Peter Champagnie | No hypocrisy in defence attorneys lamenting injustice for victims

I would be most obliged if you could afford me the opportunity of responding to the Letter of the Day in your publication on December 27, 2018, entitled "Defence attorneys or advocates for justice?. The letter written by Devion Lindsay, suggested that there is hypocrisy among criminal defence lawyers who continue to defend "criminals" while at the same time publicly lamenting the injustice for victims of heinous crimes and then seeking to lay blame at the feet of other stakeholders in the justice system. Lindsay states further that this hypocrisy among such lawyers is magnified by their pre-emptive stance in refusing to defend accused persons when the victims of such crimes are shown not to be too far removed from their own socio-economic status. The views expressed by Lindsay are perhaps not too distant from the many who, upon meeting a criminal defence lawyer for the first time, waste no time in asking: "So how do you defend a person knowing that he is guilty?" Lindsay's views, therefore, are not just provocative, but also pertinent and attractive. It's a pity though that his views are flawed.

The notion that criminal defence lawyers very often defend clients knowing that they are guilty, is a myth. Rarely does a client ever admit to his lawyer that he is guilty. Indeed, the more serious the offence is, the less likely the client will admit to it. Any wonder why guilty pleas to murder are so infrequent? In the absence of written instructions from a client to plead guilty and firm instructions otherwise, a criminal defence lawyer is obliged to defend his client to the best of his ability within the confines of the law. In fact, Canon 3 (g) of the Legal Profession Act states that "An attorney, in undertaking the defence of persons accused of crime, shall use all fair and reasonable means to present every defence available at law, without regard to any personal views he may hold as to the guilt of the accused".

JUDGMENT

The determination of guilt or innocence is a matter for a judge or jury, not for the criminal defence lawyer. Of course, where an accused reveals that he is guilty, then it is the duty of the lawyer to act accordingly.

Insofar as contributing to the public discourse on the low rate of conviction and the causes for same if having recognised that the win in criminal trials was attributed to poor police investigation or inadequate legislation, a criminal defence lawyer would be, I respectfully suggest, less than decent, to not speak on it and highlight the need for improvements. To simply bask in an acquittal without acknowledging the need for improvements towards securing a conviction, is to ignore the fact that the shortcomings of a prosecution, if not remedied, can affect one's own self or family as a victim of crime. Defending those alleged to have committed heinous crimes and at the same time expressing empathy for victims of crime, highlighting deficiencies in the justice system and ways to improve, are not mutually exclusive of each other. To the contrary, they are all qualities representing conduct of the highest traditions of the criminal bar. To label this as hypocritical is rooted ignorant and a failure to recognise that constructive criticisms can come from those who at times do not enjoy our affection. Canon 3 (j) of the Legal Profession Act, which states: "An attorney shall endeavour by lawful means, where the needs of society require, to promote and encourage the modernisation, simplification and reform of laws". I rest my case!

- Peter Champagnie is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and peter.champagnie@gmail.com.