Barrister lied in court

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117867600#Comment_117867600

but you knew it wasn't true. Why didn't you speak up?

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869001#Comment_117869001

You can't just speak out of turn in court. Unless you are sworn in as a witness and responding to a question from your own or the other side's barrister you are liable to be found in contempt if you just speak up.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869056#Comment_117869056

I am aware of that. But you do get an opportunity to speak. I imagine that would be a good time to mention that the other sides barrister has given incorrect information to the court.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869060#Comment_117869060

That would depend on whether the 'fact' you wish to challenge is claimed before you take the stand or not and whether you have any opportunity to consult with your legal team about it.

Tactical manoeuvers can be used to prevent a person  from being able to consult with their legal team to contest a falsehood raised in the course of a hearing.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869145#Comment_117869145

you will always get a chance to challenge statements made by the other. It is not "one side goes, then the other says their bit and that is the end of it". There is back and forth.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869156#Comment_117869156

Not if you have been prevented from advising your legal team that something claimed needs to be challenged.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869216#Comment_117869216

nobody is prevented from doing that. I've been involved in a civil trial, if something as blatantly untrue as that was mentioned I would have been able to get my solicitors attention and inform them. Also, the OP was representing themselves. there was nothing stopping them from speaking up. Pro Se litigants get a lot of leeway from judges.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869618#Comment_117869618

You are not going to be able to have a full blown conversation with your solicitor and instruct them properly when sitting in court while your case is being heard. They are either assisting counsel or taking notes on the proceedings. The court won't entertain lengthy background conversations either.

Our legal system can easily be played to tatically prevent a litigant from consulting with their legal team between two scheduled hearing days. I've seen it done.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869721#Comment_117869721

wait, now you are saying that you can be prevented from talking to your legal team between sittings? Fishonabike? more like christ on a bike.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869056#Comment_117869056

The OP's legal representative is entitled to bring matters to the attention of the court at regular intervals.

Guess who represented the OP?

As the old saying goes, "he who represents himself in court has a fool for a client".

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869618#Comment_117869618

Likewise, I've been in several civil trials, and more than once I had to get information to our legal reps when the hearing was in full flow.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869726#Comment_117869726

Yes. I've seen a principal litigant prevented from consulting with their legal team for a number of weeks between sittings in a case.

It's a tactic than can most likely only be used once for any particular witness in a case, but applied to the right person at the right time it can significantly disadvantage a litigant.

One has to remember it's a legal system, not a justice system.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869799#Comment_117869799

Yes. I've seen a principal litigant prevented from consulting with their legal team for a number of weeks between sittings in a case.

please explain how. I would love to hear this. Even a prisoner on remand can access their legal team.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869843#Comment_117869843

Quite simple. A person cannot consult their legal team while they are on the stand.

I've seen an instance where a litigant was called and sworn in immediately before a case was adjourned for the day to the next sitting a few weeks later, for no apparent purpose other than to prevent them being able to consult with or instruct their legal team between sittings.

awsah

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869966#Comment_117869966

That situation does not apply here as OP was not called as a witness so it's unrelated

If the OP was present in court when that was mentioned all he had to do was flag his solicitor and let them know, it happens all the time, judges allow it all the time. If they didn't then there would be appeal after appeal. I've had courts rise to allow for talks between clients and solicitors when points arise in court that were not previously discussed.

OP I would say now might be a good time to speak to a family law solicitor. See if they can make an application to extend time for appeal (I know nothing of family law so not sure if this is possible) you can also make an application for the DAR - the digital recording of the hearing where the barrister tells the lie to the judge. You could use this to ground your application for appeal.

Going after a barrister is extremely difficult as they take instructions from solicitors who take instructions from clients. It sounds more like he was given wrong information from solicitor than he lied as the lie would have been easily disputed by you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869966#Comment_117869966

This is not true. A person cannot consult with their legal team while they are subject to cross-examination. But there's nothing to prevent them talking during examination in chief. So the example you described, being sworn in and then immediately adjourned, is almost impossible. They would have had to be on the stand already being examined by their own legal representatives who, knowing what time it was and the rules of court, would have insisted the court adjourn the matter before the cross-examination began precisely to avoid the situation you described.

Absent some insane confluence of events, what you have described is not possible.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117883888#Comment_117883888

You are correct, I think the person had just completed being examined by their own legal representatives at the end of a long day.

However either their legal representatives failed to ask / insist on adjourning at that point and the other side's legal representatives asked / insisted on commencing cross-examination and was allowed by the court only to then immediately request and be granted an adjournment until the next sitting several weeks later thereby leaving the person unable to consult with or instruct their legal team for a number of weeks in what was a still evolving matter.

Whether it is a poor reflection on the person's legal representatives that the person was put at such a disadvantage or it is common for such tactical manouevering to take place I don't know.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869966#Comment_117869966

You've just completely changed your story. You said you saw them sworn in and then immediately adjourned. Now you're saying the examination in chief ended at the end of a long day. If you want to make out that there are some fishy tactics going on for some unknown reason then go ahead, but none of this sounds like it actually happened.

feelings

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117869156#Comment_117869156

This is simply not true. I was in the same position some time ago and was never given the opportunity to refute any of the lies told by the other sides barrister. There is no doubt in my mind that the barrister deliberately misled the court with lies and theatrics. I will be making a complaint to the LSRA as soon as the case is over. If I get the chance, I'll raise the matter in my final hearing also.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117884441#Comment_117884441

I don't believe I have completely changed my story.

The original claim that I had seen a litigant prevented from consulting with or instructing their legal team for a number of weeks between scheduled sitting days in a case due to the fact that they were technically on the stand for the time between sittings remains unchanged.

That I lacked the detailed legal knowledge to make the distinction on the relevance of examination in chief and cross examination does not detract from the fact that the other side would appear to have started cross examination for no other aparent purpose than to immediately seek an adjournment in order to prevent the litigant having access to their legal team for a number of weeks.

The extra technical information you provided does however make me wonder if the litigant was poorly served by their legal team in not managing the hearing in a way to avoid their client being put at such a disadvantage.

Claw Hammer

Once a witness has given their direct evidence they are tendered for cross examination. It is not unusual, at the end of the day for the case to be adjourned, if the cross examination is going to take a long time, rather than have the cross examination split up. A person is under cross examination from the time they are tendered toi the other side.

H0wdy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117870916#Comment_117870916

I've spoken to a solicitor and lying to the court is considered serious misconduct, the Barrister on the day was assisted by the solicitor who carried out joint conveyancing on the property sale so how credible is it that the Barrister would not have known what they said to the court was a lie? (unless of course the solicitor deliberately and dishonestly misled the Barrister in which case the Solicitor, as an officer of the court, will be guilty of serious misconduct)

I am lodging a complaint with the LSRA and the Barrister will be given an opportunity to explain their behaviour,

I would encourage anyone else that has an issue with the dishonesty of their own or the opposing legal representatives to make a complaint otherwise the Irish legal system will just continue to become more corrupt

Deals Direct

Make a complaint to the Garda that the Barrister & all those involved from the other side has committed perjury as they knowingly swore into evidence false information, this is against the law here is the act, Criminal Justice (Perjury and Related Offences) Act 2021

Also make a complaint of misconduct against the barrister with the LSRA as this is considered misconduct.

Please hold them to account, this should not happen & it seems to me the only way to get justice served in this country is to represent yourself in court.

The courts system in Ireland needs to be tightened up. Barristers, solicitors & even judges are very loosey goosey when it comes to matters of law & its upto the citizens to get them back in line & follow the law to the letter.

Laws are written in words & the words are put in a particular order that is entered into memory by way of our statues & laws are there to protect us as well as defend us against injustice.

Never be afraid to use them to fight injustice.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120668791#Comment_120668791

barristers don't take an oath when they appear in court. They can't be guilty of perjury for what they say in court. When acting as an advocate they are not supposed to give evidence. The only sanction is professional misconduct and/or contempt of court.