Jump to content

Aussies LXIV - Invasion Day Edition


The Winged Shadow

Recommended Posts

On 23 January 2016 at 0:32 PM, Stubby said:

We had a close one just before xmas.  But the big bastard that erased a small town (Yarloop) was quite a way from us.  Season's not over yet though, and we haven't even got to the worst month for it yet. :(

Happy to hear your safe old fella! 

 

house southwell, welcome and try the gaming part of the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was another yesterday in pretty much the same place as the one that got close to us before xmas.  But this was only a little one - and was under control in about 5 hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29 January 2016 at 5:38 PM, Stubby said:

There was another yesterday in pretty much the same place as the one that got close to us before xmas.  But this was only a little one - and was under control in about 5 hours.

Happy to hear everything is going relatively well then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Drunken convo topuic:

As a lawyer, if you know your client is guilty (of whatever crime), do you still try to get them out of trouble to the best of your abilities? or do you dob them in?

Or can you "step out" and not represent them as they no longer fit your personal criteria (i.e, say they are a murderer or whatever,and guilty etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TWS,

The Defense attorney's job in that circumstance is to force the State to prove its case.  In the US you can't force a defendant to testify in a criminal trial.  Therefore, even if you know your client is guilty you aren't faced with th ethical conundrum of having to decide whether to tell the court they lied on the stand under oath.  I'm not sure where Australia stands on the right against self-incrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, The Winged Shadow said:

Drunken convo topuic:

As a lawyer, if you know your client is guilty (of whatever crime), do you still try to get them out of trouble to the best of your abilities? or do you dob them in?

Or can you "step out" and not represent them as they no longer fit your personal criteria (i.e, say they are a murderer or whatever,and guilty etc)

This question reminds me of a funny ('funny') story. I was at a training session for magistrates here in Melbourne last week for work-related reasons, and this non-descript, bald guy eating a sandwich came up to us during a break and got talking about how hard it was to deal with all of the things they see and hear in their work, and we were appropriately sympathetic. Then he started in on dealing with guilt - specifically, he was talking about a case in his previous job when he'd gotten a guy who'd raped 19 sex workers off on a, and I quote, "bullshit technicality". The colleague I was with, who is far more tactful than I am, gently asked him whether things like that kept him up at night. He joked that he does a lot of exercise, so he sleeps pretty well.

Guess which client he was talking about?

Adrian fucking Bayley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't even use Jill Meagher's first name when he dropped it as the punchline. "The guy that killed that Meagher woman."

Unfortunately as I was there representing my organisation I couldn't tell this dude what an unspeakable vermin I think he is, but I really hope he read it off my face. I'd hate for him to go away thinking that's the kind of story he can tell people to impress them rather than gain their utmost contempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I could have bitten my tongue at that tbh.

Because that's just too depressing to think about, I shall instead comment on the weather! If this is indicative of future summers after the el nino has liberated the heat from the oceans, I think Sydney is really running a 4 month summer if not longer.  I don't think we've even had a 'cool' day since Jan, there haven't been too many absolute scorchers but it's just been baking away day in and day out.

Didn't get out for mardi gras on the weekend as we didn't have babysitting available, but I do enjoy the extra queer people around the last week anyway.  Needed that counter point to the evangelical union all over campus and the assholes in the media.  Also went to GX Australia the week before that, which was excellent and I hope is on again next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general it was actually a hugely positive day, mostly about educating magistrates about the complexity of domestic and sexual violence issues in minority and CALD communities. It's something which they deal with and are asked to make decisions on a lot, so it was a pretty impressive achievement just getting that many (3/4 male, almost entirely white) judges in a room talking and thinking about things like intersectional discrimination. It was kind of one of those things where you have to ask yourself whether saying something and provoking a confrontation with one dickhead because it makes your conscience sit easier - and that's all it would have achieved, because it certainly wouldn't have changed his mind - is worth potentially undermining all the progress which had been made with the other participants. I'd rather have 30 judges go away having had a positive experience and hopefully gained a new openness to considering the complexity of women's situations in their rulings in the future than tell off one dickhead who wouldn't care anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here's the thing.

If your client tells you a story that matches the facts as alleged, your ethical obligation is twofold:

First you advise your client to plead guilty; or

Second, you defend the claim (like Scot said) by making sure that your client is only convicted "in a properly constructed court by admissible evidence only".

In these circumstances, you may NOT lead a 'positive' case, like saying "Bloggsy did it" or "my client wasn't there".

If the evidence fits a statutory defence, like mistake, insanity, self-defence etc, then you can lead a positive case.

And that's where it's at.

Scot, we have the presumption of innocence as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, my rage was at the guys douchey attitude around it not that he defended his client.  I understand the very important role that defence attorneys play in the legal system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...