Yep.
A simple immediate consequence if this is that people trust the police and judiciary (lawyers particularly) a lot less. That is not good.
Current Royal Commission into Lawyer X gangland convictions on tainted evidence & police corruption
- Thread starter Kurve
- Start date
-
- Tags
- corruption crime law
- Tagged users None
Yep.
A simple immediate consequence if this is that people trust the police and judiciary (lawyers particularly) a lot less. That is not good.
Because one of the basics of our justice system is any defendant gets a fair trial - with a defence. The defence’s job is to force the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
You can’t get a much bigger conflict of interest as a defence lawyer than to be assisting police with info on your client.
The effects are cumulative. Nobody sees the tipping point until it has occurred. No one predicated the Tunisian spring and it's consequences throughout the region. These small things don't get wound back, unless they're addressed to the Public's satisfaction, otherwise the next thing just adds to the last thing, until the public loses all confidence and goes it's own way. The Royal Commission is the state's attempt to wind it back.
Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
- Banned
- #129
Read back about the bit that says obligation to the court. That sort of negates the conflict.
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,865
- 56,852
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #130
Nonsense. First duty and obligation is to their client, even if they've told their lawyer they're guilty.
[QUOTE="Bunk
You can’t get a much bigger conflict of interest as a defence lawyer than to be assisting police with info on your client.[/QUOTE]
Yes, no doubt it is a conflict of interest. I get the unethical bit. But unless the information provided to the court was untrue, tainted in any factual way, why is it a police problem of enthics if what was presented to the court was the truth?
Is the Victorian public outraged that the police was given trueful information by a unethical Solicitor, and that information was used to help convict them? I’m not outraged. That’s the police doing there job.
The question of enthics should be focused on the solicitor and legal proffession, not police who did there job.
You can’t get a much bigger conflict of interest as a defence lawyer than to be assisting police with info on your client.[/QUOTE]
Yes, no doubt it is a conflict of interest. I get the unethical bit. But unless the information provided to the court was untrue, tainted in any factual way, why is it a police problem of enthics if what was presented to the court was the truth?
Is the Victorian public outraged that the police was given trueful information by a unethical Solicitor, and that information was used to help convict them? I’m not outraged. That’s the police doing there job.
The question of enthics should be focused on the solicitor and legal proffession, not police who did there job.
Interesting listening to PM on the drive home tonight. Might be worthwhile listening in.
Tuesday PM https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/pm/10560532
Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
Tuesday PM https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/pm/10560532
Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk
Gigantic
Brownlow Medallist
Because the duty to the court is incident of the legal practitioner's (the prosecution) duty to the proper administration of justice.
It's not just about justice but the administration of justice i.e. to conduct a case fairly, amongst other things.
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,467
- 118,151
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
''temporarily unavailable'
One of the articles today quoted from that document, not surprised it’s been pulled.
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,467
- 118,151
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
I wanted to look for a piece where I think CH says ' dont tell me of you did it or not I dont care, it makes my job harder if you do'
I wanted to see if my memory was correct but also the full context
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,865
- 56,852
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #137
It’s quite simple, really - the defendant didn’t receive a fair trial.
Any defendant is entitled to a defence.
Really? They must be watching bf.
They didn’t attribute the quote, made out as if it was done anonymously, but it was word for word.
BFew
Don Pyke Fan Clubber
- Mar 5, 2017
- 13,153
- 35,881
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Socceroos - Matildas
entitled to a defence, not a covert defection.
ArmandD
Draftee
IMO her actions have cast doubt onto any and every legal matter she has ever been involved in over the course of her career. To not waste your time and put it simply: if she has such a fundamental lack of understanding in regards to her obligations and the illegality and unethicalness of breaking privilege and informing on her clients and others by breaking said privilege then it is clear she was not adequately qualified to have practiced law to begin with and as such it cannot be guaranteed that anybody she ever represented was represented to the full extent they should have been.
Sylvester’s article today is pretty enlightening. She seemed to be somebody always looking to be on a team. She didn’t just represent criminals, she socialised with them and thought they were friends.
When it turned out why weren’t, she hurled herself to the other side and did all she could to help them.
She seems somebody perpetually looking for some love, to be part of something.
It’s her. It’s not the slightest secret. It’s been extensively reported.
All these court actions are possible because the system doesn’t seem to recognise modern technology. It’s all online.
ArmandD
Draftee
Also if I was advising anyone directly affected by her breach of privilege I would raise a question to them as to wether or not they would be eligible to restitution from her personally and/or whatever firm she was employed with at the time. The reason being that I would consider engagement of counsel to be a contract, and part of that contract would include the right to confidentiality which is defined as privilege and by breaking said privilege she engaged in actions which constitute breach of contract.
- Banned
- #145
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,467
- 118,151
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
Got sent a link , thanks
Firstly CH says this on his choice of defending rather than prosecuting
if you think your client might be guilty and that client is found not guilty, there is still a form of pleasure that you’ve done a skilful job in your chosen profession. You couldn’t feel that if you thought someone’s innocent but you’re a prosecutor who’s managed to convict them.
Later he says this
I’d like to get across to the community out there how little that happens. The Bar generally is very much aware that your primary duty is to the courts, not to your client. I wouldn’t cross the line. If my son were charged with a serious crime, yes, I’d do my best to get him off. I don’t lose sight of who my clients are. You get the odd person you relate to, like the XXX or XXXXXX, but you don’t lose sight of the fact that most of your clients come from a pretty revolting part of our community. I can’t imagine why anybody would be tempted to cross the line for them. Even if one was, the risk would be enormous. If you get caught, it’s your career - why would you do it?
Firstly CH says this on his choice of defending rather than prosecuting
if you think your client might be guilty and that client is found not guilty, there is still a form of pleasure that you’ve done a skilful job in your chosen profession. You couldn’t feel that if you thought someone’s innocent but you’re a prosecutor who’s managed to convict them.
Later he says this
I’d like to get across to the community out there how little that happens. The Bar generally is very much aware that your primary duty is to the courts, not to your client. I wouldn’t cross the line. If my son were charged with a serious crime, yes, I’d do my best to get him off. I don’t lose sight of who my clients are. You get the odd person you relate to, like the XXX or XXXXXX, but you don’t lose sight of the fact that most of your clients come from a pretty revolting part of our community. I can’t imagine why anybody would be tempted to cross the line for them. Even if one was, the risk would be enormous. If you get caught, it’s your career - why would you do it?
One of her clients was also one of my clients, needless to say he didn’t pay and we didn’t pursue.
Shortly after he returned from his Greek vacation the invoice was paid. Suspect it was proceed of crime squaring up his debts but don’t know for sure.
- Banned
- #148
This sounds like to me, she was like "If you want to be like that".
- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,865
- 56,852
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #149
I think something got lost in the translation here because the AG today said, first duty is to your client. If the lawyer gets an admission of guilt but the client is pleading not guilty, the lawyer can't dob on them. His obligation to the court is that he cannot lie by screaming "My client is innocent!" when he knows he's not. He has to 'word' his way around it.
- Banned
- #150
What matters, is the Law. The lawyers first obligation is to the Court.
"The first duty of the lawyer engaged in litigation is to the Court. He or she is an officer of the Court. The next obligation in order of importance is to the client."
www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/QldJSchol/2013/61.pdf
Similar threads
