Finally a judge with a bit of sense

go on the judge with a bit of sense

biko wrote: »

Good.

That was allowed to go on?

It's one thing when the prosecution and the defense stipulate to the same facts but just taking the word of someone's lawyer seems ripe for abuse.

I would urge people to randomly attend hearings if you want to see this circus in action.

The judge doesn't even lift his head to look at the defendant. Why? Because he/she has seen most of them before over and over again.

Then you get the bs from the solicitors about the circumstances of their client and every time it's the same regurgitated sh!te.

It's copy/paste.

Fair play to the judge.

I always found that part strange and eventually just accepted that just was the way it is. Makes sense that they should have to prove all this. Can see some doctors getting rich(er). Precedence or not, he's not asking to change law or anything like that, he's just now requesting the onus of proof be provided where it was just taken all along.

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

It's been going on for years and is basically Perjury

Perjury is a serious crime, as it often results in a miscarriage of justice.

If they're caught doing this, they should be struck off by the bar council for a period of time.
Maybe 3 strikes, and they're out?

It's not perjury as the barristers aren't sworn when making submissions in mitigation.

"Judge 'putting down a marker' that barristers must back up their claims in court"

What does "putting down a marker" mean?

Is it the equivalent of wagging your finger and saying tut-tut?

Doesn't sound threatening at all. "If you don't do your homework I'll be putting down a marker".

Or is it an actual legal thing now that evidence must be shown that Jimmy O'Scrote has negative drug tests etc.

:pac::pac::pac:

I'll believe it when I see it. I've seen this circus in the courts.

Judge: 130 Previous convictions?

Solicitor: She's indicated that she has turned a corner and wishes to focus her energies on her family. She promised she won't partake in driving with no tax, insurance, NCT or license in the future and will no longer shoplift.

Judge: OK, be good now. On your merry way. Wait! Are those my car keys in your hand?

Defendant: Oops.

Well I'd imagine that in his court, at least, he won't allow solicitors to say anything in defence of his client without physical proof now. We're hoping that this trickles down throughout the countries courts, but I can't see it happening, at least not for a while. But a bigger issue needs to be made of this. We need to be asking why now? Can it not be circulated to all Judges to remind them that they need proof?

Well, there's a fairly lenghty Code of Conduct for Barristers, not sure if that means they are sworn in, but it still covers honesty, just a snippet from the beginning:

2.3. It is the duty of Barristers:
(a) to comply with the provisions of the Code;
(b) to act at all times with honesty and integrity;
(c) not to engage in conduct (whether in pursuit of their profession or otherwise)
which may bring the Barristers' profession into disrepute, which may injure the
dignity and high standing of the profession, or which is likely to diminish the trust
and confidence placed in them or in the profession;
(d) not to engage in conduct which is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) to observe the ethics and etiquette of their profession;
(f) to provide a competent and professional standard of work and service to each
client;
(g) to conduct their profession as Barristers so as to ensure that there is no serious
falling short, by omission or commission, of the standard of conduct expected of a
Barrister;
(h) to be individually responsible for their own conduct;
(i) to co-operate with an investigation conducted by the Bar Council and/or the PPC
pursuant to paragraph 2.20 of the Code; and
(j) to co-operate with an investigation conducted by the Barristers Professional
Conduct Tribunal or the Barristers Professional Conduct Appeals Board, pursuant
to paragraph A4 of the Disciplinary Code for the Bar of Ireland, or the Disciplinary
Committee of the Benchers of the Honorable Society of King's Inns.

Underneath that then you have:

2.5. Barristers have an overriding duty to the Court to ensure in the public interest
that the proper and efficient administration of justice is achieved and they must
assist the Court in the administration of justice and must not deceive or
knowingly mislead the court.

So even if they're not sworn in, they should be fired from the BAR council if caught lying. I'm not reading another 30 pages of this though.