BLACKBELTBARRISTER.COM

A reliably popular question asked every barrister must be “What do you do when the client admits to you that they are guilty?” Now, as usual there's a very short answer to this and a much more long-winded version, both of which you'll stick around to the end for. The short version is that as the barrister, you will advise the client to plead guilty providing that you've made out that they are actually guilty of an offence and don't just think that they are guilty of an offence. But let's say they are definitely guilty of the offence, based on your conference with the client, you must advise that client to plead guilty, because it is in the client's best interests, because they are likely to get a reduction in sentence depending on when it is that they plan to plead guilty, i.e. the earlier, the more reduction they will get. And the second thing is if the client insists on pleading not guilty, then as the barrister, you are quite limited, in fact, you cannot put forward a positive case in court, that the client didn't commit the offence. Let me say that again, if the client admits to you as the barrister that they are guilty of the offence, and you have the conference, and you've assessed that they are definitely guilty of the offence based on what they've told you, rather than just think they are guilty, when actually perhaps, they were acting in self defence. But let's say they are guilty and you going to court because the client insists on pleading not guilty. The barrister cannot advance a positive case to say that the client didn't commit the offence. They cannot suggest that other witnesses are mistaken for seeing the client in a particular place, if they were certainly there. They cannot put forward a positive case to a witness to say that their client wasn't there when in fact, they were, and they've told you so. And more generally, in speeches to the jury, the barrister cannot tell the jury the client did not commit the offence, because the barrister knows that he or she did. And this is important for lots of reasons, and this is where we get into the more long-winded version. First of all, if you're new to me, I am a barrister who helps you understand law. So please hit the subscribe button and the bell icon that tells Youtube that you like this content, and it will share with more people, and I can help more people. Also check out my courses on blackbeltbarrister.com and the channel memberships here on YouTube. This is where we get into the more long-winded version. You see, there are lots of rules about how barristers must act and present cases in court. The first and most fundamental of those is not to mislead the court, so if the barrister were to suggest to the court, which includes the jury, that the client did not commit the offence, then that is a misleading statement. Because if the barrister knows that the client is guilty, the barrister cannot, therefore, put forward a positive case to the contrary. But then, many of you watching this video, and in some of the comments that I've read suggest — then why does the barrister just not tell the court that the clients admitted guilt and therefore, should be sentenced, and stop wasting everybody's time? Well, this is another important factor, because the second duty upon a barrister is to act in the client's best interests, and that includes testing the case that the prosecution have against the defendant.That is important because at all times, the prosecutor must prove the case against the defendant, it is not up to the defendant to prove his or her innocence. And in any event, under the sixth core duty, the barrister has a duty of confidentiality to each and every client, that means the barrister cannot tell the court what the client has said without the client's permission. So, if the client does not give the barrister permission to tell the court that he or she is guilty, the barrister can't, provided that the barrister doesn't go on to mislead the court, because that would breach core duty one. Equally, the barrister cannot just make something up to obscure the truth, or to make it look more confusing than it really is, because this would be in breach of core duty three, which is to act with honesty and integrity. So in essence, when a client does admit guilt to their barrister, they are severely limiting what the barrister is able to do in court. Merely, ultimately, testing the evidence of the prosecution case against that client, which may well include things, such as, the CCTV being over low resolution, monochrome, and not very clear, but being very careful not to suggest that the client didn't appear within the footage, if the barrister knows that he or she did so. Hopefully, that's some reassurance that the barrister cannot and will not just say anything and everything to try and get the client of the charge, regardless of whether they've admitted guilt or not. But the burning question will no doubt remain why does the defendant still get a defence, if they've admitted guilt. This comes back to what I said in my previous video, which is that the system has to be fair, even in the scenario where the client has admitted guilt to their lawyer. It's a fundamental principle that there is lawyer client confidentiality, and what is said in that conversation is held to be completely private. And the barrister cannot just reveal it in open court, at least not without client consent. So in the pursuit of a fair system, it must be fought vigorously on both sides. The prosecutor and the defence barrister must present the case to the best of their ability, even if that means the defence barrister is limited to testing the evidence, because he or she knows that they cannot mislead the court by suggesting something that they know to be untrue. So whilst this is probably a fairly rare scenario, it might give you some insight, if you pop along and sit in the public gallery of a Crown Court trial. And if you can pick up that the defence barrister is merely testing the evidence of the prosecution case, all the while not putting forward a positive case that their client was not guilty, this might serve some kind of clue, as to what's been discussed between the client and barrister. Although doubtless part of that conversation will be that the barrister will explain to the client how limited their representation might be, based on the fact they now know that they are guilty of the offence, and can merely test the evidence. But part of that advice will also be on the strength of the evidence. So if the evidence is actually very weak, and the barrister can advise that the strength of the evidence may not be enough to convict, even though they've admitted the offence. So again, no doubt, it comes back to the question, as to why we go through this, if actually the client has admitted guilt to their lawyer. And that is because the system must be fought fairly on both sides, otherwise, it will end up being a corrupt system, and no client will ever trust their defence barrister, and no case will be defended properly. And the only outcome for that scenario is that it is a corrupt system, and many people are prosecuted and convicted that need not be. So I hope that helps to understand how difficult these scenarios can be, balancing what is essentially the client's best interests, against the client confidentiality, and against the duty not to mislead the court. But ultimately, and all the while, it is for the prosecution to prove the case against each and every defendant on each and every charge. So with that, I thank you for watching, don't forget to like the video, check out my courses on blackbeltbarrister.com, and channel memberships below and remember stay humble and subscribe.