Said no lawyer ever

Zambia

"My client has no reason for his/her offending. They just felt like it."

After a few days in court it appears every criminal act is the result of drugs , drink , mental illness , family abuse etc

Does anyone just say yeah you got me I did it because I wanted to?

smcgiff

Zambia wrote: »

"My client has no reason for his/her offending. They just felt like it."

After a few days in court it appears every criminal act is the result of drugs , drink , mental illness , family abuse etc

Does anyone just say yeah you got me I did it because I wanted to?

You mean, take responsibility?

No self respecting lawyer would allow that :pac:

jmcc99_98

smcgiff wrote: »

You mean, take responsibility?

No self respecting lawyer would allow that :pac:

It is not the lawyer who decides what way to plead. It's the client. If a client wants to put his hands up and say he did it any lawyer will be happy to do so. It makes no difference to the lawyer.

So less of the stereotyping

smcgiff

jmcc99_98 wrote: »

So less of the stereotyping

Is it not becoming more of a trend, even in the free legal aid arena, that clients are starting to choose their lawyers. For this reason I'd imagine there'd be an incentive to be seen to 'win'.

johnnyskeleton

Zambia wrote: »

"My client has no reason for his/her offending. They just felt like it."

After a few days in court it appears every criminal act is the result of drugs , drink , mental illness , family abuse etc

Does anyone just say yeah you got me I did it because I wanted to?

Usually if there is no excusing circumstance the lawyer will just say nothing as to the motivation for the offence.

nuac

jmcc99_98 wrote: »

It is not the lawyer who decides what way to plead. It's the client. If a client wants to put his hands up and say he did it any lawyer will be happy to do so. It makes no difference to the lawyer.

So less of the stereotyping

Agreed 100%

NoQuarter

smcgiff wrote: »

Is it not becoming more of a trend, even in the free legal aid arena, that clients are starting to choose their lawyers. For this reason I'd imagine there'd be an incentive to be seen to 'win'.

Absolutely not. A lawyer never chooses how their client would plead. They would be opening themselves up to being liable if things went wrong, now why would they do that!?

Pro Hoc Vice

Zambia wrote: »

"My client has no reason for his/her offending. They just felt like it."

After a few days in court it appears every criminal act is the result of drugs , drink , mental illness , family abuse etc

Does anyone just say yeah you got me I did it because I wanted to?

If a lawyer/defendant is saying it was drink drugs etc. then he making a plea in mitigation in other words in the vast majority of such cases the person has pleaded guilty. Now it is the job of the state to put the facts of the offence before the judge and the job of the Defence solicitor or barrister to put the facts of the guilty persons history and reason for offending before the judge. Then it's the judges job to weigh up all the information. It's called justice that thing most people in this country think should only be for them not others.

Pro Hoc Vice

NoQuarter wrote: »

Absolutely not. A lawyer never chooses how their client would plead. They would be opening themselves up to being liable if things went wrong, now why would they do that!?

100% correct its amazing how many people don't get this very simple fact.

Zambia

I have to agree its not the solicitors coming up with the excuses.

smcgiff

infosys wrote: »

100% correct its amazing how many people don't get this very simple fact.

Yes, Solicitors, barristers, advocates wouldn't be known to break rules, especially of late.

Which is the exact opposite of the conversation I had with a couple of lead partners in a large Dublin law firm within the last two months. But, shure, what would they know.

nuac

smcgiff wrote: »

Yes, Solicitors, barristers, advocates wouldn't be known to break rules, especially of late.

Which is the exact opposite of the conversation I had with a couple of lead partners in a large Dublin law firm within the last two months. But, shure, what would they know.

Not too many lead partners in large Dublin firms offer their services to defendants in the District Courts

Pro Hoc Vice

smcgiff wrote: »

Yes, Solicitors, barristers, advocates wouldn't be known to break rules, especially of late.

Which is the exact opposite of the conversation I had with a couple of lead partners in a large Dublin law firm within the last two months. But, shure, what would they know.

Yes lawyers so clever they get to partner in a large firm and admit wrong doing to another person. If you have evidence of a lawyer breaking the law or breaching serious rules of the law society or law library take it to the relevant authorities. I know of no lawyer that would tell any client how to plead and I know more than a couple in a large firm in Dublin.

jmcc99_98

smcgiff wrote: »

Yes, Solicitors, barristers, advocates wouldn't be known to break rules, especially of late.

Which is the exact opposite of the conversation I had with a couple of lead partners in a large Dublin law firm within the last two months. But, shure, what would they know.

Break the rules? what you are saying makes no sense. If a client says they are guilty, why in god’s name would the lawyer try to plead otherwise?

I don’t know of any barrister who would ignore the plea of the accused, or try to change the plea of the accused. It makes no sense. A huge amount of the work is done legal aid, so the fee would be no different.

I think you may have "heard" a few stories and decided to jump to a stupid and ignorant conclusion.

It makes absolutely no sense for a barrister to try to change the plea of an accused, it is of no financial benefit and could be professionally very damaging for the barrister

If the accused hasn’t told the barrister what he wants to plead (It is entirely the accused’s decision) then the barrister will listen to what the accused has to say about the alleged offence and he can then advise on whether he is likely to be found guilty or not, but his advice on whether he is likely to be found guilty or not is based on whether the facts satisfy the requirements for liability under the statute/law.


I can only speak from a barrister's point of view, but I have no doubt solicitors have similar professional standards
.

Cody Pomeray

How can a court be blind to the unjust nature of society?

Most petty crime, repeat offenders are from disadvantaged backgrounds. How many well adjusted children of academics, school-teachers, company directors are regularly pulled before the courts?

Even barristers' children tend to avoid this fate, so you know it must usually be reserved for the truly doomed.

Personally I think deprivation of their liberty for people who have already been deprived of a decent start at life is a ridiculous solution (an expensive way of making bad men worse), and I don't see any reason why the courts should not take account of this, and I don't feel any surprise that the courts are having to take account of this so very often.

Zambia

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

How can a court be blind to the unjust nature of society?

Most petty crime, repeat offenders are from disadvantaged backgrounds. How many well adjusted children of academics, school-teachers, company directors are regularly pulled before the courts?

Even barristers' children tend to avoid this fate, so you know it must usually be reserved for the truly doomed.

Personally I think deprivation of their liberty for people who have already been deprived of a decent start at life is a ridiculous solution (an expensive way of making bad men worse), and I don't see any reason why the courts should not take account of this, and I don't feel any surprise that the courts are having to take account of this so very often.

What is the alternative, bear in mind people tend to get a few chances before being locked up.

Cody Pomeray

Zambia wrote: »

What is the alternative, bear in mind people tend to get a few chances before being locked up.

What is the alternative is what I would ask you. I think it's entirely appropriate that the court consider the social context, and this tends to happen, as your OP suggests.

Obviously I still think there is too much reliance on the prisons over rehabilitative alternatives, but that is generally a political matter moreso than something the legal professions can correct.

Zambia

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What is the alternative is what I would ask you. I think it's entirely appropriate that the court consider the social context, and this tends to happen, as your OP suggests.

Obviously I still think there is too much reliance on the prisons over rehabilitative alternatives, but that is generally a political matter more so than something the legal professions can correct.

In relation to your first point you have a point but when every offender claims these defences you start to become jaded. The fact is there are several people on drugs and with mental illnesses who do not rob and steal.

I would put it to you that prison is the option the court utilises when you basically just don't get it.

Cody Pomeray

Zambia wrote: »

when every offender claims these defences you start to become jaded.

Well I'm sorry that you find patterns of social injustice being laid bare in the country's courtrooms so tedious, but the courts have an right - if not a moral obligation - to hear of any manner in which an accused may have been denied an opportunity to enjoy all of the benefits of membership of society, and which might explain his behaviour.

If a man was denied those opportunities, are there ways in which a court can address this inadequacy?

Often, the answer is No, and the manacled individual is walked into to prison and walked out and nothing ever changes. But sometimes district judges can be innovative and versatile in their judgements, and there can be an opening for addressing a deficiency in a person's development.

Obviously, if someone's attitude to crime is lock em up and throw away the key, they will never be satisfied by any socially responsible criminal justice system.

smcgiff

infosys wrote: »

Yes lawyers so clever they get to partner in a large firm and admit wrong doing to another person. If you have evidence of a lawyer breaking the law or breaching serious rules of the law society or law library take it to the relevant authorities. I know of no lawyer that would tell any client how to plead and I know more than a couple in a large firm in Dublin.

Now, where did I say that M'lud? Of course they weren't involved in it (or admit it). They were pointing out the environment they had to work in.

NoQuarter

smcgiff wrote: »

Now, where did I say that M'lud? Of course they weren't involved in it (or admit it). They were pointing out the environment they had to work in.

I'll be over to your forum to do the same trolling you're doing here shortly.

smcgiff

nuac wrote: »

Not too many lead partners in large Dublin firms offer their services to defendants in the District Courts

I seem to be conversing in a different language. Did I say they did?

smcgiff

NoQuarter wrote: »

I'll be over to your forum to do the same trolling you're doing here shortly.

Sorry, didn't realise it was a closed shop. Carry on...

Btw, feel free to drop by any time you want.

Zambia

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Well I'm sorry that you find patterns of social injustice being laid bare in the country's courtrooms so tedious, but the courts have an right - if not a moral obligation - to hear of any manner in which an accused may have been denied an opportunity to enjoy all of the benefits of membership of society, and which might explain his behaviour.

So if a person suffers a social injustice (what is that exactly?) they have a right to commit crimes against others?

I am all for rehabilitation and leniency just don't be claiming to be the victim in court when outside the court you saw no need to consider your own victims.

NoQuarter

smcgiff wrote: »

Sorry, didn't realise it was a closed shop. Carry on...

Btw, feel free to drop by any time you want.

Thanks, because I have a few "conversations" with some big 4 partners about cookin' da books to troll about myself.

smcgiff

NoQuarter wrote: »

Thanks, because I have a few "conversations" with some big 4 partners about cookin' da books to troll about myself.

Good, because I'm sure it happens and the more it is exposed the better.

I've been accused of sterotyping and trolling. I have done neither in my opinion.

NoQuarter

smcgiff wrote: »

I've been accused of sterotyping and trolling. I have done neither in my opinion.

Sure we'll plead guilty for you anyway!

Cody Pomeray

Zambia wrote: »

So if a person suffers a social injustice (what is that exactly?) they have a right to commit crimes against others?

No, if they had a right to do so, there would be no reason to prosecute or find them guilty.

I don't think you are implying that these individuals' legal representatives raise their clients' backgrounds in order that a finding of innocence be made.

No, instead these arguments are often raised in order to explain a personal deficiency on behalf of the client, which might best be rectified in some way other than, for example, imprisonment. In no way does this situation imply or necessitate that any individual has a 'right' to commit a crime.

I am all for rehabilitation and leniency just don't be claiming to be the victim in court when outside the court you saw no need to consider your own victims.

The solution to the question 'why did this man disregard his own victims' may well be what a solicitor or barrister may be trying to impress upon a judge who is about to hand down a sentence. There's no point in ignoring that question, walking your man into prison, and abandoning him there whilst hoping it all works out for the best. To do so is willingly to put one's head in the sand, not that the courts have a great deal of choice anyway.

jmcc99_98

Trolls gonna troll

smcgiff

jmcc99_98 wrote: »

Trolls gonna troll

Where did I Troll? I made a flippant comment at the start, because from the odd heading of the thread I didn't realise it was the legal forum.

I stand by the comments I related from the partners. If this is news to you or in general then sorry.

As has been pointed out the accounting profession has taken a battering of late due to certain business people.

Perhaps said partners shouldn't have mentioned what they did to someone outside the profession. And if I ever meet them again I'll be sure to pass on the boards.ie legal forum's disapprobation.

And to prove I'm not trolling I'll happily not post here again, unless someone makes reference to my post as I reserve the right to reply.

Pat Mustard

Zambia wrote: »

"My client has no reason for his/her offending. They just felt like it."

Does anyone just say yeah you got me I did it because I wanted to?

Saying something like this would not be looked on favourably by a Judge. Lawyers have a duty to do their best for their clients within the law, so this wouldn't be the way to go.

Zambia wrote: »

After a few days in court it appears every criminal act is the result of drugs , drink , mental illness , family abuse etc

Yeah, I agree with you. It's like a conveyer belt.

At the District Court recently, there was a solicitor with a particularly deadpan delivery. He had several consecutive clients who were on their first possession of cannabis charges. Each was pleaded out with something along the lines of:

"He's young, he's very sorry, he won't do it again, he has no previous convictions, he plans to travel (to Australia) and he'd appreciate the opportunity of keeping his record clean."

The Judge fixed this solicitor with a disapproving look and stated that it was the same story all of the time and that it wasn't good enough that these guys chose to have cannabis if they planned to travel.

The solicitor agreed with him and then went on to present his next case in the exact same deadpan fashion. The Judge just gritted his teeth and got on with it.

Each Defendant got the Probation Act.

Zambia

Good call here on a sentence appeal.

http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/woman-kicked-in-the-face-punched-over-car-dispute-20130701-2p69f.html


However, Justice Phillip Priest described the attack on Mrs Payne as "vicious and cruel", and said the sentence was wholly justified.
"For anyone to kick another in the face is, to say the least, deplorable," Justice Priest said.
"But when, as in this case, the kick is to the face of a frail woman by a male, committed in such a cowardly fashion, the offence is particularly serious. In my opinion the offending is not much mitigated by the appellant's personal circumstances."

It's a Victorian court btw

johnnyskeleton

smcgiff wrote: »

Which is the exact opposite of the conversation I had with a couple of lead partners in a large Dublin law firm within the last two months. But, shure, what would they know.

Probably very little because very few of the partners in big commercial firms would set foot in a criminal court.

If they want to be nasty about criminal lawyers / litigation lawyers generally that's fine, but plenty of uncivil things can be said right back at them, for which they probably would not come off the better.

LowKeyReturn

The Mustard wrote: »

Saying something like this would not be looked on favourably by a Judge. Lawyers have a duty to do their best for their clients within the law, so this wouldn't be the way to go.



Yeah, I agree with you. It's like a conveyer belt.

At the District Court recently, there was a solicitor with a particularly deadpan delivery. He had several consecutive clients who were on their first possession of cannabis charges. Each was pleaded out with something along the lines of:

"He's young, he's very sorry, he won't do it again, he has no previous convictions, he plans to travel (to Australia) and he'd appreciate the opportunity of keeping his record clean."

The Judge fixed this solicitor with a disapproving look and stated that it was the same story all of the time and that it wasn't good enough that these guys chose to have cannabis if they planned to travel.

The solicitor agreed with him and then went on to present his next case in the exact same deadpan fashion. The Judge just gritted his teeth and got on with it.

Each Defendant got the Probation Act.

I'm quoting you because I want to pick up on one of your points specifically but I do have some more general points. What is the point in ruining someone's life over a bit of weed? We all do stupid things when we're young. The issue is not having better method for dealing with this. I'm open to correction but doesn't there have to be a conviction and possibility of a custodial sentence before community service can be given?

Why not give people 200 hours in places like the shelter on Merchants Quay, serving food and cleaning up after people with serious addiction issues. Perhaps a bit more of a reality check than €300 donation?

More generally this is the old one criminology theory vs. another. Is it possible that people from disadvantaged background actually do commit the lions share of crime and that's why it's pleaded so often?

Is it possible that as a society we are more concerned about a junkie that breaks in and nicks a €500 TV rather than someone who embezzles €500,000? That we're more concerned about the bloke that gets drunk and gets involved in a fight with another drunken idiot rather than the guy that gets into his car and kills someone?

I'm all for a tough stance on violent crime, but the fact is locking them up is only a temporary fix - shipping them to Australia however... :pac:

EDIT: Let's not forgets it's an adversarial system with both sides advocating for each others respective side. Seems a bit stupid, and frankly dangerous, that one side would start conceding things especially as 90% already plead guilty.

Pro Hoc Vice

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I'm quoting you because I want to pick up on one of your points specifically but I do have some more general points. What is the point in ruining someone's life over a bit of weed? We all do stupid things when we're young. The issue is not having better method for dealing with this. I'm open to correction but doesn't there have to be a conviction and possibility of a custodial sentence before community service can be given?

Why not give people 200 hours in places like the shelter on Merchants Quay, serving food and cleaning up after people with serious addiction issues. Perhaps a bit more of a reality check than €300 donation?

More generally this is the old one criminology theory vs. another. Is it possible that people from disadvantaged background actually do commit the lions share of crime and that's why it's pleaded so often?

Is it possible that as a society we are more concerned about a junkie that breaks in and nicks a €500 TV rather than someone who embezzles €500,000? That we're more concerned about the bloke that gets drunk and gets involved in a fight with another drunken idiot rather than the guy that gets into his car and kills someone?

I'm all for a tough stance on violent crime, but the fact is locking them up is only a temporary fix - shipping them to Australia however... :pac:

EDIT: Let's not forgets it's an adversarial system with both sides advocating for each others respective side. Seems a bit stupid, and frankly dangerous, that one side would start conceding things especially as 90% already plead guilty.

2 issues if a person gets community service that is recorded as a conviction, that has serious implications for a person future in relation to travel and jobs, by allowing a donation to the poor box and a strike out under the probation act then the matter is not recorded as a conviction but a strike out.

Point 2 while the system is adversarial a solicitor and or barrister is under an obligation to assist the court that can mean presenting case law against your point or as happens if the prosecution is aware of a fact that the Defence has not made clear that is to the advantage of the defendant then they will present that fact to the court criminal law while adversarial is also supposed to be fair.

LowKeyReturn

infosys wrote: »

2 issues if a person gets community service that is recorded as a conviction, that has serious implications for a person future in relation to travel and jobs, by allowing a donation to the poor box and a strike out under the probation act then the matter is not recorded as a conviction but a strike out.

That was my point to be fair. The issue seems to be that society seems to think that application of the Probation Act is a 'soft on crime solution' in some respects I agree. What I don't agree with is giving someone a criminal record, with all that entails, over a minor issue. Surely a mid-point of no criminal record and a punishment is a better solution? I realise this would require a change in the law, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in some of these threads over how constrained judges are.

infosys wrote: »

Point 2 while the system is adversarial a solicitor and or barrister is under an obligation to assist the court that can mean presenting case law against your point or as happens if the prosecution is aware of a fact that the Defence has not made clear that is to the advantage of the defendant then they will present that fact to the court criminal law while adversarial is also supposed to be fair.

I take your point. I don't think legal counsel's personal opinion that the guy is a 'scum-bag' and just 'did it because he felt like it' falls into either category though.

Cody Pomeray

The Mustard wrote: »

Each was pleaded out with something along the lines of:

"He's young, he's very sorry, he won't do it again, he has no previous convictions, he plans to travel (to Australia) and he'd appreciate the opportunity of keeping his record clean."

The Judge fixed this solicitor with a disapproving look and stated that it was the same story all of the time and that it wasn't good enough that these guys chose to have cannabis if they planned to travel.

The solicitor agreed with him and then went on to present his next case in the exact same deadpan fashion. The Judge just gritted his teeth and got on with it.

Maybe it occurred to the district judge - or perhaps it ought to have occurred to him - that a lot of young guys who find themselves in this position are, actually, your typical candidates for emigration. Even if the solcitor was exaggerating, I don't know many single guys under the age of 30 who can afford to say "well, I for one will not be emigrating". It's an ongoing possibility for plenty, if not most, young single men, and for such a petty crime, the judicious response is clearly to find an alternative remedy than recording a conviction.

Pat Mustard

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Maybe it occurred to the district judge - or perhaps it ought to have occurred to him - that a lot of young guys who find themselves in this position are, actually, your typical candidates for emigration.

I'd say District Judges are acutely aware of it.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It's an ongoing possibility for plenty, if not most, young single men, and for such a petty crime, the judicious response is clearly to find an alternative remedy than recording a conviction.

Yes, exactly.

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Why not give people 200 hours in places like the shelter on Merchants Quay, serving food and cleaning up after people with serious addiction issues. Perhaps a bit more of a reality check than €300 donation?

Interesting idea.

I would mention that the entire process of a criminal prosecution can be quite a wake-up call for many first-time offenders. They have the whole experience with the Gardai and having to attend to court for the first time. On a first cannabis possession charge, legal aid is not likely to be granted, so if they want legal representation they will have to pay for it themselves. There is also the possibility that the matter may require two or more court appearances before it is disposed of. This may require time off work. It's a load of hassle and it's a stressful experience for many. And then there is the issue of paying a charitable contribution. Rather than getting off lightly, it could be quite an ordeal.

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

More generally this is the old one criminology theory vs. another. Is it possible that people from disadvantaged background actually do commit the lions share of crime and that's why it's pleaded so often?

Seems that way.

If you look at it another way, if the accused had been afforded the best opportunities in life, perhaps the question may arise as to whether those privileges would work against him. (See here.)

“This is a young man given all the opportunities in life including third level education. The question is that an aggravating factor?”

LowKeyReturn

The Mustard wrote: »

Seems that way.

If you look at it another way, if the accused had been afforded the best opportunities in life, perhaps the question may arise as to whether those privileges would work against him. (See here.)

Or one might argue it was a one off aberration that won't happen again as 'he's a good lad really'. I know it's cynical but, of course, it goes back to advocating for the client.

To be fair I wonder how much of this judges actually listen to and how much it really effects sentence.