Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2Gkashmiri | Hacker News Reader

what does this mean? doesn't the UK have public defenders who are appointed by court if the defender cannot afford legal help by his own means or the accused has declared himself a pauper? what about amicus curie?

edit:. Because of ongoing industrial action, there are no other barristers to take on her case.

i did read the article. i am saying doesn't UK have public defenders who are employed by the government to provide free legal help to poor defenders? if these people exist then whats the point of not picking up a case when there is no problem of funds ?

View on HN

It's laid out quiet clearly in the article:

"She was unhappy with her barrister and was told he would not be able to continue representing her after she expressed her dissatisfaction.

However, due to industrial action, no other barrister can accept the case. With no replacement found, Judge Peter Rook QC has told Anderson, 40, that she must represent herself."

They're on strike. They will still represent clients but they will not pick up clients of another barrister, presumably because the original barrister will get no or less pay if that happens.

>presumably because the original barrister will get no or less pay if that happens.

in india, legal help is FREE if the lawyer is appointed by the court in cases i mentioned so there is no question of getting paid less or more. they are on a government salary so how does it matter?

They are going on strike, demanding that the government salary be higher. If they continued to represent clients, they would be breaking the strike, so their "negotiations" would fail.

I agree, it is completely reprehensible.

They are not on government salary. In UK, these are private lawyers who contract some hours of their services to private individuals, companies and also the government, and at this time they are choosing to serve only their private customers as the government does not offer a competitive rate.

> doesn't UK have public defenders

Not in the same way as the U.S. In the UK, barristers are usually self-employed. We have a system called Legal Aid which pays barrister's fees if a defendant cannot. But barristers are on strike at the moment because they don't believe Legal Aid fees are sufficient.

(Barristers are the subset of lawyers who represent people in court. The difference between barristers and soliciters is explained here:

https://www.springhouselaw.com/knowledge-hub/legal-costs/wha... )

Many parts of US are mostly similar, with public defenders mostly privately employed but financed the goverbment.

Better Call Saul's Saul Goodman / Jimmy did this at the start of the series, and was paid pooorly.

In King County (Seattle, WA) this was the topic of a 2006 pay lawsuit that led to in 2013, the County taking over direct employment of the defenders.

https://kingcounty.gov/council/news/2013/March/dolansettleme...

>doesn't the UK have public defenders who are appointed by court if the defender cannot afford legal help

She wasn't happy with her barrister (her public defender in this case), so he quit. Because of ongoing industrial action, there are no other barristers to take on her case.

I think why @2GKashmiri feels dismayed is that in India (disclaimer: no pun/sarcasm intended to his Kashmiri status), someone who is incapable of legally representing himself still has a court appointed lawyer by all means. And the role of amicus curiae is to either represent that person or negotiate a replacement. How do I know this? My brother was a junior lawyer to Adv. Ramchandran, the amicus for Ajmal Kasab, the perpetrator of 26-11-2008 Mumbai terrorist attack which left 175 dead & more than 300 injured or maimed [1]. No lawyer took him up, out of patriotic feelings, disgust or fear of retaliation - yet it was court's responsibility to negotiate legal representation.

Did he feel awful? Absolutely. He felt conflicted preparing defense for Mr. Kasab's counsel. He hated that man & his actions, and we have had many late night rants on what a monster he was. Did he consider quitting? No, because in matters of principle leaving legal defense is as good as giving him to a kangaroo court. His penalty was obvious - but it does not mean every lawyer should abandon him.

Its actually bizarre that industrial action has left this woman without choice. Usually in the legal creed, many lawyers & barristers take these cases pro bono when such situations come out in open. Nothing Hippocratic philosophically, but public prosecutors unwilling to represent in court machinery is generally frowned upon in legal principles.

edit: grammar & details.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajmal_Kasab

> because in matters of principle leaving legal defense is as good as giving him to a kangaroo court. His penalty was obvious

Actually it's very different from a kangaroo court. The defense lawyer is there to make sure that the trial follows due process. Only those elements that should be taken into account are, for example, and only in an appropriate way. This is what is at stake in the particular case mentioned in the article: it is likely that the defendant doesn't know the procedures and therefore there is a real possibility that an unlawful decision is taken.

And of course someone had to be there to check if there are circumstances favourable to the accused, and make them available to the court. Even if the man is a despicable criminal, the court can only reach a fair decision if they go beyond the public image of the terrorist.

You are agreeing with parent. Perhaps you misread "leaving" (which was a poor word choice).

What the parent misunderstood is that the government is illegally prosecuting defendants, not defense lawyers abandoning defendants.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com