Aussies LXIV - Invasion Day Edition

[Stubby]

15 minutes ago, karaddin said:

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.

Yeah I figured that.

I was responding largely to Nil.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 hours ago, Stubby said:

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.

Stubby,

In an Anglo legal system I assumed you had the "presumption of innocence" what I didn't know is whether there is a right against self-incrimination in Australia or whether you can force a criminal defendant to testify in a criminal trial.

[The Winged Shadow]

Thanks for the answers. I totally forgot I asked that question!