[DaveO]

Re: Huhne was lying : Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:59 am  

Adamjk wrote:

If (Barristors) they know they're guilty because the defendant's admitted the offence, they can't go into court and put forward a completely different story. To suggest that happens on a daily basis is a load of rubbish.

In the Hulme case they didn't put forward a different story. They were arguing technicalities which suggests to me they knew he was guilty. Otherwise why not present evidence of innocence?

Regardless of that Hulme was clearly hoping "justice" could be secured if he paid enough to employ a top QC. Legal Aid anyone?

[Kosh]

Re: Huhne was lying : Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:47 am  

DaveO wrote:

In the Hulme case they didn't put forward a different story. They were arguing technicalities which suggests to me they knew he was guilty. Otherwise why not present evidence of innocence?

It's not their responsibility to provide evidence of innocence. Their responsibility is to refute evidence of guilt. Or in this case to argue that a fair trial could not take place. None of this suggests that they knew he was guilty.

Re: Huhne was lying : Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:48 pm  

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/07/nick-clegg-chris-huhne_n_2637229.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics £17,000 severence pay should help ease the anguish, or buy a bloody good holiday to lie low for a while.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/07/nick-clegg-chris-huhne_n_2637229.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics £17,000 severence pay should help ease the anguish, or buy a bloody good holiday to lie low for a while.

Re: Huhne was lying : Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:27 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

You are completely wrong not for the first time.

I personally was coached by a solicitor and a barrister at different times when i was appearing in court as a defendant.

I also know that solicitors and barristers regularly, " coach" their clients in family cases.

This may not take the form of these are the questions i will ask this is what you should say but it is often along the lines of you will be asked this question how will you answer it then they suggest that a better way of phrasing it would be so and so

For you to doubt this happens in my opinion makes you either either completely ignorant of how the legal system works or you are in denial of the reality.

Total bullsh!!t from you as I now expect.

As was clear, I was stating (and repeat) that the claim of the OP which (to quote it)
"encourage defendants and witnesses to lie in court on a routine basis"

"A better way of phrasing" is absolutely nothing to do with "encouraging to lie" and even a numbskulled dolt like you bloody well knows it.

Re: Huhne was lying : Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:28 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

Well quite. Coaching a client and lying to the court are two completely different things

Perhaps you need to run a class for moderators in comprehending plain English.

There are not many who would need to attend, I'll grant.

Re: Huhne was lying : Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:40 pm  

DaveO wrote:

In the Hulme case they didn't put forward a different story. They were arguing technicalities which suggests to me they knew he was guilty.

Huhne? The main argument run (I summarised them earlier) was that he could not get a fair trial. The court ruled that he could, but whatever the ruling, I disagree that this is a "technicality". Quite the opposite, the question of whether a defendant can get a fair trial is fundamental.

DaveO wrote:

Otherwise why not present evidence of innocence?

Apart from that that's not how it works, this was a preliminary stage. We don't know whether or not they always knew he would plead guilty if the preliminary hearing failed. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

DaveO wrote:

Regardless of that Hulme was clearly hoping "justice" could be secured if he paid enough to employ a top QC. Legal Aid anyone?

That toerag Grayling was just on the other day about trying to stop criminal defendants getting a QC on legal aid. At the moment, in an appropriate case, they can.

Of course there would be no chance of the average man in the street running the case that Huhne did on legal aid, so yes, because he could afford a QC and a top legal team, he got a chance to run an argument in a 12 day hearing that most defendants in his position realistically never would. But unless you make laws restricting freedom of choice of advocate, I'm not sure what could be done about that.

[Durham Giant]

Re: Huhne was lying : Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:59 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Total bullsh!!t from you as I now expect.

As was clear, I was stating (and repeat) that the claim of the OP which (to quote it)
"encourage defendants and witnesses to lie in court on a routine basis"

"A better way of phrasing" is absolutely nothing to do with "encouraging to lie" and even a numbskulled dolt like you bloody well knows it.

Typical bullshit from you.

You try to use clever semantics to justify your point when the reality is that there is no REAL difference.

The post you replied too was in relation to a legal situation with a business client.

Privately paying clients want their legal advisor to make sure they win their case. that means that the legal advisors money and future employment is to ensure they are succesful at achieving their aim. That is an incentive ( financial ) to do whatever needs to be done.

If that is not an incentive to do whatever is neccessary to win then nothing is.


A better way of phrasing is usually to use words that are less incriminating, less incriminating means less open, less open means less honest, less honest means manipulating the truth, less truth means lying.

Many legal advisors like to hide behind the semantics but the reality is the role of the legal advisor in an adversarial legal case is to win. Some will win at all costs and do anything that they can.
That means personally discrediting witnessess, " rape victims were asking for it", encouraging a better way of presenting information or in some cases lying.

Do you think Murdochs lawyer did not rehearse what to do , did not tell him to use certain words and avoid others or openly tell him to deny an allegation that may be put to him.

Most Lawyers are clever enough to dress up their advice so there can be no comeback on them but the net result is the same.

You are no different to Campbell with his dodgy dossier everyone knows it was a just a cleverer way of telling lies.

You are just a clever obfuscator of the truth and a liar.

[Kosh]

Re: Huhne was lying : Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:04 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

A better way of phrasing is usually to use words that are less incriminating, less incriminating means less open, less open means less honest, less honest means manipulating the truth, less truth means lying.

Um, no. No it doesn't.

[Durham Giant]

Re: Huhne was lying : Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:16 pm  

Kosh wrote:

Um, no. No it doesn't.

I accept that BUT IT CAN and it does.

I am just not getting into a semantic arguement.

Legal advisors give advice to clients to ensure the truth does not come out. Whether that equates practically to encouraging to lie which will happen in some cases or developing strategies to prevent the truth coming out which happens in many more cases is irrelevant.

The net result is the same in that courts particularly in an adversarial system often do not lead to the truth coming out or justice being done either for plaintiffs or defendants.

Personally i dont care but i am not naiive enough to believe that the legal profession is in some way some superior moral, regulated, ethical buisness which elevates it higher than any other

Re: Huhne was lying : Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:58 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

Typical bullshit from you.

You try to use clever semantics to justify your point when the reality is that there is no REAL difference.

there is EVERY difference, the essential difference is between honestly doing the job you are qualified and paid to do on the one hand, and "encouraging defendants and witnesses to lie in court on a routine basis" which is not at all semantics, but the difference between chalk and bleedin' cheese.

Durham Giant wrote:

Privately paying clients want their legal advisor to make sure they win their case. that means that the legal advisors money and future employment is to ensure they are succesful at achieving their aim. That is an incentive ( financial ) to do whatever needs to be done.

If that is not an incentive to do whatever is neccessary to win then nothing is.

Breathtaking. Even if you were right that in all such cases the lawyers "have an incentive" to "do whatever needs to be done" (by which I presume you mean "including breaking the law", correct me if that's wrong) the question surely would be how many are so corrupt and unethical that they would act on that "incentive" and encourage clients and witnesses to lie. Everyone would accept as trite that in the case of lawyers, as in any other occupation, there are rotten apples, of course there are, but that truism is a country mile away from your "routine" slur, which is simply unsupported, jaundiced rubbish.

Durham Giant wrote:

Many legal advisors like to hide behind the semantics but the reality is the role of the legal advisor in an adversarial legal case is to win.

Except that of course that is palpable rubbish. the role of the legal advisor is to provide their client with the best possible legal advice that they can. That can be done equally well whether the client wins, or loses.

I know you're blinded by your own self-righteousness, so let me give you a simple example to think about.

Say there were 10 litigated cases. That means 10 lawyers acting for claimants, and 10 lawyers acting for defendants.

Whatever happens, if it is as simple as you suggest, then by definition whatever the result, 10 lawyers will have "won", and 10 lawyers will have "lost". This ratio will remain constant, whether there are 10 cases, or a hundred, or a million. I'd be interested to know how you square that fact with your belief that the role is simply "to win". You need to be less simplistic and understand that there is much, much more to litigation than a simple "win or lose".

Durham Giant wrote:

Some will win at all costs and do anything that they can.

As I have said, no-one would dispute the existence of rotten apples. What i am taking issue with is your "routine" remark.

Durham Giant wrote:

That means personally discrediting witnessess,

Well, yes. Any lawyer representing any client might reasonably seek to do that. What on earth is the problem with that?

Durham Giant wrote:

" rape victims were asking for it"

... would be a pathetic attempt at a defence. Do you have a string of examples of this actually happening routinely? Or any?

Durham Giant wrote:

encouraging a better way of presenting information or in some cases lying.

There you go again, you are talking about two entirely different things, one perfectly legitimate, the other clearly wrong and illegal.

Durham Giant wrote:

Do you think Murdochs lawyer did not rehearse what to do , did not tell him to use certain words and avoid others or openly tell him to deny an allegation that may be put to him.

I have no clue. Maybe he or she did. How is that relevant?

Of course, you could go further and suggest that in your opinion Murdoch's lawyer "routinely encouraged Murdoch and witnesses to lie". Go on, then, I dare you, say it.

Durham Giant wrote:

Most Lawyers are clever enough to dress up their advice so there can be no comeback on them but the net result is the same.

Hang on, so what you are now saying, if I understand this correctly, is that lawyers do NOT routinely encourage clients and witnesses to lie, but the clients and witnesses lie anyway, without being told to, as a result of what the lawyer has said to them? So now where we are is that the lawyer does NOT in fact tell ANYONE to lie. But they change their evidence and lie because the lawyer gave the the impression that they should, or what? How TF does it work, in your opinion?

Durham Giant wrote:

You are just a clever obfuscator of the truth and a liar.

Can I add that to my CV sig? What an asshole you are. Listen up, asshole, I challenge you to give an example of ONE "lie" that I have told. Then you can talk.