It is something that I have never been able to get my head around. I understand the principles of our Judicial system and whole heartedly agree and adopt the basic principles that our system is built upon. Such as all men are considered equal in the eyes of the law. All men have the right to a fair trial and more importantly the presumption of innocence. Even though many would argue wealth plays a strong role in how equal or fair trials ractually are. But that is an issue for another day.
What I have never been able to comprehend is how defence barristers and teams can justify their hand in releasing some of our most evil wrong doers back on our streets. Back into the lives of the innocent public where they will undoubtedly affect and destroy the lives of many.
When asked most (barristers) have told me that they don't ask their clients about their guilt. That they do not want to know. Somehow it is irrelevant to the process of defending these monsters. But if anything, these legal professionals are clever men and women. After reading through the mountains of evidence, conducting in depth interviews and the numerous conversation they have with their clients, I find it pretty difficult to believe they remain ignorant as to the clients guilt or otherwise.
Another common excuse, other than hiding behind various law principles and the like, is strangely, Police set up so many killers and rapists it is impossible to know who is innocent or guilty. Maybe issues like these were not uncommon in history of Australian crime but in the modern world evidence is not submitted on a lone confession or single eye witness. DNA, fingerprints, forensic tests and so forth are not so easily manipulated. So many more people are needed to be corrupted in order for such a plot or conspiracy to be achieved. Quite frankly "It just aint gonna happen"
I am not saying that these criminals do not deserve to be represented. But there is a grey moral area that just doesn't seem to gel. I recall being at the
Greg Domaszewics trial relating to the murder of Moe toddler, Jaidyn Leskie. Barrister Colin Lovett's tactic in relation to the trial was an obvious ploy to confuse and generate a picture of Koas for the sitting jury. Not hard to do with the characters involved and of course the town of Moe itself. So great win for Lovett I suppose. Muddied the waters enough to cause reasonable doubt. I personally believe (my opinion) that Domaszewics was guilty. Just because a court may find on the evidence before the it that a defendant is not gulity, by no means they are innocent.
So does Lovett celebrate such a win. Who knows. I know I wouldn't........