…and I am absolutely thrilled about it. :rolleyes: I have done some very difficult work in 5-6 years as a lawyer, but this is the first time I am actually dreading it.
They cannot pay me enough for this…wait actually they are not, I (in a moment of extreme stupidity) took this pro bono publico. And now this rant is getting dangerously close to revealing restricted information; I have to stop now.
Do your job. If there is a jury, resist with steely determination the temptation to project insinuations smarmily. Use basic technique to maximise the impact of inconsistencies and any motives to lie you may be aware of.
No bullying. Your client may want you to monster the child - explain in advance how counterproductive that would be. Juries hate it and take it out on the client. Watch for folded arms among the jurors. That’s usually a sign that they don’t like someone in the conversation, and when it’s between you and a child, odds are it’s you.
Be particularly wary about how you comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn (if memory serves, you are in the Commonwealth, no?) Children, depending on their age, can be quite literal and easily confused by assertions that are, to them, counter factual. This thing of not really getting that you are putting to them that they are not being truthful can be a powerful mark of authenticity, and has trapped many an unwary defence counsel who thought they were in the home stretch and that putting their case was just a formality.
It’s not necessary to add to the child’s suffering to do your job well.
Funnily enough, I was thinking the same thing. I have to spend time in court due to my job with the police and the amount of defence barristers that I speak to who state that their clients are guilty as hell is amazing. Still, the way the law stands, everyone who is charged with an offence is entitled to someone to defend them, which is a good thing in a lot of ways.
AK84’s duty is to see that his client’s rights are protected, one of those rights being to a defense devoted to his interests.
If the client did do it, his conviction after a fair trial with a zealous (a term of art) defense will likely have more impact than if he feels he was somehow deprived of those things.
If the client didn’t do it, then, win or lose, AK84 joins a long list of lawyers who have done their duty in an unpopular, sometimes unpleasant, cause.
It’s in all our interests that the system works that way. So, thank you, AK84.
Please try to simply get to the truth, not get to the truth for your side. I think the courts and the law should be about justice, not simply getting the win for whichever side you’re on.
I’m not a complete moron. I know what AK84’s duties are with regard to his client (or the basics anyway). That doesn’t mean he can’t tell me whether the client did it or not. Assuming AK84 has not recently been replaced by a robot, the amount of culpability of his client will inevitably effect the way he feels about doing this cross examination.
Although there may be other reasons he can’t tell me, especially if the client is identifiable.
Good job! Glad it went better than expected - you deserve that drink, I’m sure. I could never do court work, so here’s my thanks for doing what most of us couldn’t!