Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

PC Andrew Harper.

Looking for explanations for what many think it a strange outcome for this case, BLM have generated a lot of anti police views, zero fund etc. Everyone on this forum is expressing ideas, views and opinions this was my input.

Putting it politely, your attempt at an explanation is way off beam here.
The perpetrators were white, the tragic and unfortunate victim was white, so I can't see how anyone tries to turn this into an anti black affair. You're out of line.
I repeat, right thinking black people are appalled at this case.
 
As regards a barrister representing people they know to be guilty, I suppose the other thing that happens is that there is a kind of natural selection process early in people's careers, ie: they think about it before they become a barrister, and if they don't think they could do it, they just don't go into that area of law, or maybe they do go in, and then after the first one or two they realise they can't do it anymore and they shift over into something else?

So the barristers who are left are the ones best suited to doing it, ie: they can live with.
A good point. I couldn't hack it and I still don't understand how other people can either.

Barrister comes home and small child asks "What did you do at work today mummy/daddy?"

"Well child, I did my best to put a murderer I know to be guilty back on the street where they might hurt you."

Does not compute.
 
Last edited:
Putting it politely, your attempt at an explanation is way off beam here.
The perpetrators were white, the tragic and unfortunate victim was white, so I can't see how anyone tries to turn this into an anti black affair. You're out of line.
I repeat, right thinking black people are appalled at this case.
Perpetrators are from a minority group. Fully agree that ethnic Police Officers are as concerned as everyone here.
 
As regards a barrister representing people they know to be guilty, I suppose the other thing that happens is that there is a kind of natural selection process early in people's careers, ie: they think about it before they become a barrister, and if they don't think they could do it, they just don't go into that area of law, or maybe they do go in, and then after the first one or two they realise they can't do it anymore and they shift over into something else?

So the barristers who are left are the ones best suited to doing it, ie: they can live with the situation.


Most barristers work in both defence and prosecution so it's more likely that they believe in the legal system as a whole.
 
A good point. I couldn't hack it and I still don't see how other people can either.

Barrister comes home and small child asks "What did you do at work today mummy/daddy?"

"Well child, I did my best to put a murderer I know to be guilty back on the street where they might hurt you."

Does not compute.


'Well child. I did my best to defend at trial someone who has been accused of murder. I suspect he may be guilty but that is for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt.

If they can't do that then as far as the law is concerned he's not guilty and my suspicions are just that - unfounded suspicions.
 
'Well child. I did my best to defend at trial someone who has been accused of murder. I suspect he may be guilty but that is for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt.

If they can't do that then as far as the law is concerned he's not guilty and my suspicions are just that - unfounded suspicions.
I understand the argument, that the better the defence is then when the guilty verdict arrives the more watertight that verdict is.

I just can't understand someone able to morally justify doing their best to get a guilty person off scot free just because they're being paid to do so. Maybe it says more about me than I would like that I find it easier to understand the mindset of the accused in this case than their defending counsel.
 
I see what you did there, but I've made my point and I'm not feeding you any further.
As I told the inspector at Fulford at about 06:10 as I was been released, "yesterday, I would have helped you, today I wil go across the road and tell them how to give a copper a good hiding". Takes years to get a rep.... seconds to throw it away.
 
I understand the argument, that the better the defence is then when the guilty verdict arrives the more watertight that verdict is.

I just can't understand someone able to morally justify doing their best to get a guilty person off scot free just because they're being paid to do so. Maybe it says more about me than I would like that I find it easier to understand the mindset of the accused in this case than their defending counsel.

You're still doing the 'march the guilty bastard in' thing. Their defending counsel is there to put their case before the court. It's up to the court to decide on their guilt.

If barristers are allowed to refuse briefs that they don't like and we take that to its logical conclusion what happens when no barrister is willing to defend a particular defendant in court?

Do they go free because they won't get a fair trial without representation? Do we lock them up anyway because there's no smoke without fire?
 
I just can't understand someone able to morally justify doing their best to get a guilty person off scot free just because they're being paid to do so. Maybe it says more about me than I would like that I find it easier to understand the mindset of the accused in this case than their defending counsel.

I guess that (as endure points out) it's how you look at it: doing it just because one is paid so to do, or also doing it because one believes in the system as a whole, and although it might not be a perfect system (because what system is?) it's far preferable to the alternatives.

I suppose, from a personal point of view, I want the barristers who will represent somebody no matter what because maybe, perhaps, I will need similar help myself one day. And even though all the evidence is against me, everybody swears I'm guilty, four eye witnesses put me at the scene, I know I'm innocent. And I don't want my barrister thinking "sod him, he's obviously guilty, I'm not going to lift a finger for him".
 
You're still doing the 'march the guilty bastard in' thing. Their defending counsel is there to put their case before the court. It's up to the court to decide on their guilt.
That's where we disagree. I think it's reasonable for a barrister to decide that their client is guilty and to decide not to represent them on that basis.

The question of whether the accused is legally guilty is still a matter for the jury, they would not need to be told how many (if any) lawyers refused to defend the accused.

If barristers are allowed to refuse briefs that they don't like and we take that to its logical conclusion what happens when no barrister is willing to defend a particular defendant in court?

Do they go free because they won't get a fair trial without representation? Do we lock them up anyway because there's no smoke without fire?
No barrister is willing to defend someone? Unlikely in the extreme. It might mean that someone found next to a murdered body with a bloodstained knife in their hands will not get the absolute best legal representation there is (already a distinct possibility given the cab rank can be ordered in ability and someone gets the bottom end) but I doubt that every single barrister available will refuse the fees for defending them.

In extremis, if there genuinely is not a single barrister willing to represent them then they could be remanded in custody / freed on bail as they normally would be before a trial until a suitable barrister is available.

I suppose, from a personal point of view, I want the barristers who will represent somebody no matter what because maybe, perhaps, I will need similar help myself one day. And even though all the evidence is against me, everybody swears I'm guilty, four eye witnesses put me at the scene, I know I'm innocent. And I don't want my barrister thinking "sod him, he's obviously guilty, I'm not going to lift a finger for him".
As above, I can't see any situation where every single available barrister refuses to help. Admittedly you might not get the Man City FC level lawyer and might have to settle for the Scunthorpe United equivalent but that was always a risk with how I understand the cab rank rule worked anyway.
 
Last edited:
As above, I can't see any situation where every single available barrister refuses to help.

It's interesting that you mention that, as there does seem to be similar thinking within some areas of the profession:

The barristers’ cab rank rule is ‘redundant’ and should be abolished, according to a report published today by the Legal Services Board.

Authors Professor John Flood and Professor Morten Hviid suggest that the rule is ‘regularly breached’, and serves ‘no clear purpose’. They claim its abolition would have no effect on the practice of law or the delivery of legal services.

The report describes the rule, which obliges a barrister to accept any work they are available for and competent to do, as being the ‘defining feature’ of the English bar for several hundred years. Its original purpose was to ensure that unpopular parties could get representation and that barristers were not criticised for acting for them.

It gained particular importance during the IRA’s bombing campaign of mainland Britain.

The report says that a ‘substantial amount of mythology’ has been built around the rule, but suggests it is ‘not really a rule but more a principle masquerading as one’.

While the bar is ‘captivated’ by the cab rank rule and some barristers have an ‘absolute conviction’ that without it, ‘the rule of law would collapse’ there is little evidence that it is understood within the legal marketplace or that it serves any purpose, the report says.

Only self-employed barristers instructed by solicitors are subject to the rule; it does not cover solicitor advocates or barristers doing direct access work.

Exclusions, including the exemption of legal aid work, ‘virtually emasculate’ the rule, the report says. It finds no evidence of the rule being monitored or enforced by the regulator, and that it has never been the basis of any disciplinary proceedings.

From here ...

 
Top