The limits of the adversarial system
A recent action against barrister Lawrence McNulty emphasized that despite what some lay people might believe, there are limits in the adversarial system to the tactics counsel can employ at trial. In fact, although lawyers are retained by their clients, they are nonetheless "officers to the court". This is why a lawyer cannot argue that if his client is innocent if he knows otherwise. He may argue that the case against him has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but he may not argue for this innocence.
Lawrence McNulty is appealing the decision. The disciplinary tribunal found that he had contravened professional ethics in several ways. He had argued a defence of entrapment without the necessary notice. The allegations of entrapment “were completely unfounded and his conduct had the potential to undermine public confidence in the legal profession and the administration of justice”. Further, he made a "deliberate and misguided attempt to undermine the authority of the judge and to neutralise his summing-up", and had also attacked police witnesses without giving them the opportunity of reply.
It must be emphasized that such behaviour and resulting disciplinary action is notable for its rarity, and no one has suggested that the barrister in question is not normally conscientious and ethical. Nonetheless, it is an important reminder that the courts are interested in justice, and although the adversarial system may seem like a bun fight to the layperson, there are consequences if counsel stray across certain boundaries when representing their client.
Lawrence McNulty is appealing the decision. The disciplinary tribunal found that he had contravened professional ethics in several ways. He had argued a defence of entrapment without the necessary notice. The allegations of entrapment “were completely unfounded and his conduct had the potential to undermine public confidence in the legal profession and the administration of justice”. Further, he made a "deliberate and misguided attempt to undermine the authority of the judge and to neutralise his summing-up", and had also attacked police witnesses without giving them the opportunity of reply.
It must be emphasized that such behaviour and resulting disciplinary action is notable for its rarity, and no one has suggested that the barrister in question is not normally conscientious and ethical. Nonetheless, it is an important reminder that the courts are interested in justice, and although the adversarial system may seem like a bun fight to the layperson, there are consequences if counsel stray across certain boundaries when representing their client.
No comments:
Post a Comment