Grimly cynical.

The Attorney General - who has absolutely no experience of criminal law - is so desperate to exploit this tragic case that she is inserting herself into proceedings that she is not competent to conduct.

express.co.uk/news/uk/135735…
Treasury Counsel who usually represent the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal for appeals against “unduly lenient” sentences are appointed from the best and most experienced criminal barristers.

The Attorney General has not to my knowledge prosecuted a magistrates’ trial.
Apparently Ms Braverman believes that the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) needs reminding “how important this issue is to the government”.

And a spoiler of what Ms Braverman thinks about the “wet, liberal judges” of the Court of Appeal.
If ever there was a tell of the Attorney General’s wholesale ignorance of criminal law, it is here.

Nobody who has appeared before the Court of Appeal would describe their jurisprudence as “wet” or “liberal”.

This sort of threat is beneath the dignity of the @attorneygeneral.
Most criminal barristers cut their teeth doing magistrates’ trials.

Ms Braverman’ debut in the criminal courts will be leading a QC in the Court of Appeal in a sentence reference following a high-profile murder trial.

Having threatened to smear the judges if she doesn’t win.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with The Secret Barrister

The Secret Barrister Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BarristerSecret

4 Nov
.@realDonaldTrump mood right now
In fact, the entire Trump presidency is basically an updated and unnecessarily extended US adaptation of Blackadder III.
Does anybody seriously think that this *exact* scene has not taken place in the West Wing at some point in the last four years?
Read 10 tweets
31 Oct
ASK. ONE. QUESTION. AT. A. TIME. JOURNALISTS. IF. YOU. DON’T. KNOW. HOW. TO. DO. THIS. I. CAN. TEACH. YOU.
“Prime Minister - Keir Starmer was right, wasn’t he?”

Keep your question short, make him answer it.

Basic principles of questioning.
If (as expected) he says “No” and waffles, the next journalist should follow up. Again, keep it short:

“You criticised Keir Starmer’s suggestion of a two-week lockdown, and are now having to impose a four-week lockdown. Why is this better?”
Read 4 tweets
28 Oct
We have more information now about the case of #ClaireParry, following news reports of the judge’s sentencing remarks. And it is complicated, more so than I had appreciated when I tweeted last night.

So a brief [THREAD] to look at what seems to have happened.
It was widely reported yesterday that the defendant, Timothy Brehmer, had been acquitted by a jury of the murder of Claire Parry. It was said that he strangled her after she sent a text message to his wife telling her of their (Parry and Brehmer’s) affair.
It was also reported that Brehmer had admitted manslaughter, but denied intending to kill or cause really serious harm (the necessary intention for murder), claiming that the fatal injuries were sustained “accidentally” during a “kerfuffle”.
Read 26 tweets
27 Oct
There are understandably strong feelings and a lot of questions about this verdict.

Not knowing the evidence, I can’t offer much insight, save to say that proving murder is a high threshold.

The jury have to be sure of an intention to kill or cause really serious harm. [1/3]
It means that if the jury think he might have intended to kill/cause really serious harm, he’s not guilty.

If the jury think he *probably* intended to kill/cause really serious harm, he is not guilty.

If the jury were *almost sure* he did, he would be not guilty. [2/3]
The burden and standard of proof is often misunderstood. It’s something I look at in depth in #FakeLaw.

Without having heard all the evidence, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about what the jury did or did not believe. Other than - they weren’t sure. [3/3]
Read 8 tweets
23 Oct
@davidbarrett David, you’ve read my book. You’re an intelligent man who knows that we have an adversarial system, unlike most other European states, and that therefore our legal aid budget is relatively high, and the rest of the justice budget is relatively low.

You chose not to include this
@davidbarrett You know (because you’ve read it both in that very report and in my book) that, because we have different systems, isolating legal aid and drawing the conclusion that we spend too much cannot in good faith be done.

Yet that fallacy is the premise of your article.
@davidbarrett You include context-free claims about certain criminal legal aid cases which ignore publicly-available corrections such as this: tuckerssolicitors.com/response-to-th…
Read 8 tweets
23 Oct
I’d like to thank the Mail for printing this rot and giving me an opportunity to plug both Stories of the Law & How It’s Broken and #FakeLaw, both of which expose the wild dishonesty of this claim.

Stories of the Law: amazon.co.uk/dp/1509841148/…

Fake Law: amazon.co.uk/Fake-Law-Truth… Image
Journalist @davidbarrett makes this ludicrous claim.

I challenge him to read Chapter 6 of #FakeLaw and justify his assertion.

Because - spoiler - the “study” does no such thing.

I’ll let readers form their own views on Mr Barrett’s journalistic abilities. Image
There’s also a ready quote from professional simpleton @tomhunt1988.

I’d ask Tom:

Why do we need to be “careful”? About what? What does this mean?

Legal aid rates are *fixed by government*, you permabronzed halfwit. Image
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!