It’s not clear from the article what the Defence Lawyer is supposed to have said ‘wrong’, but the idea of charging “£100 per hour of transcript or £3,000 for the whole case” is a joke. Surely those details are available as a transcribed digital document or audio recording – both of which are incredibly easy to duplicate and distribute.
Her complaint that that cost is a barrier to her bringing an effective case seems totally fair.
Probably upset because that £3000 wouldn’t prove anything.
“”When I was in court I felt I was being made the subject of constant personal attacks,” she said. “I felt like I was being blamed for what happened to me.
“It was really difficult – I felt like I was being abused all over again and I found myself actually doubting whether I was doing the right thing by taking legal action against my abuser.””
Its the lawyers job to do the best to protect their client.
They have a duty to explore the possibility the person is lying, misremembering key details, has an alternative motive, is mentally unstable or any other fact that might be relevant to the case.
It may be unpleasant to be faced with someone who isn’t on your side cross examining you, but its a key part of a fair legal system, where both sides are fairly investigated.
Given this took place in public in a court in front of a judge and other witnesses, I doubt the lawyer would have been doing much that is genuinely deserving of an ethics complaint with the judge doing nothing to shut it down.
On the one hand, I can totally see how unfair this is for her. On the other, producing a transcript does involve someone having to sit down and produce the transcript from the court recording and it does than have to be reviewed by the judge for accuracy. For a one day commercial hearing, where you just want the judgment bit, it can easily be close to a grand, so £3k doesn’t appear out of the ordinary.
Perhaps some kind of discretionary grant could be made in circumstances such as this involving criminal trials, but not sure if the MOJ has funds / resources for that at the moment…
> Mr Alonzi told the court: “He had a perfect life in front of him and he now has a High Court conviction and is on the sex offenders register for the rest of his life.”
Maybe don’t rape people then?
Subject matter aside, the cost of gathering evidence has always been costly.
If you want to complain about something, you need to back it up. Whether that’s witness statements, expert reports, site visits, transcripts, research, it all takes time and costs money. £100 an hour for a transcript seems quite reasonable.
Back to this case, her logic doesn’t actually make any sense. She says that the cost of the transcript is a barrier to justice and that that means that defence barristers can be abusive. That rather fails to take account of her own barrister and the judge, who would both object to inappropriate questioning. The cost is only a barrier if you want to complain that 3 people weren’t doing their jobs properly.
Finally, this sort of attitude and article deters people from coming forward and perpetuates how hard it is to get convictions in these cases. Notwithstanding how she felt, she got a conviction against her rapist. That’s a good result and shouldn’t be ignored.
6 comments
It’s not clear from the article what the Defence Lawyer is supposed to have said ‘wrong’, but the idea of charging “£100 per hour of transcript or £3,000 for the whole case” is a joke. Surely those details are available as a transcribed digital document or audio recording – both of which are incredibly easy to duplicate and distribute.
Her complaint that that cost is a barrier to her bringing an effective case seems totally fair.
Probably upset because that £3000 wouldn’t prove anything.
“”When I was in court I felt I was being made the subject of constant personal attacks,” she said. “I felt like I was being blamed for what happened to me.
“It was really difficult – I felt like I was being abused all over again and I found myself actually doubting whether I was doing the right thing by taking legal action against my abuser.””
Its the lawyers job to do the best to protect their client.
They have a duty to explore the possibility the person is lying, misremembering key details, has an alternative motive, is mentally unstable or any other fact that might be relevant to the case.
It may be unpleasant to be faced with someone who isn’t on your side cross examining you, but its a key part of a fair legal system, where both sides are fairly investigated.
Given this took place in public in a court in front of a judge and other witnesses, I doubt the lawyer would have been doing much that is genuinely deserving of an ethics complaint with the judge doing nothing to shut it down.
On the one hand, I can totally see how unfair this is for her. On the other, producing a transcript does involve someone having to sit down and produce the transcript from the court recording and it does than have to be reviewed by the judge for accuracy. For a one day commercial hearing, where you just want the judgment bit, it can easily be close to a grand, so £3k doesn’t appear out of the ordinary.
Perhaps some kind of discretionary grant could be made in circumstances such as this involving criminal trials, but not sure if the MOJ has funds / resources for that at the moment…
> Mr Alonzi told the court: “He had a perfect life in front of him and he now has a High Court conviction and is on the sex offenders register for the rest of his life.”
Maybe don’t rape people then?
Subject matter aside, the cost of gathering evidence has always been costly.
If you want to complain about something, you need to back it up. Whether that’s witness statements, expert reports, site visits, transcripts, research, it all takes time and costs money. £100 an hour for a transcript seems quite reasonable.
Back to this case, her logic doesn’t actually make any sense. She says that the cost of the transcript is a barrier to justice and that that means that defence barristers can be abusive. That rather fails to take account of her own barrister and the judge, who would both object to inappropriate questioning. The cost is only a barrier if you want to complain that 3 people weren’t doing their jobs properly.
Finally, this sort of attitude and article deters people from coming forward and perpetuates how hard it is to get convictions in these cases. Notwithstanding how she felt, she got a conviction against her rapist. That’s a good result and shouldn’t be ignored.