David Martin said:Matt B said:It's not his fault that they accept what he says. Presumably the
safeguards that have been bypassed were there for a reason. Extenuating
circumstances have always been taken into consideration by UK courts.
Perhaps it is better to hang the innocent celebrity motorist, than let
one guilty one go free.
Lets take a hypothetical example that is not far from the truth.
;-)
Quoted message said:A
person is stopped for doing 120mph. The prime evidence of this speed is
an instrument that requires calibration on a monthly basis. Otherwise
readings may drift to 10 or 15% out.
It's not going to be dead accurate for 31 days, then on day 32 be 15%
adrift.
Quoted message said:If the instrument calibration certificate is out of date by one day
then a loophole would be that because the instrument was not calibrated
according to schedule that the data is invalid.
The way the law or regulation is drafted is the responsibility of the
law maker, so the lawyer cannot be blamed for working to it.
Quoted message said:Now, for a
scientist/engineer, it would be clear that despite the out of date
calibration, it was beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was
clearly exceeding the speed limit by a considerable amount but the
protestations of the accused's lawyers lead the non-technical judge to
dismiss that evidence.
The fact that the judge accepts the lawyers interpretation of the law is
not the fault of the lawyer, but of the judge.
Quoted message said:That is the kind of issue one is dealing with - minor errors in
procedure that on the balance of things do not affect the accuracy of
the judgement, but due to the legal nit-picking, the evidence is
dismissed for beureaucratic reasons rather than technical ones.
Everyone whose case is heard in court has the right to be represented
and defended. The job of the defence lawyer is to defend the accused.
When the lawyer succeeds in his job he should be applauded, not
attacked? The lawyer doesn't specify the bureaucratic process that must
be followed, he merely points out if it wasn't. The alternative would
be kangaroo courts where process is ignored in favour of securing
'guilty' verdicts.
Quoted message said:So, getting the guilty off on a legal technicality is an accurate
description of what he does.
What he does is represent his client. The judge/magistrate/jury make
the decisions. If someone else decides that the defence lawyer has made
a valid point then that is not the fault of the defence lawyer.
Quoted message said:There are good technical reasons to
challenge evidence in some cases, but that is due to the evidence
itself, and not to some box ticking mentality for the morlocks of
society.
Those who frame the legislation provide the rules of engagement. If the
rules say the machine must be 'calibrated monthly', rather than
something like 'reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that the
machine is accurate to within 1%', or whatever, then the lawyer is not
at fault if he exposes the fact that the rule has been broken.
Sloppy legislation, sloppy police work, sloppy prosecutor work, sloppy
judges are the reason that 'technicalities' can be used to avoid
conviction. Lawyers are obliged to do the best they can to defend their
clients.
--
Matt B
