Here, where I spend my time, the building is filled with some of the most senior and distinguished lawyers in the land. All either professors or doctors of law, who spend a good deal of time advising the government, other governments, and many official organisations. Having spoken - in passing and general conversation with many - their view is that this woman is a self-serving, attention seeking fool. And probably quite stupid, to boot. The feeling is that she should never practice la and she deserves her punishment for being such a fool as to try to evade what is, is, after all, a very minor traffic offence.
I like these people!
No, they think that she was especially stupid in not accepting that she had been speeding but had compounded that quite minor offence by trying to evade, deny and subsequently perjure herself. not to mention the small matter of perverting the course of justice.
Earlier the question was asked whether a defendant could continue to be represented by a barrister if the client had admitted guilt to him but insisted on pleading 'not guilty'. As my SIL is a barrister, I promised to ask him about it.
The upshot is basically as I had previously presumed. Yes, the barrister can continue to represent the defendant but the case he can put in defence becomes severely constrained. The area is described by barristers as 'professional embarrassment' which includes other related matters such as conflict of interest or a barrister finding that he is not competent to represent a client on a matter of law.
The chapter and verse can be found in the Bar Standards Board Code of Conduct handbook, which goes to the extent of spelling the circumstances out in its guidance at paras gC9 and gC10.
The most relevant parts are:
CD1 You must observe your duty to the court in the administration of justice. CD2 You must act in the best interests of each client. CD3 You must act with honesty, and with integrity.
gC1 The Core Duties are not presented in order of precedence, subject to the following:
.1 CD1 overrides any other core duty, if and to the extent the two are inconsistent.
gC9 Rule rC4 makes it clear that your duty to act in the best interests of your client is subject to your duty
to the court. For example, if your client were to tell you that they have committed the crime with which
they were charged, in order to be able to ensure compliance with Rule rC4 on the one hand and Rule
rC3 and Rule rC6 on the other:
.1 you would not be entitled to disclose that information to the court without your client’s consent;
.2 you would not be misleading the court if, after your client had entered a plea of ‘not guilty’, you
were to test in cross-examination the reliability of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and
then address the jury to the effect that the prosecution had not succeeded in making them sure
of your client’s guilt.
gC10 However, you would be misleading the court and would therefore be in breach of Rules rC5 and rC6 if
you were to set up a positive case inconsistent with the confession, as for example by:
.1 suggesting to prosecution witnesses, calling your client or your witnesses to show; or submitting
to the jury, that your client did not commit the crime; or
.2 suggesting that someone else had done so; or
.3 putting forward an alibi.