or the scope of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. He needs a professional to ensure his rights are protected. Beyond that, if the prosecution evidence cannot be discredited, he will be convicted. Guilty or innocent, the cab rank system enables justice to be served: the guilty to be convicted and the innocent to be acquitted. Nicky Ottaway JP, Surrey Surely a barrister is defending the person not the offence? A barrister is never defending the indefensible: they are defending a person who may or may not have done the thing that is indefensible. It is for the state to prove that the defendant is guilty of the indefensible. Whenever we see a barrister being questioned over their morality when taking the task of defending the accused in such a case we are witnessing somebody calling for a potentially innocent person to be convicted unfairly for a crime of which we know only limited detail. John Close, by email After 20 years as a barrister, and another 20 as a judge, I would suggest the rule is more often observed in breach than observance. Barristers' clerks, who make the bookings, are well aware of what work each barrister is willing to do or not. If the work is not to the taste of the relevant barrister, they will be 'unavailable', or the fee will be preposterous. Martin Kurrein, Norfolk How can you repeatedly defend a client you know is guilty? Surely it turns you into a liar as well, but it's what some barristers are known for, and take pride in. And ripping into victims who are already traumatised because it's your job to discredit them, irrespective of the facts. Yet the law is supposed to be about justice. LorLala Everyone is entitled to have a defence. Not necessarily the best defence if they don't have money. Professionals have to deal with offenders no matter what they have done. They are still human beings, even if we disapprove strongly with their actions. Offenders may have mitigating circumstances, which need presenting to the court. One has to put one's personal feelings to one side in order to work with them. scouser58 The age-old answer to this kind of question talks about legal representatives not making value or guilty/innocent judgments against clients accused of horrible things as that's the job of juries and sometimes judges. However, I have a better answer: think 'Testing the system, not defending an accused person.' Barristers represent accused people to ensure that the legal system itself is fair, robust, impartial and following its own rules. With every case they essentially run a legal system MOT, and make sure that if someone is eventually found guilty or innocent they can be assured that the result would have been the same no matter the person involved. That's the theory. But we all know it doesn't always work like that. Ferg Ferguson, by email It should not be for us to predetermine the optics of a particular case and based upon that, decide if we will represent someone. That would be justice in the court of public opinion, where emotion, rather than evidence and procedure, is the driving force. Tasaddat Hussain, barrister, Manchester The cab rank rule is needed to prevent younger barristers from being unable to access more complex and high level cases in order to help them learn – it is almost guaranteed that senior barristers would cherrypick cases if the cab rank rule was not in place. As an aspiring barrister, I would defend the indefensible that the cab rank rule has forced me to take on, even if I know I am bound to lose against the prosecution. Because, through that trial, we will have found the truth, and brought justice to the victims of any indefensible crimes. tacobrit If a defendant cannot secure representation, his trial would not be fair. A legally qualified barrister versus a layperson does not afford equality of arms. A criminal trial of an unrepresented defendant takes considerably longer than a trial of a represented defendant and incurs far greater costs. Moreover, a barrister representing a defendant in a rape trial will know the rules of what questions are not permitted to be put to a victim of rape; an unrepresented defendant would not and, regardless of a judge's attempts to keep the defendant 'in line', the victim would endure a more harrowing ordeal than would otherwise be the case. Gary Blackwell, by email I was always asked how I could defend someone I thought was guilty but never how I could prosecute someone I thought was innocent. For me the whole point of defending or prosecuting was to help the jury arrive at the right verdict. If, having fought my client's case as vigorously as permitted, he or she was convicted, then the likelihood of guilt was increased and therefore justice served. John Maxwell, by email While it may mean that barristers must sometimes defend individuals accused of indefensible acts, this is a cornerstone of a fair legal system. The role of a defence barrister is not to endorse the crime but to ensure that the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, a burden that protects the innocent. Defending the 'indefensible' strengthens the legal system. It sharpens the skills of defence barristers and maintains a high standard of scrutiny for all prosecutions. As the saying goes, 'It is better that 12 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted.' The cab rank rule, therefore, is not only fair, it is essential for justice. Lola Ogunjobi, Kent The cab rank rule is correct and gives barristers, especially younger barristers, the opportunity to improve their experience. Something that cannot be obtained from law books. nlygo My experience was that the so-called 'cab-rank' rule is capable of being avoided by barristers which explains why, in areas of the law such as personal injury or professional negligence, barristers tend to represent either claimants or defendants but seldom both. Much of that is, I suspect, attributable to specific barristers' chambers building up a reputation for either claimant or defendant work. However, I believe it would be a great mistake to abolish the rule. Even though its operation may be imperfect, it embodies important principles which ought to be preserved. Edward Coulson, North Yorkshire If barristers choose who to defend, the public and politicians can accuse them of condoning in some way the behaviour of a person who is ultimately found guilty of a dreadful crime. As it is, the barrister can say with perfect truth 'Everyone, has the right to a defence and I have no choice but to do the best I can to present that defence, irrespective of my beliefs.' Working in IT, I don't get a final choice on what I do. Unless there is a clear conflict of interest or it places the barrister's mental health at serious risk, the cab rank rule should apply. Lewis Graham, Hertfordshire
