Perplexed....
29 June 2004, 09:45 PM
#1
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Perplexed....
Why is it that solicitors that represent people they know to be guilty are not charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice?
This has been bothering me all day - is there some legal precedent?
This has been bothering me all day - is there some legal precedent?
29 June 2004, 09:48 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Innoncent until proven by the court to be guilty?
I have wondered about this myself from time to time. Mob lawyers *know* that their clients are more than likley bent as hell, but still they defend them as if they were not.
I have wondered about this myself from time to time. Mob lawyers *know* that their clients are more than likley bent as hell, but still they defend them as if they were not.
29 June 2004, 09:48 PM
#3
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know but maybe it is because it is their job to represent someone whether in the right or wrong. Most people need a legal rep in court and they are just stating what the defendant is saying etc rather than claiming to have said or done wrong. They are not the ones on trial.
It has got me thinking though!!
It has got me thinking though!!
29 June 2004, 09:59 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 1,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats a very good question actually! Has definately got me stumped.
The only things i can come up with are:
1.) A solicitor never actually makes claim that any statement is a personal view or that he can confirm it's truth, it is merely a relay of information from the client and as such i would imagine the court system is set up to understand this.
2.) I would guess that the court also understands a solicitor has a duty to regard any information passed to him by his client as truth without question and so the solicitor could give the impression that he did not know the information was false.
I think the key thing must be that the solicitor could in theory be guilty of conspiracy to pervert but there would be virtually no way of proving it based on the above.
may be way off the mark but just a guess, would be interested to hear if anyone could clarify.
David
Edited: It would appear from a bit of research that the main point is the solicitor is always acting "on the instructions of the client" so never actually verifies the integrity of the information themselves.
The only things i can come up with are:
1.) A solicitor never actually makes claim that any statement is a personal view or that he can confirm it's truth, it is merely a relay of information from the client and as such i would imagine the court system is set up to understand this.
2.) I would guess that the court also understands a solicitor has a duty to regard any information passed to him by his client as truth without question and so the solicitor could give the impression that he did not know the information was false.
I think the key thing must be that the solicitor could in theory be guilty of conspiracy to pervert but there would be virtually no way of proving it based on the above.
may be way off the mark but just a guess, would be interested to hear if anyone could clarify.
David
Edited: It would appear from a bit of research that the main point is the solicitor is always acting "on the instructions of the client" so never actually verifies the integrity of the information themselves.
Last edited by djuk; 29 June 2004 at 10:16 PM.