Probation officers do come into contact with barristers on occasion, or possibly more correctly they used to in my experience. I have previously written about the fact that officers seem to rarely attend court nowadays which is a shame because it can make a difference for the client. Especially if you've been involved with them for a number of years it's quite likely that you will know more about them than anyone else in the court process, or possibly you've just had plenty of time to absorb the details of the case unlike the poor 'brief' starring in this new Tuesday evening drama series 'Silk' on BBC1.
I've lost count of the number of times over the years that clients have reported only having met their barrister at court on the morning of the supposed trial, only to be informed that 'they haven't got a cat in hells chance' and it would definitely be in their best interests to plead guilty that day, especially as it's a lenient judge. Some go as far as to suggest what the judge is likely to hand down. This is pretty much what happens to the drug 'mule' in the opening episode of 'Silk' and the barristers lack of knowledge about the case is something I've certainly come across before.
It's also true that changes of plea on the day means there is no probation report available and as in this instance, the judge often sees no purpose in adjourning for a report before moving to sentence. For some reason it seems to be assumed that a report is pointless as custody is inevitable, but further down the line this is invariably shown to be a mistake, for example when the offender denies responsibility and says 'I only pleaded guilty because my brief told me to.' This does nothing to assist with attempts at changing behaviour, attitudes or rehabilitation. Of course in this case a report would have given an opportunity for the judge to be informed of revelations not able to be used in mitigation by the defence barrister either because of inadequate instructions or due to sloppiness. I guess this will change with the growth in the use of Solicitor Advocates instead.
Court scenes when portrayed on the small screen are notorious in my view for procedural inaccuracies and often don't ring true in my experience, but apart from some suspect exchanges with the judge before the jury is sworn-in on the aggravated burglary case, I think it seemed pretty believable. For some time I've felt that much of what goes on at Crown Court is viewed as a 'game' by many barristers and it remains to be seen if this somewhat cynical view will be reinforced by this series or not. I'm going to be very interested in what clients make of it.
I too saw this programme and thought it was the usual sanctimonious drivel written by someone protecting their profession, not throwing a light on it. Having been to many Chambers, they receive as many telephone calls in a month as the fictional one did during the course of a day. The police are oafish, corrupt and driven by malice (quelle surprise,) and the dashing heroine is the only one with any integrity. There are the usual cardboard cut-out stereotypes abounding, defendants don’t tell lies and have always been fitted up by somebody, somewhere. Who will give me odds on the next few episodes not containing the usual suspects of programming? Older man trying to do her down through sexism, coming up against a case driven by racism, and the system being prejudiced against women, imposing a ‘glass ceiling?’
ReplyDelete