I always thought that lying in court was punishable perjury, but apparently not. I can now see where the Post Office and their legal team get their ethics.
My business took a company to court for unpaid rent. A Director of the company told the County Court Judge that he hadn't furnished some evidence because he'd been on holiday. His Barrister's immediate action was gather his papers and tell the Judge "I am professionally embarassed and unable to represent my client. I apologise to the Court", then walk out. Presumably his client had lied either to him or to the Court. We later won in the High Court.
I work for a very large client dept doing civil work only. If their evidence is late I ask them what explanation they want me to give to the court. Unless I know they are lying it’s difficult to establish otherwise.
In a bogus claim against me, the claimant's barrister blatantly lied. I only found out after getting a copy of the bundle from the court. the claimants barrister failed to serve a bundle before the two day trail. A single document shows the claim is fabricated and the judge did not bother to read the document. It is not the first time I have known barristers to lie on the cuff during a trial.
It is quite apparent that Judges do not read all the documents. I always thought that they didnt have the time. It is clear to me that it boils down to arguments on the day and who has the best barrister. If you are in person then you have all but lost on the day. The PO is a typical example!
@@chrisfell5073 In my case as a litigant in person against the defendants barrister I found the judge had read all the documents and on a couple of occasions when the defendant had contradicted themselves, I was about to refer to a document and the judge stopped me saying, “Don’t bother I’ve read all the documents”. The judge was brilliant, often berating their barrister and threatening their witness with the perjuries act.
Evening to you. Lovely vid with fab facts again. Very much looking forward to the upcoming one about legal people who can't do regulated work. And what all of that means! Thank you. 😊
Lawyers aguing they can't legally lie therefore don't lie doesn't match up to how most laywers I've encountered think about the law. There's much more of a cost benefit analysis than an absolute or even moral position. If somethings illegal but there's no risk of getting caught or no real penelty they'll be fine with it. My parents were defrauded by a lawyer who had a position with the law society that meant there was no recourse, another friend, a lawyer talking about this kind of legal malpractice told me of the horrors that went as far as rapes by a partner in one large firm. They know what can and can't be proved and the legal system is now pay to play.
Due diligence - its obviously reckless if false claims are made and not checked in any way before being made. Pre action or otherwise. Unfortunately with the lack of honesty regarding the conflict of principles with some legal agents the opportunity to create disagreement through undue influence is too tempting. I have no doubt this is why the SRA do not provide indemnity for misuse of data under the Data protection act 2018.
There's still the vile process of solicitors acting on behalf of the 'big guys' who simply bury people in so much paperwork etc that costs a small fortune in time and money to deal with it 🤬
What about solicitors writing witness statements on behalf of their client and which benefits the clients position and simply having the witness sign it? The investigator for the post office alleges this during his evidence to the enquiry.
Yeah, if it becomes a general rule that lawyers are responsible for their clients telling them the truth, every conviction following a not guilty plea will put the lawyer representing them in jeopardy. However in civil cases brought by the Client, i think solicitors should have the right to refuse cases that do not align with their perception of just cause, and some responsibility to assure themselves of that, starting with getting an affidavit that the case presented is honestly brought.
Philip Drinkwater from Devon, was allegedly acting as a defence lawyer for the RMT union. But was actually working for the CPS and the Devon & Cornwall Police, to frame a client.
Yes he would. It's the solicitor's firm that doesn't get to refuse the client. They can inform the client they have no case, but they still have to act as instructed as long as it's within the guidance laid out by the regulator.
How could the Judges convict Post Masters still, even when there was a known problem with the varsity of the post office? It has been in a public forum for a long time. Radio 4 listeners couldn't not know about it. That's the scandal.
I hear that in the US, lawyers are officers of the court and they must not lie or otherwise mislead the court. They have got to be candid. Isn't that the same case in the UK?
One very serious issue with barristers is their use of intellectual and verbal advantage when interrogating someone with a verbal or learning difficulty. For any judge to say that the barrister was "only doing his job" is quite inappropriate!
Ref Post office - I'm listening again to Richard Morgans advice to Susan Creighton. I am listening to a lawyer give a written opinion that the post office should not go looking through past prosecutions because if something was found to be wrong then all the wrong cases would have to be corrected. Do lawyers have no obligation to justice when giving advice?
Well one I saw was a lawyer, sharing that they were the person that represent the women that had friend come in as handwriting expect, who claimed it was bit her signature. When they knew it was because she used her other hand to normal to sign.
The lawyers need to lose their positions for either complicity, laziness, naivety or stupidity. It should beholden on lawyers to do at least do a sniff test yet few, if any, do this. The negative reward for failing to do so should be losing everything. How unfair. Not really. Lawyers would do the same to you. With any luck, the greedy tart in the swimsuit will end up with less than she was born with.
I'd slightly reverse the question - is a lawyer obliged to lie to protect the interests of his client? As an example, just before the court case commences the client lets slip in a confidential meeting with the lawyer that he was actually lying. How is the lawyer supposed to act in that scenario?
I understand that lawyers don't have to do an investigation, but certainly simple due dilligence would have revealed she is married to Doug Barrowman, who is the person behind PPE Medpro, the very company they are claiming Baroness Mone had absolutely nothing to do with? It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to put those two and two together....
Surely all solicitors/barristers have to do some due diligence before writing letters? I mean, anyone could approach you and instruct you to write a letter which had no factual basis just in order to frighten someone. For example, these builders built my new house put did not put a roof on! So you walk by to check and indeed it does have a roof. If you just wrote the letter, it would make you daft.
@@philipdurling1964 I think it's where they have misled(lied?) to the court on behalf of their client. The question is - is it the all the client? They would not be believes again by any Judge. The other question is were they complit or should have known by given the circumstances?
Possibly in family law where there may be issues about not naming children or potentially vulnerable people who would be granted anonymity in any proceedings.
It's not "unlawful " its just not binding unless you've previously established a contract with the party you're sending it to establishing that they won't share it. Essentially you can't unilaterally establish terms and conditions without an agreement.
Only a Barrister can argue in Crown Court. Solicitors prepare the case and do all the other legal work outside Crown Court. Lawyers are only in America, where they don't have Solicitors or Barristers. Now that I say it out loud, I'm thinking, WTF do we have Barristers for?😮 To keep Wine Bars in business?😊 A few years ago somebody must have identified how ridiculous the system is. It was proposed that solicitors be allowed to speak in court. I believe it did get passed but nothing seems to have come of it. The Old Boys network must be too strong. After all, the Judge was a Barrister.🥴
An historic question here, is it *_Allowable/Acceptable_* behaviour for legal counsel to _rehearse_ their client‽ Specifically if they're being *"trained away from fact/truth"‽‽‽* Thinking of Memorable People and more especially Person's Malevolent intent
Absolutely not allowed. It would amount to serious professional misconduct. In the solicitors practice rules it's covered by: "You do not seek to influence the substance of evidence, including generating false evidence or persuading witnesses to change their evidence." For barristers the equivalent is: "you must not encourage a witness to give evidence which is misleading or untruthful" and "you must not rehearse, practise with or coach a witness in respect of their evidence"
Isn't " I have been instructed by my Client" the standard get out of jail card for Solicitors, in lay terms it's the old "it wasn't me lying mate it was my Client !" the SRA , and more so the Law society in NI are, as solicitors often remind me, toothless when it comes to most dubious activities by Solicitors. They are more of a trade union for Lawyers than a protection for the public. If you don't believe me try making a complaint against a Solicitor, in fact try instructing a Solicitor to take up a complaint against a Solicitor especially in N Ireland where the Legal profession is an inhouse 'boys club' free from any external scrutiny whatsoever .
Did someone say 'Michelle Boag'? Is that the one from New Zealand? We know her from way back. And before I get a lawyers letter in my inbox, I'll just say - Google her.
LOL you know the world is in the shite when there are lawyers, representing lawyers representing someone who has serious questions to answer and who is also rich, which i guess helps.
If a lawyer drafts a letter don't they own the copyright to that letter and can't you then sue for somebody publishing it? Thinking of Meghan suing for publishing parts of her letter to her father.
That is an interesting question. I can see argument both for and against. There's been a similar discussion around skeleton arguments; and people cribbing other barrister's ones. Might be a good topic for a vid; although as there's not yet a definitive answer might have to be a bit waffly and stream of consciousness. But that's pretty much my style anyway.
Thats an good point. This would just be mechanical copyright though similar to that which HMSO has regarding registration documents. Unless undue influence could be established which would also be intent.
I always thought that lying in court was punishable perjury, but apparently not.
I can now see where the Post Office and their legal team get their ethics.
Perjury is where you are proven to lie for someone else or lie on the witness stand.
Your legal team
At the very least, lying can only be perjury if it's material.
@@palemale2501 obviously not always
My business took a company to court for unpaid rent. A Director of the company told the County Court Judge that he hadn't furnished some evidence because he'd been on holiday. His Barrister's immediate action was gather his papers and tell the Judge "I am professionally embarassed and unable to represent my client. I apologise to the Court", then walk out. Presumably his client had lied either to him or to the Court.
We later won in the High Court.
It's literally their job.
Truth is an unwelcome guest in family court proceedings.
Thank you Al for making the murky .. clearer. Love your work
Slightly vaguely interesting…. I really enjoyed watching this video. Thank you.
I work for a very large client dept doing civil work only. If their evidence is late I ask them what explanation they want me to give to the court. Unless I know they are lying it’s difficult to establish otherwise.
how about the over side then, not they balanced is it?
@@dh2032 As long as you’ve got your egg nog balanced, nothing else really matters 👀🙄🧐😎😜
Important topic and helpful analysis. Thanks.
In a bogus claim against me, the claimant's barrister blatantly lied. I only found out after getting a copy of the bundle from the court. the claimants barrister failed to serve a bundle before the two day trail. A single document shows the claim is fabricated and the judge did not bother to read the document. It is not the first time I have known barristers to lie on the cuff during a trial.
It is quite apparent that Judges do not read all the documents. I always thought that they didnt have the time. It is clear to me that it boils down to arguments on the day and who has the best barrister. If you are in person then you have all but lost on the day. The PO is a typical example!
@@chrisfell5073 In my case as a litigant in person against the defendants barrister I found the judge had read all the documents and on a couple of occasions when the defendant had contradicted themselves, I was about to refer to a document and the judge stopped me saying, “Don’t bother I’ve read all the documents”. The judge was brilliant, often berating their barrister and threatening their witness with the perjuries act.
Merry Christmas thank you for another great video
Evening to you. Lovely vid with fab facts again. Very much looking forward to the upcoming one about legal people who can't do regulated work. And what all of that means! Thank you. 😊
Lawyers aguing they can't legally lie therefore don't lie doesn't match up to how most laywers I've encountered think about the law. There's much more of a cost benefit analysis than an absolute or even moral position. If somethings illegal but there's no risk of getting caught or no real penelty they'll be fine with it.
My parents were defrauded by a lawyer who had a position with the law society that meant there was no recourse, another friend, a lawyer talking about this kind of legal malpractice told me of the horrors that went as far as rapes by a partner in one large firm. They know what can and can't be proved and the legal system is now pay to play.
Merry Christmas Eve
Brilliant video as usual and more than vaguely useful!
I can name a few solicitor and a barrister who mislead the courts
Do it then
So can I.
Did you lose the case then 😁
There's probably a very good reason why she won't let you see the kids. Bwahahahaha!!
Merry Christmas 🎄
Due diligence - its obviously reckless if false claims are made and not checked in any way before being made. Pre action or otherwise. Unfortunately with the lack of honesty regarding the conflict of principles with some legal agents the opportunity to create disagreement through undue influence is too tempting. I have no doubt this is why the SRA do not provide indemnity for misuse of data under the Data protection act 2018.
You should sell some merchandise with the phrase...Slightly vaguely interesting 🤔 😊
The posing and lighting of Capy and LLAD are excellent now!
Thank you
There's still the vile process of solicitors acting on behalf of the 'big guys' who simply bury people in so much paperwork etc that costs a small fortune in time and money to deal with it 🤬
What about solicitors writing witness statements on behalf of their client and which benefits the clients position and simply having the witness sign it? The investigator for the post office alleges this during his evidence to the enquiry.
The police do this a lot too. The wording is the giveaway.
Yeah, if it becomes a general rule that lawyers are responsible for their clients telling them the truth, every conviction following a not guilty plea will put the lawyer representing them in jeopardy. However in civil cases brought by the Client, i think solicitors should have the right to refuse cases that do not align with their perception of just cause, and some responsibility to assure themselves of that, starting with getting an affidavit that the case presented is honestly brought.
Philip Drinkwater from Devon, was allegedly acting as a defence lawyer for the RMT union. But was actually working for the CPS and the Devon & Cornwall Police, to frame a client.
😱😱. Really?😢
And the CPS were happy to proceed?😞
Cab rank? Doesn’t Prince Harry get to choose his very expensive barrister?
Yes he would.
It's the solicitor's firm that doesn't get to refuse the client.
They can inform the client they have no case, but they still have to act as instructed as long as it's within the guidance laid out by the regulator.
Love it - her "in-house legal team" ie her hubby lol.
How could the Judges convict Post Masters still, even when there was a known problem with the varsity of the post office?
It has been in a public forum for a long time.
Radio 4 listeners couldn't not know about it.
That's the scandal.
I hear that in the US, lawyers are officers of the court and they must not lie or otherwise mislead the court. They have got to be candid. Isn't that the same case in the UK?
Look at it from the angle of the Law of Agency
One very serious issue with barristers is their use of intellectual and verbal advantage when interrogating someone with a verbal or learning difficulty. For any judge to say that the barrister was "only doing his job" is quite inappropriate!
Ref Post office - I'm listening again to Richard Morgans advice to Susan Creighton. I am listening to a lawyer give a written opinion that the post office should not go looking through past prosecutions because if something was found to be wrong then all the wrong cases would have to be corrected. Do lawyers have no obligation to justice when giving advice?
Well one I saw was a lawyer, sharing that they were the person that represent the women that had friend come in as handwriting expect, who claimed it was bit her signature. When they knew it was because she used her other hand to normal to sign.
It should be a given, anyone involved in politics, in any way, is a liar.
Happy Christmas. A bit confused, a Lawyer can lie if instructed to do so?
The lawyers need to lose their positions for either complicity, laziness, naivety or stupidity. It should beholden on lawyers to do at least do a sniff test yet few, if any, do this. The negative reward for failing to do so should be losing everything. How unfair. Not really. Lawyers would do the same to you. With any luck, the greedy tart in the swimsuit will end up with less than she was born with.
I'd slightly reverse the question - is a lawyer obliged to lie to protect the interests of his client?
As an example, just before the court case commences the client lets slip in a confidential meeting with the lawyer that he was actually lying. How is the lawyer supposed to act in that scenario?
I understand that lawyers don't have to do an investigation, but certainly simple due dilligence would have revealed she is married to Doug Barrowman, who is the person behind PPE Medpro, the very company they are claiming Baroness Mone had absolutely nothing to do with? It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to put those two and two together....
Surely all solicitors/barristers have to do some due diligence before writing letters? I mean, anyone could approach you and instruct you to write a letter which had no factual basis just in order to frighten someone. For example, these builders built my new house put did not put a roof on! So you walk by to check and indeed it does have a roof. If you just wrote the letter, it would make you daft.
Define "professionally embarrassed" and why do lawyers use this as a term to use as an escape clause.
@@philipdurling1964 I think it's where they have misled(lied?) to the court on behalf of their client. The question is - is it the all the client? They would not be believes again by any Judge. The other question is were they complit or should have known by given the circumstances?
@philipdurling1964 Google can help you with that.
What happens if you reply (knowing full well the instruction is bollocks) "Please instruct your client to go to hell."?
Are there any exceptions to the rule that writing (for example) "not for publication" on a legal letter is unlawful?
Possibly in family law where there may be issues about not naming children or potentially vulnerable people who would be granted anonymity in any proceedings.
It's not "unlawful " its just not binding unless you've previously established a contract with the party you're sending it to establishing that they won't share it. Essentially you can't unilaterally establish terms and conditions without an agreement.
Stupid question I know, but, what's the difference between a barrister, lawyer and solicitor?
Only a Barrister can argue in Crown Court.
Solicitors prepare the case and do all the other legal work outside Crown Court.
Lawyers are only in America, where they don't have Solicitors or Barristers.
Now that I say it out loud, I'm thinking, WTF do we have Barristers for?😮
To keep Wine Bars in business?😊
A few years ago somebody must have identified how ridiculous the system is.
It was proposed that solicitors be allowed to speak in court.
I believe it did get passed but nothing seems to have come of it.
The Old Boys network must be too strong.
After all, the Judge was a Barrister.🥴
An historic question here, is it *_Allowable/Acceptable_* behaviour for legal counsel to _rehearse_ their client‽
Specifically if they're being *"trained away from fact/truth"‽‽‽*
Thinking of Memorable People and more especially Person's Malevolent intent
Absolutely not allowed. It would amount to serious professional misconduct.
In the solicitors practice rules it's covered by:
"You do not seek to influence the substance of evidence, including generating false evidence or persuading witnesses to change their evidence."
For barristers the equivalent is:
"you must not encourage a witness to give evidence which is misleading or untruthful"
and
"you must not rehearse, practise with or coach a witness in respect of their evidence"
Isn't " I have been instructed by my Client" the standard get out of jail card for Solicitors, in lay terms it's the old "it wasn't me lying mate it was my Client !" the SRA , and more so the Law society in NI are, as solicitors often remind me, toothless when it comes to most dubious activities by Solicitors. They are more of a trade union for Lawyers than a protection for the public. If you don't believe me try making a complaint against a Solicitor, in fact try instructing a Solicitor to take up a complaint against a Solicitor especially in N Ireland where the Legal profession is an inhouse 'boys club' free from any external scrutiny whatsoever .
Do lawyers and barristers speak under oath when in court?
We don't take the oath unless we somehow end up giving evidence ourselves. But we are under a professional obligation not to mislead the court.
@@artmedialaw 👍
Sure any lawyer should take " reasonable care" to ensure that what the client tells them is true?
Did someone say 'Michelle Boag'? Is that the one from New Zealand? We know her from way back. And before I get a lawyers letter in my inbox, I'll just say - Google her.
LOL you know the world is in the shite when there are lawyers, representing lawyers representing someone who has serious questions to answer and who is also rich, which i guess helps.
SRA?
Is it common for lawyers to lawyer up?
i would have though the minimum a lawyer would do is to see some evidence from the client that what they are saying is true? LOL
If a lawyer drafts a letter don't they own the copyright to that letter and can't you then sue for somebody publishing it? Thinking of Meghan suing for publishing parts of her letter to her father.
That is an interesting question. I can see argument both for and against. There's been a similar discussion around skeleton arguments; and people cribbing other barrister's ones. Might be a good topic for a vid; although as there's not yet a definitive answer might have to be a bit waffly and stream of consciousness. But that's pretty much my style anyway.
Thats an good point. This would just be mechanical copyright though similar to that which HMSO has regarding registration documents. Unless undue influence could be established which would also be intent.
@@coachhousechambers2047😮 Your style? Really? 🤣
In my personal position. I've never trusted any lawyer judge. Total bunch of stifles drifters