Fighting your corner
If the legal system is to work properly and fairly then those charged with crimes however heinous (and perhaps particularly those charged with such crimes) have to be defended. In Israel Jewish lawyers have defended those accused of crimes arising from the Holocaust. One such lawyer was once subject to an acid attack by someone disgruntled by such defence. However a lawyer defending in those circumstances is not defending genocide. He is recognizing that however dreadful the allegation, the question is whether the defendant actually did it. It is for others to decide on guilt or innocence. Within the rules the defence must put the defence case. (Or alternatively put the prosecution to proof).
That of course doesn't mean that it is always easy. Although I have addressed this issue before, a trial is taking place at the moment which illustrates precisely the position that Counsel can find himself in. I should stress that I only know about this case from the newspaper reports and so consequently have not the foggiest idea how the actual facts of the case stack up when you look at them fully. Therefore what I say should not be seen as an indication of guilt or innocence either way. Likewise I do not know the Counsel involved.
The case is the murder trial relating to the teenage model Sally Anne Bowman, who was murdered in Croydon. The details of what happened to this unfortunate young woman (with her life ahead of her and dreaming of stardom in the way that Kate Moss found it) are not for the squeamish. She had been repeatedly stabbed, with such force that the knife went through her body completely, and had also been bitten on the nipple of her right breast, her neck and her cheek. Someone had sex with her while she was dying, or when she was dead. The period of time from murder to discovery was less than three hours.
The defendant admits having sex with the victim. (Since the prosecution case is that his DNA was found on the deceased's body, his fingerprint on her shoe and that the bite marks were his, one might consider that subject to the quality of that evidence it was going to be difficult to suggest that he hadn't). His defence is that he found her dead body and had sex with her. As you do.
The defence case is obviously not an easy one. Even if the defence were true the behaviour is utterly revolting. What sort of person would violate a victim in such circumstances? What sort of person would in any event want to violate a bloodsoaked corpse lying in a pool of its own blood? What was the motive for the murder if the murderer was not responsible for the sex attack (as would follow if the sex attack was a coincidence arising from a passerby)?
Nonetheless, strange things sometimes happen. I am not saying that they happened here. However if the defence is a complete load of nonsense, as the prosecution will undoubtedly say it is, then it is for the jury to decide. It is already a difficult enough case for the defence, since even if the defence is true the defendant's behaviour would even then be utterly abhorrent. It shouldn't be made worse by his own lawyer giving up the ghost. Yet that would be the consequence of failing to follow the professional rules.
Defence Counsel will in this, as in any difficult case, fairly and fearlessly put the points which are there to be made on the defendant's behalf. After that it is up to the jury. It is not that defence Counsel won't have sympathy for the victim, or her family, just that Counsel has a job to do if the system is to work. If a convicted murderer were severely injured, no one would question a doctor or surgeon administering treatment. It is all the more important that before someone is convicted their lawyers ensure that the trial process proceeds properly. If you don't have the stomach to pursue matters in that way, then you shouldn't be at the Bar in the first place.