Three questions for Neil 1066 & Mike Tesko...

[grahameb]

With Hartley as defence counsel!

Neil, have you ever defended someone you believed to be guilty?

[ngb1066]

Neil, have you ever defended someone you believed to be guilty?

The short answer is yes, but that needs some explanation.  I imagine you are referring to defendants who plead not guilty.  A significant proportion of defendants plead guilty and defence counsel's role is then to present a plea in mitigation, i.e. to present to the court the facts and evidence that support a more lenient sentence.

With those defendants who plead not guilty counsel's job is to challenge the prosecution evidence based upon the client's instructions, and then to present the defence case. It is not for counsel to form a view of the guilt or innocence of his client; anyone is entitled to have the case against him tested and to have his own evidence presented properly.  It is then for the jury to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

You have to remember that barristers, unlike solicitors, do not pick and choose their clients.  A barrister is obliged to accept a brief if he is available and the case is within his area of expertise.

[Hartley]

If leave to appeal is granted, Simon Mckay, would then need to instruct a barrister with appropriate expertise.

[ngb1066]

If leave to appeal is granted, Simon Mckay, would then need to instruct a barrister with appropriate expertise.

If the CCRC do refer the case legal aid will be granted and that will cover two barristers as well as Simon McKay. It would also cover the cost of expert witnesses.

[Hartley]

You have to remember that barristers, unlike solicitors, do not pick and choose their clients.  A barrister is obliged to accept a brief if he is available and the case is within his area of expertise.

Is the only time that the above would be incorrect, if instruction came directly from a member of the public rather than certain professionals?

[ngb1066]

Is the only time that the above would be incorrect, if instruction came directly from a member of the public rather than certain professionals?

It used to be the case that a barrister could only accept instructions through a solicitor.  That has been progressively relaxed, initially allowing other professionals (e.g. accountants) to instruct in certain circumstances and currently allowing much wider direct access.  I am not up to speed on the current direct access rules but I think it is unlikely that it is possible to instruct counsel directly in a criminal case. I am not sure if the "cab rank principle" applies in direct access cases - I seem to recall that a barrister has a discretion in any such case whether or not to accept instructions.  The rules are probably on the Bar Council website.