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.
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
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”.
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]
@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.
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.