3 ms·

>doesn't the UK have public defenders who are appointed by court if the defender cannot afford legal help She wasn't happy with her barrister (her public defen

>doesn't the UK have public defenders who are appointed by court if the defender cannot afford legal help She wasn't happy with her barrister (her public defender in this case), so he quit. Because of ongoing industrial action, there are no other barristers to take on her case.

srvmshr 4y ago
I think why @2GKashmiri feels dismayed is that in India (disclaimer: no pun/sarcasm intended to his Kashmiri status), someone who is incapable of legally representing himself still has a court appointed lawyer by all means. And the role of amicus curiae is to either represent that person or negotiate a replacement. How do I know this? My brother was a junior lawyer to Adv. Ramchandran, the amicus for Ajmal Kasab, the perpetrator of 26-11-2008 Mumbai terrorist attack which left 175 dead & more than 300 injured or maimed [1]. No lawyer took him up, out of patriotic feelings, disgust or fear of retaliation - yet it was court's responsibility to negotiate legal representation. Did he feel awful? Absolutely. He felt conflicted preparing defense for Mr. Kasab's counsel. He hated that man & his actions, and we have had many late night rants on what a monster he was. Did he consider quitting? No, because in matters of principle leaving legal defense is as good as giving him to a kangaroo court. His penalty was obvious - but it does not mean every lawyer should abandon him. Its actually bizarre that industrial action has left this woman without choice. Usually in the legal creed, many lawyers & barristers take these cases pro bono when such situations come out in open. Nothing Hippocratic philosophically, but public prosecutors unwilling to represent in court machinery is generally frowned upon in legal principles. edit: grammar & details. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajmal_Kasab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajmal_Kasab
- aaplok 4y ago
  > because in matters of principle leaving legal defense is as good as giving him to a kangaroo court. His penalty was obvious Actually it's very different from a kangaroo court. The defense lawyer is there to make sure that the trial follows due process. Only those elements that should be taken into account are, for example, and only in an appropriate way. This is what is at stake in the particular case mentioned in the article: it is likely that the defendant doesn't know the procedures and therefore there is a real possibility that an unlawful decision is taken. And of course someone had to be there to check if there are circumstances favourable to the accused, and make them available to the court. Even if the man is a despicable criminal, the court can only reach a fair decision if they go beyond the public image of the terrorist.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    You are agreeing with parent. Perhaps you misread "leaving" (which was a poor word choice). What the parent misunderstood is that the government is illegally prosecuting defendants, not defense lawyers abandoning defendants.

srvmshr 4y ago

I think why @2GKashmiri feels dismayed is that in India (disclaimer: no pun/sarcasm intended to his Kashmiri status), someone who is incapable of legally representing himself still has a court appointed lawyer by all means. And the role of amicus curiae is to either represent that person or negotiate a replacement. How do I know this? My brother was a junior lawyer to Adv. Ramchandran, the amicus for Ajmal Kasab, the perpetrator of 26-11-2008 Mumbai terrorist attack which left 175 dead & more than 300 injured or maimed [1]. No lawyer took him up, out of patriotic feelings, disgust or fear of retaliation - yet it was court's responsibility to negotiate legal representation. Did he feel awful? Absolutely. He felt conflicted preparing defense for Mr. Kasab's counsel. He hated that man & his actions, and we have had many late night rants on what a monster he was. Did he consider quitting? No, because in matters of principle leaving legal defense is as good as giving him to a kangaroo court. His penalty was obvious - but it does not mean every lawyer should abandon him. Its actually bizarre that industrial action has left this woman without choice. Usually in the legal creed, many lawyers & barristers take these cases pro bono when such situations come out in open. Nothing Hippocratic philosophically, but public prosecutors unwilling to represent in court machinery is generally frowned upon in legal principles. edit: grammar & details. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajmal_Kasab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajmal_Kasab

aaplok 4y ago
> because in matters of principle leaving legal defense is as good as giving him to a kangaroo court. His penalty was obvious Actually it's very different from a kangaroo court. The defense lawyer is there to make sure that the trial follows due process. Only those elements that should be taken into account are, for example, and only in an appropriate way. This is what is at stake in the particular case mentioned in the article: it is likely that the defendant doesn't know the procedures and therefore there is a real possibility that an unlawful decision is taken. And of course someone had to be there to check if there are circumstances favourable to the accused, and make them available to the court. Even if the man is a despicable criminal, the court can only reach a fair decision if they go beyond the public image of the terrorist.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  You are agreeing with parent. Perhaps you misread "leaving" (which was a poor word choice). What the parent misunderstood is that the government is illegally prosecuting defendants, not defense lawyers abandoning defendants.