| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? 22:48 - Feb 7 with 2680 views | NthQldITFC |
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/06/insulate-britain-protester-d
According to the above article, this protestor was not permitted to state the reason for his protest to the court... as the reason for his protest!
Am I reading that right?
If so, do we still live in anything resembling a democratic country where subjects are protected by and subject to the rule of law? |  |
| |  |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 22:52 - Feb 7 with 2484 views | Zx1988 |
Given that previous protesters have successfully used the climate crisis as a defence for their actions it does seem rather dodgy from the Judge.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/10/jury-clears-extinction-rebellion
I can't imagine any legitimate grounds for preventing a defendant from expressing a legitimately-held belief as a reason for their actions.
Perhaps he and his superiors were scared that the Jury might not do as he believed they should?
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. [Post edited 7 Feb 2023 23:15]
|  |
| |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? (n/t) on 00:15 - Feb 8 with 2399 views | HARRY10 |
Yet an MP can fillibuster so as to thwart democracy by 'talking out' a bill.
If I grab a small child and run with them I am most likely committing a crime, of some sort
More so if I am not allowed to give my reasons......... i was taking the child to safety from a burning building
An extreme example but one that serves to highlight how the misuse of the judicial system (enemies of the people) continues [Post edited 8 Feb 2023 0:38]
| | | |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 01:16 - Feb 8 with 2374 views | Swansea_Blue |
‘Nixon admitted contempt and declined two offers from Reid to apologise to the court, telling the judge: “I wish I could but I don’t think it would be genuine.”’
Good man. We need more honesty in public debate. This sounds very suspect to a layman like me. It’d be interesting to hear why the judge restricted his right to defend himself. |  |
| |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 08:05 - Feb 8 with 2251 views | Guthrum |
He is being tried not for why he protested, but how (by glueing himself to a public highway). Motivation and cause are irrelevant to that, however worthy it might seem to be. In legal terms, if the climate crisis can be a valid defence against charges of public nuisance, then that could also used as precedent in cases of arson or murder.
Moreover, if as quoted, he was not putting forward a legal defence, but making a "political" speech. The judge had told them not to do that, he disobeyed, hence a penalty for contempt of court. |  |
| |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? (n/t) on 08:20 - Feb 8 with 2241 views | Guthrum |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? (n/t) on 00:15 - Feb 8 by HARRY10 |
Yet an MP can fillibuster so as to thwart democracy by 'talking out' a bill.
If I grab a small child and run with them I am most likely committing a crime, of some sort
More so if I am not allowed to give my reasons......... i was taking the child to safety from a burning building
An extreme example but one that serves to highlight how the misuse of the judicial system (enemies of the people) continues [Post edited 8 Feb 2023 0:38]
|
You want to be careful using the phrase "enemies of the people" about the judiciary. The Conservative press did that when they were being thwarted over the prorogation of Parliament.
An independent judiciary is often the last line of defence against authoritarianism. Compared with a lot of places (notably the USA) we have that. | |
| |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 09:05 - Feb 8 with 2211 views | Zx1988 |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 08:05 - Feb 8 by Guthrum |
He is being tried not for why he protested, but how (by glueing himself to a public highway). Motivation and cause are irrelevant to that, however worthy it might seem to be. In legal terms, if the climate crisis can be a valid defence against charges of public nuisance, then that could also used as precedent in cases of arson or murder.
Moreover, if as quoted, he was not putting forward a legal defence, but making a "political" speech. The judge had told them not to do that, he disobeyed, hence a penalty for contempt of court. |
I'm assuming that the law has changed since this Supreme Court decision, then:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/protest-laws-supreme-court-arms-
To my mind, it is abhorrent that a defendant is not allowed to put forward whatever defence they like for their actions. As was shown in the post the other day, a judge can always advise a jury on the law, direct them to ignore certain items of evidence or, indeed, direct them to reach a certain verdict. To pre-emptively gag a defendant is perverse in the extreme.
Given that recent cases (Extinction Rebellion at Canary Wharf, and the toppling of the Colston statue) have shown that modern juries are somewhat more open-minded than their historic peers, I would suggest that the judiciary has become a little bit more twitchy about juries, and would rather stop them from having an alternative defence to ponder in the first place.
And that's before we even get into a discussion as to whether such actions by the Judiciary are compatible with Articles 6, 10, and 11 of the ECHR of which, at the time of writing at least, the UK is still a signatory. [Post edited 8 Feb 2023 9:11]
| |
| |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 09:22 - Feb 8 with 2186 views | DJR |
I am not an expert in the criminal law but this is my understanding.
The offence in question is one in which motive no plays a part, and is not a defence.
It is not always the case that motive doesn't play a part. For example, the offence of assault can become the more serious of offence of racially aggravated assault if the defendant has a racial motive.
One only has to look at courtroom dramas to see instances in which a judge will prevent a line of questioning, so preventing the protester from stating the reasons for acting as he did would seem to fall within this.
The case also has to be seen in the context of the recent Extinction Rebellion case in which the judge directed the jury that the defendants had no defence in law, but the jury acquitted them anyway. The report in the following link indicates the the defendants were permitted to put forward their motives.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56853979
As a matter of public policy, and to uphold the rule of law, it should not be the case that people should be found not guilty in a case where they have broken the law, however righteous their cause.
In consequence, I assume the judiciary have been instructed to take a much firmer line on this sort of thing, and not permit motive to be put forward in such cases.
I might add that the motives in this case are pretty obvious anyway, so there is still nothing in theory to prevent a jury from acquitting [Post edited 8 Feb 2023 9:32]
|  | | |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 09:23 - Feb 8 with 2187 views | NthQldITFC |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 08:05 - Feb 8 by Guthrum |
He is being tried not for why he protested, but how (by glueing himself to a public highway). Motivation and cause are irrelevant to that, however worthy it might seem to be. In legal terms, if the climate crisis can be a valid defence against charges of public nuisance, then that could also used as precedent in cases of arson or murder.
Moreover, if as quoted, he was not putting forward a legal defence, but making a "political" speech. The judge had told them not to do that, he disobeyed, hence a penalty for contempt of court. |
So what can be used as a valid defence?
What if I saw an event which I was certain was a murder about to take place? Let's say I'm driving and I see a man with his arm raised taking practice swings with a samurai sword in front of someone who was bound hand and foot, by the side of the road on the opposite carriageway. (There would be less certainty that a murder was about to occur than there is in the science-backed evidence for a collapsing climate, but it's perhaps a reasonable analogy)
If I were to swerve across oncoming traffic without actually causing an accident but violating several traffic laws, and in doing so I caused the potential murderer to run off and not kill his victim, would I be prosecuted for breaking those traffic laws? Possibly not, but if I was, should I not at least be able to cite the attempted murder as a mitigation against the charges? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? (n/t) on 09:24 - Feb 8 with 2157 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? (n/t) on 08:20 - Feb 8 by Guthrum |
You want to be careful using the phrase "enemies of the people" about the judiciary. The Conservative press did that when they were being thwarted over the prorogation of Parliament.
An independent judiciary is often the last line of defence against authoritarianism. Compared with a lot of places (notably the USA) we have that. |
As did Michael Foot in the 1970’s.
Today’s whatabouterry was sponsored by ‘Yeah but Corbyn’ 😀
Edit. Sorry, that’s a misquote. The Michael Foot quote was “How long will it be before the cry goes up: Let’s kill all the judges?” [Post edited 8 Feb 2023 9:35]
|  |
| |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 09:30 - Feb 8 with 2158 views | NthQldITFC |
Thanks Guthrum and DJR, I think I'm understanding what you are saying.
I think what fired me up about this was the phrase in that report
'The judge, Silas Reid, told the defendants at the beginning of the trial last week not to cite climate change as one of their motivations for taking part in the protest.'
Which left me thinking that motivations were allowed to be cited, but not a motivation that troubles the status quo.
Hopefully that and any other motivations are allowed to be used in mitigation against sentencing(?) otherwise we clearly are in a authoritarian and tyrannical state. | |
| |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 09:49 - Feb 8 with 2126 views | bluelagos |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 09:30 - Feb 8 by NthQldITFC |
Thanks Guthrum and DJR, I think I'm understanding what you are saying.
I think what fired me up about this was the phrase in that report
'The judge, Silas Reid, told the defendants at the beginning of the trial last week not to cite climate change as one of their motivations for taking part in the protest.'
Which left me thinking that motivations were allowed to be cited, but not a motivation that troubles the status quo.
Hopefully that and any other motivations are allowed to be used in mitigation against sentencing(?) otherwise we clearly are in a authoritarian and tyrannical state. |
Worth having a read up on the conviction and successful appeal of the Stansted 15 case. Seems to be quite a few parallels.
They stopped a plane (deportation flight) taking off from Stansted and were initially charged with aggravated tresspass by the police. A few days later, the charges were changed to offenses brought in as anti-terrorism laws.
In court they basically argued that their motivations were to stop illegal deportations - rather than that they didn't stop the plane. Given they videoed themselves stopping the plane, there wasn't really any doubt that they had entered the airport etc.
The judge basically refused to allow the jury to consider their defence (They did argue it in court) - and they were convicted.
They won on appeal - partly because his ruling that their arguments should not considered.
(See ground 3 here)
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2021/01/29/no-case-to-answer-stansted-15-convictio
Judges can and do make serious errors - as highlighted in this case. [Post edited 8 Feb 2023 9:50]
|  |
| |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 09:58 - Feb 8 with 2099 views | DJR |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 09:49 - Feb 8 by bluelagos |
Worth having a read up on the conviction and successful appeal of the Stansted 15 case. Seems to be quite a few parallels.
They stopped a plane (deportation flight) taking off from Stansted and were initially charged with aggravated tresspass by the police. A few days later, the charges were changed to offenses brought in as anti-terrorism laws.
In court they basically argued that their motivations were to stop illegal deportations - rather than that they didn't stop the plane. Given they videoed themselves stopping the plane, there wasn't really any doubt that they had entered the airport etc.
The judge basically refused to allow the jury to consider their defence (They did argue it in court) - and they were convicted.
They won on appeal - partly because his ruling that their arguments should not considered.
(See ground 3 here)
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2021/01/29/no-case-to-answer-stansted-15-convictio
Judges can and do make serious errors - as highlighted in this case. [Post edited 8 Feb 2023 9:50]
|
I am not sure that is a parallel case given the nature of the charges.
Of course judges make mistakes, otherwise there would be no need for an appeals process, but the Court of Appeal decision suggests justice was done in the end. | | | |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 12:16 - Feb 8 with 2019 views | Guthrum |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 09:23 - Feb 8 by NthQldITFC |
So what can be used as a valid defence?
What if I saw an event which I was certain was a murder about to take place? Let's say I'm driving and I see a man with his arm raised taking practice swings with a samurai sword in front of someone who was bound hand and foot, by the side of the road on the opposite carriageway. (There would be less certainty that a murder was about to occur than there is in the science-backed evidence for a collapsing climate, but it's perhaps a reasonable analogy)
If I were to swerve across oncoming traffic without actually causing an accident but violating several traffic laws, and in doing so I caused the potential murderer to run off and not kill his victim, would I be prosecuted for breaking those traffic laws? Possibly not, but if I was, should I not at least be able to cite the attempted murder as a mitigation against the charges? |
That is an immediate and obvious danger of harm to an individual. Insulating houses is not that. Moreover, people who have hit attackers under pretty much those circumstances have faced the risk of prosecution, before the DPP backed down. | |
| |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 12:39 - Feb 8 with 1996 views | NthQldITFC |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 12:16 - Feb 8 by Guthrum |
That is an immediate and obvious danger of harm to an individual. Insulating houses is not that. Moreover, people who have hit attackers under pretty much those circumstances have faced the risk of prosecution, before the DPP backed down. |
Thanks. I see the point, although to me it's just a question of a longer timescale (in terms of effect not window of opportunity) but with an infinitely bigger threat.
What about the mitigation thing? Do you think he will be able to cite climate change to mitigate his sentence, or in a contempt of court case? | |
| |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 12:44 - Feb 8 with 1973 views | DJR |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 09:23 - Feb 8 by NthQldITFC |
So what can be used as a valid defence?
What if I saw an event which I was certain was a murder about to take place? Let's say I'm driving and I see a man with his arm raised taking practice swings with a samurai sword in front of someone who was bound hand and foot, by the side of the road on the opposite carriageway. (There would be less certainty that a murder was about to occur than there is in the science-backed evidence for a collapsing climate, but it's perhaps a reasonable analogy)
If I were to swerve across oncoming traffic without actually causing an accident but violating several traffic laws, and in doing so I caused the potential murderer to run off and not kill his victim, would I be prosecuted for breaking those traffic laws? Possibly not, but if I was, should I not at least be able to cite the attempted murder as a mitigation against the charges? |
The offence would appear to be one of dangerous driving under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act.
For the purposes of that section, a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if-
(a) the way they drive falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Assuming your driving in those circumstances amounted to that, there appears to be no defence, but I assume in these circumstances no charges would be brought by the CPS.
The position would be more complicated if you killed or injured someone. | | | |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 13:25 - Feb 8 with 1933 views | DJR |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 12:39 - Feb 8 by NthQldITFC |
Thanks. I see the point, although to me it's just a question of a longer timescale (in terms of effect not window of opportunity) but with an infinitely bigger threat.
What about the mitigation thing? Do you think he will be able to cite climate change to mitigate his sentence, or in a contempt of court case? |
I set out below what appear to be the sentencing mitigation guidelines for the offence in question. Maybe it is possible to squeeze climate change into some of these factors (which are not exhaustive), and of course, they will presumably all be middle-class good eggs, so this might help them too.
Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation
(Factors are not listed in any particular order and are not exhaustive)
No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions
Good character and/or exemplary conduct
Remorse
Self-reporting
Cooperation with the investigation/ early admissions
Little or no planning
The offender was in a lesser or subordinate role if acting with others / performed limited role under direction
Involved through coercion, intimidation or exploitation
Limited awareness or understanding of the offence
Little or no financial gain
Delay since apprehension
Activity originally legitimate
Age and/or lack of maturity
Sole or primary carer for dependent relatives
Physical disability or serious medical condition requiring urgent, intensive or long-term treatment
Mental disorder or learning disability
Determination and/or demonstration of steps having been taken to address addiction or offending behaviour [Post edited 8 Feb 2023 13:26]
| | | |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? (n/t) on 15:30 - Feb 8 with 1880 views | HARRY10 |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? (n/t) on 08:20 - Feb 8 by Guthrum |
You want to be careful using the phrase "enemies of the people" about the judiciary. The Conservative press did that when they were being thwarted over the prorogation of Parliament.
An independent judiciary is often the last line of defence against authoritarianism. Compared with a lot of places (notably the USA) we have that. |
I suggest you have another read
a clue being I am hardly likely to be using a rightie expression in the context you are saying | | | |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 15:47 - Feb 27 with 1385 views | NthQldITFC |
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/22/climate-activist-criminals
I missed this piece by Monbiot on this subject last week.
Whilst I accept the stuff above about the decision being technically correct in the eyes of the law, we have to all accept the responsibility and somehow try to find ways of standing up to and changing the law when the judges are saying things like:
'In 2020, a judge found three Extinction Rebellion protesters guilty of breaching a section 14 public order notice. But he is reported to have told them: “Thank you for your courtesy, thank you for your integrity, thank you for your honesty. You have to succeed.” He is said to have continued: “This is going to be my last Extinction Rebellion trial for a little while. I think they only allow us to do so many of these before our sympathies start to overwhelm us.”' | |
| |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 17:46 - Feb 27 with 1305 views | DJR |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 15:47 - Feb 27 by NthQldITFC |
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/22/climate-activist-criminals
I missed this piece by Monbiot on this subject last week.
Whilst I accept the stuff above about the decision being technically correct in the eyes of the law, we have to all accept the responsibility and somehow try to find ways of standing up to and changing the law when the judges are saying things like:
'In 2020, a judge found three Extinction Rebellion protesters guilty of breaching a section 14 public order notice. But he is reported to have told them: “Thank you for your courtesy, thank you for your integrity, thank you for your honesty. You have to succeed.” He is said to have continued: “This is going to be my last Extinction Rebellion trial for a little while. I think they only allow us to do so many of these before our sympathies start to overwhelm us.”' |
Speaking with my legal hat on, it would seem to me that the motivation of the protesters is pretty clear anyway, and a court is not a place for political statements. And with a vast backlog of cases in the legal system, it is not clear to me that extending the length of cases for political statements will do anything to help the backlog.
Of course, if motivation affects guilt or length of sentence that is another matter. [Post edited 27 Feb 2023 17:46]
| | | |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 18:48 - Feb 27 with 1244 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 15:47 - Feb 27 by NthQldITFC |
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/22/climate-activist-criminals
I missed this piece by Monbiot on this subject last week.
Whilst I accept the stuff above about the decision being technically correct in the eyes of the law, we have to all accept the responsibility and somehow try to find ways of standing up to and changing the law when the judges are saying things like:
'In 2020, a judge found three Extinction Rebellion protesters guilty of breaching a section 14 public order notice. But he is reported to have told them: “Thank you for your courtesy, thank you for your integrity, thank you for your honesty. You have to succeed.” He is said to have continued: “This is going to be my last Extinction Rebellion trial for a little while. I think they only allow us to do so many of these before our sympathies start to overwhelm us.”' |
A classic case of ‘the law is an ass’ imo. But it’s the law and they needed to play by the rules, however immoral it seems. It sounds like a sod of a charge if you’re not allowed to use motivation as a defence. It makes you wonder whether the prosecution service deliberately look to use the charge. Hopefully appeals will be incoming and result in a bit of sense being injected into the process.
Also, how scary is it that what he did could result in a life sentence. You can beat up your partner and get less (or not even be charged in some cases). | |
| |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 12:08 - Mar 24 with 920 views | NthQldITFC |
Apologies-ish for dragging an old one up, but I found this an interesting development.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/24/top-lawyers-defy-bar-declare
I appreciated the points earlier in the thread about the reason for the protest not being directly relevant to the prosecution, but I'm encouraged that this subset of KCs has decided that the only sane response to that is that things must change.
'Noting that climate breakdown represents “a serious risk to the rule of law”...' | |
| |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 13:00 - Mar 24 with 865 views | DJR |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 12:08 - Mar 24 by NthQldITFC |
Apologies-ish for dragging an old one up, but I found this an interesting development.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/24/top-lawyers-defy-bar-declare
I appreciated the points earlier in the thread about the reason for the protest not being directly relevant to the prosecution, but I'm encouraged that this subset of KCs has decided that the only sane response to that is that things must change.
'Noting that climate breakdown represents “a serious risk to the rule of law”...' |
Speaking as a lawyer, and a lefty to boot, I do not think that this is appropriate.
Of course, it is always up to individual lawyers to refuse a particular case or particular types of case. And there is specialisation which will enable lawyers to practice in areas they have an interest in, or avoid those areas they don't like.
But lawyers coming together in this way, and issuing such a statement, just seems to me to be completely wrong, and goes against all one learns as a lawyer.
The principle of being a lawyer is that you have take on cases irrespective of what you think of case or the client. Indeed, this is the principle that applies to defendants because otherwise all lawyers could just decide never to defend those accused of, say, murder. And if that is the case for defendants, the same must be true for those who prosecute.
Indeed, proof of this is Lord Pannick who worked both on the Gina Miller case and for Johnson in connection with his recent Privileges Commitee appearance.
Anyway, it all seems counter-productive because it fuels the culture wars and enables the Mail to run today with a headline about woke lawyers.
[Post edited 24 Mar 2023 14:25]
| | | |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 16:26 - Mar 24 with 769 views | DJR |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 13:00 - Mar 24 by DJR |
Speaking as a lawyer, and a lefty to boot, I do not think that this is appropriate.
Of course, it is always up to individual lawyers to refuse a particular case or particular types of case. And there is specialisation which will enable lawyers to practice in areas they have an interest in, or avoid those areas they don't like.
But lawyers coming together in this way, and issuing such a statement, just seems to me to be completely wrong, and goes against all one learns as a lawyer.
The principle of being a lawyer is that you have take on cases irrespective of what you think of case or the client. Indeed, this is the principle that applies to defendants because otherwise all lawyers could just decide never to defend those accused of, say, murder. And if that is the case for defendants, the same must be true for those who prosecute.
Indeed, proof of this is Lord Pannick who worked both on the Gina Miller case and for Johnson in connection with his recent Privileges Commitee appearance.
Anyway, it all seems counter-productive because it fuels the culture wars and enables the Mail to run today with a headline about woke lawyers.
[Post edited 24 Mar 2023 14:25]
|
I have just received an email from the Good Law Project asking me to donate to it because Jo Maugham (its founder) has come under attack from the Daily Mail because of this issue.
I have in the past donated to the Project to help fund some of their legal actions but I won't be doing so in the future on principle.
Perhaps it was all deliberate provocation to raise funds. [Post edited 24 Mar 2023 16:51]
| | | |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 16:56 - Mar 24 with 713 views | DanTheMan |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 13:00 - Mar 24 by DJR |
Speaking as a lawyer, and a lefty to boot, I do not think that this is appropriate.
Of course, it is always up to individual lawyers to refuse a particular case or particular types of case. And there is specialisation which will enable lawyers to practice in areas they have an interest in, or avoid those areas they don't like.
But lawyers coming together in this way, and issuing such a statement, just seems to me to be completely wrong, and goes against all one learns as a lawyer.
The principle of being a lawyer is that you have take on cases irrespective of what you think of case or the client. Indeed, this is the principle that applies to defendants because otherwise all lawyers could just decide never to defend those accused of, say, murder. And if that is the case for defendants, the same must be true for those who prosecute.
Indeed, proof of this is Lord Pannick who worked both on the Gina Miller case and for Johnson in connection with his recent Privileges Commitee appearance.
Anyway, it all seems counter-productive because it fuels the culture wars and enables the Mail to run today with a headline about woke lawyers.
[Post edited 24 Mar 2023 14:25]
|
For what it's worth, it seems to be little more than publicity.
And for what it's worth, I agree with you. |  |
| |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 17:10 - Mar 24 with 700 views | NthQldITFC |
| Legal Beagles - can you explain this to me? on 13:00 - Mar 24 by DJR |
Speaking as a lawyer, and a lefty to boot, I do not think that this is appropriate.
Of course, it is always up to individual lawyers to refuse a particular case or particular types of case. And there is specialisation which will enable lawyers to practice in areas they have an interest in, or avoid those areas they don't like.
But lawyers coming together in this way, and issuing such a statement, just seems to me to be completely wrong, and goes against all one learns as a lawyer.
The principle of being a lawyer is that you have take on cases irrespective of what you think of case or the client. Indeed, this is the principle that applies to defendants because otherwise all lawyers could just decide never to defend those accused of, say, murder. And if that is the case for defendants, the same must be true for those who prosecute.
Indeed, proof of this is Lord Pannick who worked both on the Gina Miller case and for Johnson in connection with his recent Privileges Commitee appearance.
Anyway, it all seems counter-productive because it fuels the culture wars and enables the Mail to run today with a headline about woke lawyers.
[Post edited 24 Mar 2023 14:25]
|
I hear you, and even from a layman environmentalist's point of view I can appreciate that the principle you speak of underlies and is crucial to the entire justice system.
But many of us would say that there is pretty compelling evidence that we are on the brink of (at the very least) social upheaval driven by the worldwide effects of climate change in things like food and water shortages over the next few decades.
Whether (or rather how quickly) that social upheaval causes a breakdown in law and order and makes the justice system irrelevant can only be modified by radical change to our economic model and a total refocusing on getting onto a non-expansionist survival footing, rather than protecting the status quo.
It's the big issue; it's the only thing that matters, even if many of us don't want to think about it, and if we have to break or at least threaten some of our comfortable institutions to start addressing that issue, the that's what we have to do - at any cost. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
