As a lawyer/solicitor/barriste... if you are fighting someones case but he/she tells you that he/she is guilty?

Usefully Employed

Broadly speaking no. So far as barristers are concerned, if someone tells you a fact, you can't go into court and argue the opposite. BUT confessing to having done something isn't always the same as confessing to the criminal charge, the Defendant might confess to you that he/she actually did something, but it might well be that even if that were known a conviction still wouldn't be right.

The actual Bar Council guidance is here:

12 Confessions of Guilt

12.1 In considering the duty of counsel retained to defend a person charged with an offence who confesses to his counsel that he did commit the offence charged, it is essential to bear the following points clearly in mind:

(a) that every punishable crime is a breach of common or statute law committed by a person of sound mind and understanding;

(b) that the issue in a criminal trial is always whether the defendant is guilty of the offence charged, never whether he is innocent;

(c) that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution.

12.2 It follows that the mere fact that a person charged with a crime has confessed to his counsel that he did commit the offence charged is no bar to that barrister appearing or continuing to appear in his defence, nor indeed does such a confession release the barrister from his imperative duty to do all that he honourably can for his client.

12.3 Such a confession, however, imposes very strict limitations on the conduct of the defence. a barrister must not assert as true that which he knows to be false. He must not connive at, much less attempt to substantiate, a fraud.

12.4 While, therefore, it would be right to take any objections to the competency of the Court, to the form of the indictment, to the admissibility of any evidence or to the evidence admitted, it would be wrong to suggest that some other person had committed the offence charged, or to call any evidence which the barrister must know to be false having regard to the confession, such, for instance, as evidence in support of an alibi. In other words, a barrister must not (whether by calling the defendant or otherwise) set up an affirmative case inconsistent with the confession made to him.

LONDONER Â©

That depends, lawyers are under a duty not to mislead the court, therefore presenting a 'defence' where the defendant has admitted their guilt is a breach of the code of conduct. However, the defendant is entitled to put the prosecution to proof, i.e. allowing the prosecution to present their case but not calling any evidence in their defence so as not to mislead the court.

Hope that makes sense

Butterfly(Jesus is the way)

Yes and they are obligated to defend that person as if they were not guilty.

bruverhoodofman

In the UK for criminal cases it is for the crown (prosecution) to prove the guilt of the defendant, so if a client tells you that he is guilty you can not give evidence that he is innocent, but you can still require the court to prove he is guilty. It's a sort of "I know he's guilty but it's my job to make you prove it".
If you know he is guilty (i.e. he tells you) and you then lie to court arguing he is innocent you will be in breach of your duty to the court and can be held in contempt.
It is possible to withdraw from the case if the client instructs you to lie in court to him. So as I think soneone said; we try to avoid asking the question and just present the case we were instructed to present.

Hawkeye

You can...but now you've got ethical problems. You cannot knowingly make false statements to the Court so it becomes very difficult to defend him.

This is the reason you never ask that question. You can ethically present any argument you want as long as it is supportable with facts... but now that you know the truth... you are going to have a hard time presenting any alternative theories as to what happened.

Scouse

Yes but they will not let him give evidence on oath only a dock statement

London has the best answer

Em.

From what I know, the lawyer still has to.

They can step out from the entire case if they know that they are guilty but if they want to have any part in it they must stay and try to do their assigned job.
Everyone is entitled to a lawyer and sadly its still his job even if their defending the guilty.

blue316

this is what is wrong with the justice system...fair is fair...but if someone admits they are guilty...lets start the punishment phase and stop trying to get them less time...If someone told me that they were guilty...I think they should leave the case...

V a m p i r e L o v e â„¢

i wouldnt but i dont no about being a lawyer and what yud have to do when ur defending that case

Mr Sceptic

Technically a lawyer is an officer of the court and is under oath. So ethically, no lawyer should enter a non guilty plea for a client he knows (not thinks, or suspects) is guilty.

A lawyer deliberately making an untrue statement to a court is in contempt of that court.

Doesn't seem to work like that, does it?

Arielle 911â„¢

A lot of lawyers are just money-hungry jack-a$$es.They wouldn't risk of losing their paychecks to tell the truth,even if it meant putting a criminal behind bars.

dimondpat

they can still fight Ur case but not as a not guilty person this is called mitigation a lawyer is trained not to lie for u because some day most of them hope to be judges they would not put their reputation on the line for u no way

Cherrypicker

I do think a barrister etc would have to believe that their client was innocent or it would seem to be very unethical, especially if it was violent crime. I have no direct experience; only from Police dramas etc. P.S Would love to do jury service.

Ms Minger

Yep.

And lots do.

sally xxx

yes, its true, but its the good old legal system the lawyer still gets paid what ever the outcome

darthcrab1

yes

sunflora

Yep! It is the lawyers job to prove your innocence, no matter what... Strange but true...

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: