jockscott said:Can you explain (in simple terms) why so many lawyers and barristers, then use the Human Rights Act as some sort of leverage to protect/defend criminals?
Sorry about the late reply. Been a bit hectic around here recently.
In simple terms --
It's a feature of our legal system, which is an adversarial one. There is also an underlying principle that it's better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man; and so, unlike civil cases, a criminal trial is always biased in favour of the defence. What all of this means is:
1) You are innocent until proven guilty.
2) You are entitled to the best defence.
3) Your barrister is legally obliged to put up the best possible defence, whether he/she thinks you're guilty or not.
As somebody once said (was it the band, Faith No More?) "It's a dirty job but some-one's gotta do it." I'm happy to say that it's not mine!
There is another way, and one that we should perhaps consider for some cases. On the other side of the channel, they have an inquisitorial system. The principle of innocent until proven guilty still applies but it's the judge who asks the questions - hopefully in an even-handed way.
Whether or not the French system is better than ours is open to debate. It might at least put an end to the kind of aggressive cross-examination of rape victims that so often happens in British courts.