Criminal Justice

So, another independence day is over. Another Wimbledon champion has been crowned after an epic final apparently, I didn't watch it. Lewis Hamilton stormed home first in the British GP. I didn't watch that either, but I wish I had. I bought two new pairs of work trousers at BHS, and it's been peeing down with rain intermittently all weekend. As I type this I can hear colleagues deconstructing the sporting events of the weekend in the kitchen. I've never been able to discuss sport like that. I don't understand how people who essentially drive a desk for a living, can state opinions about Lewis Hamilton's performance. It's odd to me.

We never made it to Devon this weekend as planned. Instead we ran around doing things that needed doing. We spent a huge amount of money at the Chinese supermarket in Bristol, and we did more conventional shopping in a British Tesco. We also made bread, and I found time to watch all 5 episodes of Criminal Justice on the BBC. I've been half following it as it was shown during the week, but I lost it around Wednesday, and then caught up Saturday and yesterday. I thought it was pretty good, but I want to know how realistic it is.

If a person gets arrested on suspicion of some serious crime like murder, does that person's solicitor really tell them to shut up in case they say something that is difficult to defend? If you didn't see the drama, that will mean nothing to you. The central character is arrested on suspicion of murder. It looks for all the world like he did it. His solicitor shows up, and the first thing he says is shut up, "You have to learn to keep your mouth shut until you've learnt enough not to." The arrested guy tells his solicitor that he wants to tell the truth, and his solicitor says, "Don't burden me with the truth." It seems like his solicitor is not the slightest bit interested in what really happened, only in what he can say in court.

As the drama progresses the guy meets his barristers and they tell him to keep quiet too. The barristers strike a deal with the prosecution that will allow the guy to plead guilty to manslaughter instead of murder. There will be no trial and he'll be out of prison in 2-3 years. But it all goes wrong because the guy isn't prepared to plead guilty to manslaughter. He didn't kill the victim, so he pleads not guilty at the hearing. That forces a murder trial. I won't go any further in case I ruin it for someone. It's pretty good though.

Just one more quote that stayed with me; the arrested guy is young, and his mother is distraught that he's been arrested. His solicitor meets with his mother, and the mother asks him, "Do you think he did it?" The solicitor says something like, "I'm sure 99% of the people I defend are 100% guilty. I can't say that about your son." The mother tells him that isn't a proper answer, and he tells her, "yes it is, that absolutely is a proper answer. All I need is reasonable doubt." And he's right because the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to prove he did it, and if there is doubt, that means they can't prove anything. The lawyer believes the justice system works, just not the way most people understand it.