It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
At least lawyers have their day in court. ;)
I wish I was a lawyer but sometimes you have to settle for less. I have a Masters in Law but could probably be putting it to better use.
I have seen a few lawyers go seriously corrupt recently. Right now, they are not on my good side.
Yes, there's always been bent lawyers too. I suppose every profession has its undesirables but hopefully the Law Society roots most of them out in the end.
Sorry for assuming your work was in criminal law.
@NickTwentyTwo - I studied Crime and the Criminal Process, Criminal Law and the Law of Evidence at university for my two year Masters in Law conversion course though sadly I never became a legal practioner. I am currently an admin assistant in an office. I'm still very interested in legal matters though and try to keep abreast of what is happening in the Law.
Some people certainly have a lot of trouble with the idea that a defendant accused of a heinous crime like murder, child sex offences, rape and the like should be defended by someone in court. Some would I'm sure just like them to be thrown to the wolves or have them try to defend themselves. How can the decent barrister or attorney possibly defend someone accused of such horrific crimes? The simple answer is because the criminal justice system requires a defence team and a prosecution team and both are equally important components to ensure a fair trial and the avoidance of a miscarriage of justice. Whether the barrister or attorney knows the defendant is guilty or not is of course open to conjecture. Of course they weren't there at the time of the alleged crime and so don't really know what happened. They only have the defendant's word to go on and whatever evidence there might be that would highlight the defendant's innocence. In any case, it is their job to defend their client to the best of their ability. This is what the law requires to protect the innocent from wrongful conviction and ensure the proper administration of justice. It all comes back to that old standard: the defendant is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. In the age of trial by media and the Internet it is more vital than ever that we stick to this old standard and proceed from there.
The defence was all the more important in the likes of the UK back when there was capital punishment (hanging) for a conviction in certain criminal cases. So for the "prisoner" (as they used to be called before it was decided that was a pejorative term for the defendant and implied their guilt) it was literally a matter of life or death. Of course in a criminal trial it is the jury who ultimately decide on the guilt or innocence of the defendant in the dock. Under English law it is important to remember that the House of Lords case Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 confirmed that in criminal trials it is the prosecution's role to prove the defendant's guilt and not the role of the defence to prove the defendant's innocence. This was described as "the golden thread" which ran through the English criminal law:
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1935/1.html
It should be noted that in the UK there are also some crimes and torts for which there is a reverse onus of proof whereby the defendant has to prove something themselves, such as the fact that they weren't negligence or prove where their sudden wealth came from, for example. Again, these are the exceptions to the general rule.
In an adversarial system like we have in the UK, the US and the colonies like Canada, Australia and New Zealand there is the prosecution and the defence each making their case before the trial judge and the jury of twelve people. The judge decides on matters of law and explains them to the jury whereas the jury (which is a lay element with no legal training) decides on matters of fact and ultimately on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. They base their verdict on the arguments of counsel and the evidence put before them that tends to show the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The verdict is achieved by either a unanimous or a majority decision after deliberation. Sometimes the jury is evenly split or can't come to a decision in which case a retrial may be ordered by the judge.
In a criminal trial the bar is set very high - the jury has to be convinced that the defendant is guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". This means they have to be 99.9% sure of their guilt before they can deliver a guilty verdict. This is a deliberately high standard as in the old days (before the abolition of the death penalty in the UK in 1965) the defendant could be hanged for a serious crime such as murder. Of course, the death penalty still exists in some US states. By contrast, in civil law cases such as those involving tort law the standard is "as likely as not" that the party is liable (that is a 51% to 49% standard). So the burden of proof is much less than in criminal cases. This is why affected parties sometimes sue the defendant civilly to get remuneration where a criminal case fails to bring a conviction or is too difficult to undertake due to lack of evidence. On continental Europe they have a civil law system (as opposed to the common law system in the UK and US) and a panel of judges sift through the paper trail of the evidence rather than listen to the opposing arguments of prosecution and defence counsel before a jury. No jury is present as these are judge only courts. We sometimes had judge only courts in the UK too where the risk of jury tampering and intimidation was too high. These operated in some terrorist cases, most notably in Northern Ireland, and were known as Diplock courts after the judge Lord Diplock. However, these were the exception rather than the rule.
I'll conclude by posting the following video of a UK barrister explaining (from the horse's mouth, as it were) via his first criminal case why barristers defend people accused of all manner of crimes. I think as a practitioner he powerfully explains things much better than my off-tangent ramblings here ever could:
Adam West, Nestle Quick Commercial (1966) He was this Bond-type Adventurer/Spy/Sea Captain.
That Nestle's Quik is delicious, BTW. If you haven't tried it yet, do it ;)
Have any of our members been there?
Things to do?
Things to avoid?
Is it safe?
I seem to think @MI6HQ might be from that neck of the woods???
Vigan is a good place to be! @Benny
Here's my choices:
1. Bohol (seeing Tarsiers and Chocolate hills)
2. Cebu
3. Baguio
4. Tagaytay
5. Puerto Prinsesa in Palawan and Puerto Gallera in Mindoro
6. Also worth visiting is the Las Filipinas De Acuzar in Bataan (might be a good place for a Bond film too).
7. El Nido, Palawan
8. Boracay
9. Also another worth visiting is the Intramuros City in Manila.
10. Banaue Rice Terraces too.
Those places that I've mentioned were really Tourists spots here, and it's safe.
Things to avoid?
1. Better not to take any pictures of Tarsiers and do not shake their trees, they're very sensitive animals.
3. Better to avoid beggars, if they see you looking like a rich man, they might put their focus on you.
3. Because of the incident of overpricing taxi (PUV) drivers (these taxis passes outside the airport). Prefer GRAB Taxi drivers, there's an app that you could install in your phone, where you could book a taxing service.
Just make sure you bring me along this time.
As long as you're Tibbett this time. The last time I nearly got a hernia carrying your suitcases. ;)
This is fair. No wonder you chucked my bags on the ground!
Reminds me of this prank phone call from the character Robin Cooper back in 2012 which managed to make the sports news on BBC Radio 5 Live:
Just sayin'.
Plenty of lunacy in the YouTube thread. ;-)
Well now I have.
https://www.space.com/blood-moon-lunar-eclipse-november-2022-what-time