US Politics

Isn't that a bit of a simplification - even if pleading guilty, anyone would still want good counsel for mitigation, making a case for sentencing etc?

Which I'd say is still defence

Wikipedia presumably had an overview of the British legal system and its history...

There's the infamous billboard ad slogan for some US lawyer - 'Just because you did it doesn't mean you're guilty'...

isn't the point that it is equally important that the 'obviously' guilty are defended robustly, as it in turn requires for them to be prosecuted robustly, and thus secures a solid/unchallengeable verdict (ideally ensuring 'justice')?

I was given a copy of the secret barristers book a while ago, haven't got round to reading it yet, do you know if it is any good\realistic by any chance?

It's very good. It's more of a critique of the current justice system rather than an insight into life at the bar, but it's a very powerful read.

Edit: Are YOU the secret barrister?!

Nope. I don't do criminal law. My only involvement in criminal law was doing a plea in mitigation for a careless driving offence nearly 20 years ago. During which I proved I didn't really know what I was doing by appearing robed in a magistrates' court.

It's very good. It's more of a critique of the current justice system rather than an insight into life at the bar, but it's a very powerful read.

I shall move it up the to read list.

Nope. I don't do criminal law. My only involvement in criminal law was doing a plea in mitigation for a careless driving offence nearly 20 years ago. During which I proved I didn't really know what I was doing by appearing robed in a magistrates' court.

But that’s what the secret barrister would say if I was onto him....

Which I'd say is still defence

I wouldn't but that's semantics. I agree that even the guilty are entitled to representation when it comes to mitigation/sentencing. The point I was trying to make is that if someone had absolutely definitely committed an offence, no legal representative would be allowed to suggest that they hadn't. For example, it's a cardinal sin when presenting a plea in mitigation to suggest that the accused isn't in fact guilty.

robed in a magistrates' court.

Surely better than being dis-robed?

Only marginally. Both hideously embarrassing in hindsight.

Open at the back robes like in hospital?

Long and flowing with a horsehair wig. Very fashionable for the early 19th century.

Did the wig cover up the embarrassing hindsight?

Sadly not. Embellished and highlighted it.

I think you're just describing your Coat of Arms
'Brommers: Hindsight hideous, embellished, highlighted'

That’s not a good example. It’s hard to argue that the cab rank rule applies in appointing a brief based in another country which is subject to a travel ban on arrivals which requires you to spend 21 days not in the UK before you are let in. Then when you arrive a 21 day hotel quarantine applies all of which would prevent you attending court for the start of the trial. The government suggested none of this would apply to him which itself might have been challenged but certainly creates an uneven playing field if one side can fly in anyone they like when the defence is limited to the local pool.

It's very good. It's more of a critique of the current justice system rather than an insight into life at the bar, but it's a very powerful read.

I shall move it up the to read list.

Anecdotally, it certainly seemed pretty accurate. I read it just after finishing a 3 week murder trial - as a juror I should probably add - and a lot of what was in the book rang true

As I understand it David Perry QC is a member of the Hong Kong bar as well as the UK bar. While the cab rank rule wouldn't apply to him as a UK barrister, my understanding is that it would if he's a member of the HK bar. I've no experience of the HK bar or its professional rules but I understand they're essentially the same as the UK bar, including the cab rank rule.

AFAIK he is part of the local pool, being registered with the HKBA.

If only. Sadly it's boringly heraldic rather than excitingly metaphysical.

Even though he’s registered in HK the cab rank rule doesn’t apply to overseas barristers and they are free to pick and choose their cases (Philip Dykes, outgoing head of the HK Bar Association).

I don’t often agree with Raab but he was spot on with his comments.

In that case, my apologies to Mr Raab. On this one occasion.

Death Throes of the Republicans?

A split in the GOP between (Continuity Reaganite?) republicans
and the populist Tea Party/Trumpers/Qrazies would hopefully prevent the
Republicans ever stimying progressive legislation again.

Not hopeful though. The Right has an ability to retain/regain power
as seen, here, in the UK where Brexit at one time seemed to be splitting the Tories.

More Axios gold on meetings in the final months of Trump’s presidency;

https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-26eb267f8723.html

^ More crazy than you can imagine.

Edit: nvm

On the cab rank rule chat, everyone understands that it doesn't apply in the US right?

Also love how many people here don't think "guilty people" deserve legal representation.

(except for public defenders in criminal cases)