Soap justice...

I hope your not one of “those” Criminal lawyers....

i warn you in advance that this one is slightly about work :@) but it was inevitable at some point... so here goes...

Im never sure exactly what that question means. It seems to imply something negative. Something sinister. I am a criminal lawyer I reply. Oh they say....backing away...clutching their bag close to their side...

You see I think what they mean really is “you don’t defend criminals do you?” . they think that I would be bad to do that. It would be a preference to work for the Crown prosecution Serivce and be one of those nice lawyers that helps victims. Solves crimes. Generally saves the world.

Instead that stand in front of one of the other ones. A criminal defence one. As bad as our clients. Guilty of the same crimes. But slightly worse than the criminals because we in some way condone what they have done.... we make them look good when what they have done is so terrible they should not even be allowed to speak to defend themselves... let alone have an expensive lawyer do it for them. At the cost of the tax payer obviously.

Im not going to go over the point that of course not everyone tried for a crime is guilty of it. That the prosecution and pocice do make mistakes. That there can be miscarriages of justice. That we still have the notion of innocent until PROVEN guilty...

Its too hard to convince people that they could easily end up in the dock having done absolutely nothing wrong. They change their minds quick enough when they're banged up though.

I think that this misconception is born from the media. To be more specific, soaps. Not only soaps but also serial dramas, who have a good go at misrepresenting the true legal system as well.

Not only do they constantly get the law incorrect but also the procedure. This does not help those of us who have to advise real people.

When Gail stood before Wetherfield Magistrates Court at her first hearing, charged with the murder of her husband, her lawyer made a failed application for bail and she was remanded into custody. A good story. Factually incorrect.

You cannot make applications for bail at the first hearing in the Magistrates Court in a murder case. That was the law then and its the law now. Sure it hadn’t long changed, but changed it had.

 You try and explain that to clients who watched that episode. They believe that over us! That's the power of the media. “oh no we can make an application for bail I saw it on Corrie last night....” yeah well you can stand up and try that one then matey!

In Hollyoaks Zoe was tried for the murder of Sarah Barnes within about 6 weeks of her death....what?!!.... on what planet?.... In what town?.... Never would that happen. Not here that's for sure! You wouldn’t even be out of the  Magistrates court in reality. That's if you weren’t still on police bail.....

Im not even going to get started on some of the programmes that profess to be about the legal system....Law and Order UK is as fictional as an Enid Blyton novel and Judge John Deed certainly needs to be reported to the Judicial Standards Authority for his conduct.

What really riles me is when someone is credited as “legal advisor” in the credits. Who are they? Surely not practising lawyers. If they are they don’t practise in any area of law relevant to that particular episode.

I don’t watch anymore. It annoys me too much. Its also pretty annoying for anyone who happens to be in the same room as me when the programme is on. No matter how much I try I cannot help but correct any inaccuracies very loudly. Im that kind of geek.

The trouble is, as I have said that the clients often believe what they see on screen and this poses difficulties. You are often hard pressed for time in the cells at the Magistrates Court. You have to see your client before they go up into court and there is often a large volume of material to go through with them as well as advising them as to bail and procedure etc. There is not time to discuss why a particular soap has misrepresented a particular legal scenario.

They should be more careful. They really should. Its just a bugbear. Im sure reality is far more dull than the dramatisation they make of our laws for the small screen. If they showcased the reality of the Magistrates Court then it probably wouldn’t be anywhere near as popular.

If you don’t believe how wrong they can be in their presentation of the law and legal system, why not go and sit at the back of your local Magistrates Court for a morning. I swear you'll be shouting at you TV next time one of soaplands characters finds themselves in the dock.

Anyway...rant over...back to my happy place :@)

Tricky forces....

A tricky force...

I’m not a massive fan of the police. This is probably because I see the worst side of them . I see the obnoxious side. The lawless side. The ones who think that statistically a conviction is preferred as opposed to ensuring that the right person is brought to justice. Of course I see a lot of good officers as well. Like with everything however they are not always the ones that stick in your mind. Its the ones that wrong you who do. I don’t propose to turn this into a critique of the police force based on my personal experiences. It would take too long.

I feel however that I need to comment on the recent criticisms levied at officers in the wake of the recent riots.  There appear to be two issues in relation to the conduct of the police.

Some of the rioters indicated that they were looting shops and smashing windows as a result of their perception of police brutality.  It appeared to stem from a protest being held at Tottenham police station by the family of a man shot dead by police. The wider community then took this up a notch and the result was the first night of rioting. (I do not in anyway suggest that this was due to the relatively quiet protest carried out by the grieving family).

I think that this was however used as an excuse by those who wanted  to cause trouble and felt that in some way they would be exonerated if they claimed “its all about police brutality innit”.

There was then an tricky stop and search incident and again the rioters flared up sighting this as there basis.

This formed the basis of the first criticism laid at the door of the police.  

This was not helped by the BBC. They seemed to be intent on stirring up the feelings of the rioters. Why broadcast that the IPCC found that the man had not shot at police before being shot dead? Why not focus on the fact that he is a known drug dealer. He was armed. That means that he was carrying an illegal loaded gun. Innocent men in my experience, do not feel the need to tote illegal firearms. They don’t need protection. They don’t need it as a persuader.

In the picture broadcast into millions of homes, he is gesturing the well known gun symbol with his hand. Despite not being employed he is clearly ‘blinged out’. This is plain to see.

So yes its sad. A man lost his life and that of course should be properly investigated. Just don’t paint him as an angel because he is dead and don’t use his death as an excuse to display ridiculously poor and unnecessary behaviour. Youre doing t because you want to not because you feel you have to.

Secondly the police were criticised more widely about their perceived lack of action in the riots. They didn’t charge in there knocking people out of their way. They didn’t beat them with batons. They didn’t spray everyone around them with CS spray and they didn’t taser people on sight. Some people think that they should have.

They think that the police weren’t tough enough. That they should have quite literally stamped it out.

You see the dilemma. The rioters use police brutality as an excuse for their unruly lawless conduct. The general public want police brutality to put an end to the riots. Its a catch 22 situation.

I’ve even heard politicians put there two pennies worth into the mix. They agree the police weren’t tough enough. They blame the police for the escalation of violence and disorder. Its their fault it got so our of hand.

They neglect to tell you of course that they make the law. They are the decision making body who has decided that the police must act in a certain way.

For instance in order to use a water cannon, this would need to be authorised by parliament. The riots occurred during parliaments summer break. The first night of rioting was Saturday. Parliament convened an ‘emergency; sitting on....Thursday. why the wait? Because the politicians, the law makers, were on holiday. They didn’t want to come back. They were quite prepared to leave the country they run in a state of disarray.

So why blame the police? Because they think that it will win them voters. That they can score political points by jumping on the bandwagon of public confusion.

What they should do of course is explain to the public that it is they who make the law. It is up to them to authorise further action on behalf of the police. That they are the ones who caused the problem by allowing society to fall so far into the gutter....

Of course they are just trying to take some of the heat away from themselves. They know that they are not coming across well in all of this. If they can blame someone else then they will. They don’t care that it makes a mockery of the bravery displayed by the police who took to the streets to defend the public from a potential civil war. They did a great job. They should be praised not put down. They were injured. But still they went out.

Had they acted with brutal force would they not have proved to the rioters that they were right? That there cause had some merit? Would they not have demonstrated in someway that there was truth in the notion of police brutality....