I ended up representing myself in a family (district)court matter after my own legal reps completely botched the settlement agreement, this resulted in the settlement being re-entered - in order to secure costs the other sides Barrister mislead the court by claiming that certain matters in the settlement were still outstanding even though the time stipulation to complete the matters had not expired, but on one specific point they outright lied to the court, the lie only came to light when I received my file several months later from my previous legal reps
As a result of the barrister misleading the court and telling the lie costs were awarded against me, I was under the (now obviously naive) assumption that courts require evidence but it appears, at least in family court, whoever is the best liar wins the case
Are Barristers allowed to lie to the court? As I understand it an appeal has to be lodged within a few weeks of the original hearing so are there any options now? Can this be brought to the attention of the court, should I make a complaint to the LRSA etc?
I think representing yourself was your main mistake. You left it wide open, were seemingly uninformed of the state of play without your files and are now surprised that a barrister chewed you up and spit you out.
Being unrepresented has also resulted in you not having your info in time and being possibly too late to do anything further.
What is the point of your answer? Clearly I am aware of all that, where are you going next - to the cancer ward to tell the patients that they shouldn't have smoked?
I am asking for help and this is your response - that says a lot about the type of person you are
You can ask to mention it in that courtroom at any time. The judge can allow it or say no.
Did the barrister lie, or did they take instruction from their client and take it at face value? There's a big difference.
Can't say i'm surprised. Got stitched by a retired barrister and a guard who both outright lied in, under oath, in court, long time ago. When raised with my own barrister, what about telling the truth? perjury? Basically said "truth has nothing to do with it, you've learned a valuable lesson"
Your attitude probably is more to blame than the other barrister.
What lie, exactly, was told by the barrister? Be specific.
Is the Barrister actually lying or is taking instruction from their Client in good fate without knowing it is false? Legally there is a huge difference.
It a bit like a Defence Solicitor, they will never ask a Client outright of they are guilty or not so not to lie when defending their client. They may know from the evidence but if their client hasn't told them, then they can act in good faith.
Everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon lambasting OP (I'm erring on the side of it being justified, but that's another matter)...
So the main points seem to be, a solicitor/barrister may lie in court under the pretence of good faith with their client (they are just going on what they say)..
So if OP has valid proof they lied, even if the matter is currently closed, can they open it up again and present this new evidence?
Would I be correct in assuming this would need to be done under a new civil case?
Is it a lie to tell someone something you believe to be the truth? Or rather, have no reason to believe is false?
Lie implies knowledge on the part of the speaker that what they are saying is untrue. So if a barrister is told that X happened then he can make those submissions. That's not a lie, the barrister is merely relaying to the court what he has been told.
Also, and this is no slight on the OP, the actual litigants to a case rarely see the nuance in statements. They quite often see statements they disagree with as lies. It's why there's a neutral arbiter in between to decide where the truth lies, insofar as it can ever really be ascertained.
Interesting how evidence relayed by your representitive can be accepted by the court but if a witness were to pass on something they had been told it would usually be regarded as hearsay (right?). Are the barrister and their client treated the same when it comes to giving evidence?
The barrister claimed that some of the proceeds from the family house sale were still outstanding, this was completely false - the entirety of the house sale proceeds had been transferred to my ex-wifes solicitor shortly after the settlement had been signed, my ex-wifes solicitor jointly carried out the conveyancing so knew the figure was correct and had never queried it and has not queried it since the hearing
While that may not sound like much it was enough together with the other misleading statements to make it look like I was the one being difficult when in fact my ex and her solicitor, prior to the hearing, had sent me a letter which I think any reasonable person would consider as nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to extort money above what had been agreed in the terms of the settlement using the implied threat of court as the lever, the solicitor marked the document with-holding prejudice and the judge refused to look at it
THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN IRELAND HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INTEGRITY.
So normal day at the office....
No it wasn't information from their client, it would have been information from the solicitor who would have known that it was false, please see my earlier response describing the lie
To maintain that the barrister lied you need to show that the barrister knew it was false.
If the justice system of a society operates on the basis of cheating and dishonesty then that will just encourage the rest of that society to act in a selfish and dishonest fashion
If the barrister knowingly lied, and you have proof of this then you can seek to have the barrister disbarred at the very least, if the lie played a pivotal role in the deciding of the case you can seek to re-litigate the case or bring forward a challenge to the legitimacy of it citing the evidence and also the outcome of your action against the barrister.
The burden of proof will be on you, if you don't have concrete evidence you are wasting your time. People may have a dim view of the legal profession obviously but it is far better to have someone representing you who knows what they are doing, if your not happy with your representation dismiss them and find new representation. In any matter where you are required to have a barrister it is generally unwise to represent yourself, obviously you know that now.
An advocate can't give evidence. Only a witness can.
If a barrister misleads a court deliberately is misconduct. If they do it unintentionally they are obliged to rectify it as soon as they discover the true position otherwise it is misconduct.
And if they are astute enough to not look too closely into something which a reasonable person would easily see is questionable or inconsistent?
Their duty is to assist the court in arriving at the truth. They are not the mouthpiece of their client.
"Retired" barrister, representing himself. Can still hear him. Claimed I reversed out from a parking slot in a car park and he " was struck so violently I had to use my cane to prevent myself falling over" and drove off.
Thing is, I had not actually been in said car park. Early morning, stopped on the roadside outside to make a phone call, before mobiles (early 90's).
Barrister my employer hired explained, Unfortunately, I was a perfect candidate, for an all too common scam at the time. Young guy on his own, shiny company vehicle with logos on the side, safe bet to be insured, I was screwed from the start. No witnesses, his word against mine and he knew the judge, traffic charge (leaving the scene of an accident) dropped, insurance settles/pays up. No harm done.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
The "lie" alleged in this case - that sale proceeds under a contract remained outstanding - was not something that, on the face if it, was questionable or inconsistent.
If an advocate does receive instructions that are, on the face of them, questionable or inconsistent, far from being "astute enough not to look too closely" into them, he will usually be astute enough to query them. If what he is told looks questionable to him, then it will equally look questionable when repeated to a judge or jury, and he will point this out to his client. This is a situation in which your duty to the court and your duty to your client coincide.
Can you appeal ?
Court can be dreadfully unfair and it's a harsh eye opener
Not in the case of an advocate in court.
there is no justice in the courts, it is only law and in order to use it you need to learn how to read it.
They use specially constructed language where they dispute meaning of the words.
youtube David-Wynn: Miller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hge24Nq4LOI that is one of the films.
If that were the case a single advocate would be paid for the court and there would be no need for separate advocates for an applicant and respondent.
In theory theory is fine but in practice it's practice that matters.
I don't mean to point out the obvious, but when the barrister said that about the proceeds of the sale, why didn't you correct the Judge when you had the chance to? Why didn't you bring the necessary bank statements etc with you? At the very least you could have asked for an adjournment to get the papers together for the Court. I appreciate it's easy to be wise after the event but this thread is a good example of why you hire a professional to the do the job.
Look at the situation from the Judge's point of view, they have no idea who to believe, you had a chance to present the bank statements to the Court but you didn't. Your problem isn't just that the barrister mislead the Court, it's that you didn't take your chance to correct the Court with evidence that you could have brought with you.
As an aside, it's bizarre a barrister would lie about something you could have so easily disproved, it would have ruined his client's credibility, imo.