Tag: training barrister

Criminal Conference

Posted on by T. Maxwell-Harrison

I have just completed my mock conference assessment today. I was nervous about how this would go, and what I would score. I had done my preparation but there is a significant element of flexibility required. The criminal conference is one form of assessment and something that is required to pass the course. It involves talking to your client before a court appearance for example.

In the type of conference I had today, a plea before venue and allocation hearing was scheduled to take place immediately after the meeting with my client. This means I need to establish the facts of the case, to confirm whether my client has satisfied the elements of the offences, whether they have a defence, how they would like to plead (after advising them on the strengths and weaknesses of their case) and choosing a court if pleading not guilty, and if they have a choice.

It sounds simple, but the mock assessment was 20 minutes. The real assessment will also be 20 minutes. This is not a lot of time. I did manage to get through all my points in time, but, I still missed things and could have done better. I can always do better. The conference was also recorded, which is great and conducive to learning.

At the core of a conference is the barrister client relationship and being able to act in the best interests of each client. This is a barristers core duty, and one which is subject to your duty to the court. Too much legalese? The core duties are not secrets of the state, although, they are probably not known by the majority of British citizens. Rest assured that barristers are independent and regulated by the Bar Standards Board and their chambers to an extent, you won’t find an incompetent barrister for the most part… yes, some barristers are bad, that is not usual.

A criminal case will be heard in the magistrates court initially. This is 99% of criminal cases. Only the most serious of offences will go straight to the crown court. The crown court has more sentencing powers, and as such, the process is strict, can take longer (getting a hearing date could take a while), is more formal with wigs and gowns, a legally educated judge and the most important part that defendants need to know, a jury!

12 lay people, from all walks of life, not legally educated, able to decide whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. The topic of much debate. Without a jury what will the crown court become? It is the best system that England has in place, and is a lot fairer than other countries. EU countries are not subject to common law like England and Wales. Rather, they are utilising a system of Civil law, derived from Roman law, which codifies the law… get it? The codes cover everything (supposedly) and rather than using previous case law, will instead rely on these codes for the sentence. EU law was rather enjoyable, and learning about the complications of cross border consumer law was brain stunning. I feel relieved that I achieved a decent mark in my undergraduates studies on this module.

Back to the conference. As mentioned a defendant will initially appear before the magistrates court. A bench of 3 non legally educated people, who are usually case hardened having listened to a lot of similar cases, and therefore more likely to find you guilty and sentence you. They are volunteers, yes, you heard me correctly, the 3 people about to decide your fate are volunteers from the public. You do have an automatic right of appeal though, which is a bonus, you don’t have that in crown court. The bench of 3 could instead be replaced on the day of your appearance by a district judge. These sit alone and are legal experts. Why they don’t just use these all the time is beyond me, and probably would help too.

If the client has any previous convictions, my understanding is that this will be of detriment and if it is a similar offence, could result in a much harsher sentence. As for defences, they are available and are limited in how they can be applied. If someone is charged with an assault – common assault at law which involved physical contact – they can use a defence if they committed the offence as the result of acting in self defence. You may know this, but the burden of proof remains with the prosecution to prove that the amount of force used was unreasonable. The defending barrister will have to prove that the client acted in self defence, and if they do this successfully, that is a complete defence.

Other defences are available, and essentially they are either a lack of mens rea – the mental element of the offence, and actus reus – the physical element of the offence. Most disputes in cases will focus on the mental element, as to whether the defendant intended to do something. After intention there is a whole host of other reasons for the crime being committed, such as recklessness, negligence, mistake, duress, etc. The actus or act is much easier to prove than the mental element, but again, this is something I love about English law, that it provides a fair a due process.

‘It is called Magna Charta, not that it is great in quantity … but in respect of the great importance and weightinesse of the matter.’

Edward Coke

Would you take the advise of your barrister to plead guilty or not guilty? Do you know that you don’t have to give a plea? Are you a good person of good character with no previous convictions? Although lengthy quotes from magna carter are not used by barristers in conference, they no less have to engage with the client and establish the details of their case. Without the details, you might be incompetent.

Needless to say the rest, I was told that I was competent, along with the other student. This is good I guess. The opposite would be incompetent, which would be rather embarrassing… Now I need to prepare for the full assessment and try not to mess it up, preparation is key.

Controversial Cases in the Media

Posted on by T. Maxwell-Harrison

Hi there, how are you? Good. How am I? I am doing well, relaxing in my white waffle tracksuit drinking cold tea.

As an aspiring barrister who has little under a month until I begin the bar course, I find myself drawn more and more into the controversial criminal cases that have found there ways into the media. Most media is skewed, but still there is an element of truth to the stories.

Prologue:

There will be a case in the paper concerning a ‘horrific’ and ‘brutal’ criminal offence that has left victims either ‘severely injured’ or ‘dead’. There is no shortage of these types of cases. What sort get put into the paper and why? Cases you read about in the paper are cases like these;

The cases show a cross section of the same types of people within our society. The bottom case is of interest today, and I’ll tell you why. It’s of interest because the article has unequivocally highlighted yet again the failures of both the social support system and the criminal justice system in general. The policing system, the government and the courts should be held accountable for the amount of crime that is committed on a daily basis, of which there is A LOT. Why does the media keep reporting these cases, instead of lobbying for increased funding to the severely underfunded legal system? Why aren’t the government acting concerned?

Main story:

The last case, concerning a teenage mother who left her baby to ‘starve’ to death as she went and partied for a little under 6 days, jailed for 9 years. (Ignore that 69).

Quoting the article; “Asiah died at the flat and tests showed she was starved, dehydrated and had developed flu. Judge Christine Laing said the final days of her life are “unbearable to contemplate” as she sentenced Kudi.”

Below is a picture of the defendant, found guilty of manslaughter. She had previously pleaded guilty. Did you know that a guilty plea automatically knocks a 1/3 off your sentence? Did you know that criminals can get out of jail early for ‘good’ behaviour? Did you know the the convicted are released before serving even half of their sentence dependent on when the judge sets the earliest parole date?

Screengrab taken from mobile phone footage of Verphy Kudi at a concert in Elephant and Castle London. (PA Images)
A screengrab taken from mobile phone footage of Verphy Kudi at a concert in Elephant and Castle, London. (PA)

“She herself, the defendant, is both very young and we would submit very vulnerable.”

To answer the above; I would submit that a baby is vulnerable and unable to care for themselves. The defendant was vulnerable? Yeah okay, she clearly was distressed that is why she went on a week long drinking bender.

Let’s get to the crux or cold bleeding heart of this case and why it distressed me. I read this and expected that the outcome reported would be murder. “Guilty of manslaughter.” Guilty. The distinguishing feature of murder from manslaughter is the mental intention, or the mens rea, of the defendant.

To commit the murder with direct intention is to intend a particular outcome or consequence of the defendants actions or act – the actus reas. In other words, the defendant knows that their actions will result in death, that is their intention. On the other hand, still coming under murder, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent and I am hesitant to call any type of murder lesser, is oblique intention. You see, oblique intention is where a human being foresees a natural consequence of their actions as virtually certain – the virtually certain test set out in the case of R v Woollin – a case in which the defendant threw his baby at a wall causing death.

When discussing manslaughter, we have involuntary and voluntary. Unfortunately, this is a reflection of poor reporting, the article I read failed to mention what manslaughter variety our killer mother had been charged and found guilty of. We can allude, but I refrain from making assumptions based on the fact that it states she was very vulnerable.

Conclusion:

Here we have a case that will cause people to get upset and cry. But what has been done to prevent this? A known vulnerable teenager, who has a baby, and is heavily influenced with a youngsters lifestyle… Again, systemic failures within the social care system which has resulted in another loss of a babies life. When will the system learn and start to actually do what they are paid to do?

Let’s briefly touch on the sentence, a 9 year stretch, assuming that includes the 1/3 off. Now, realistically, the mother will probably be doing half of that. Another failure? The system doesn’t have the finances to fund and keep prisoners, it’s more economic to keep criminals in society paying taxes you know. It’s not the judge or barristers or solicitors that need slapping, it’s the government for failing to recognise or acknowledge that the system they have deluded themselves into believing is working, isn’t.

If the country functioned and had a well funded legal system and kept people happy, would we be seeing children murdering with intention, other children? Where did we cross the line in allowing our children to become such evil little *****?

I leave you with a question. Given the sentence, would you:

a) Find her guilty of murder

b) change the sentence

c) ban under 18s from having children?

Thanks for reading and have a brilliant day.