Share this page!

The Secret Barrister Profile picture
Twitter logo
30 Nov, 7 tweets, 3 min read
Whatever the outcome of this hearing, an Attorney General who is not even qualified to prosecute a magistrates’ court trial should not be personally prosecuting this extremely serious case.

A shameful exercise in politicking for tabloid applause.

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan…
Before the hearing, the Attorney General leaked to the Daily Express, via an alleged “friend”, her views that, should the judges find against her, it will be because they are “wet liberal judges” who are “soft on criminals”.
This thread explains how such cases should be conducted:
These are political points, not the submissions of competent counsel.

“Widespread public concern” is irrelevant to the considerations for the Court of Appeal.

“It appears to me” is not how you advance submissions.

These really are the basics. Image
The Attorney General had to be embarrassingly corrected during the hearing by an actual criminal silk after making irrelevant and politicised submissions to the Court of Appeal.

What a farce. Image
Another improper piece of politicking by the Attorney General. There is no doubt that Pc Harper was incredibly brave. But that is not relevant to the legal issues in this hearing. It is aimed at garnering media headlines.

Cynical and appalling.
Re the “it appears to me” remark earlier, I’m grateful to those who noted that this is the standard 'prayer' that all AG's refs end with. Section 36 CJA 1988 requires the AG to be of that opinion. So while it would not be right for counsel to say it, it’s proper for the AG.

• • •

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

The Secret Barrister Profile picture
30 Nov
I want to say a few things about prosecuting.

Unlike the AG, I have appeared in criminal courts prosecuting cases across the spectrum, from murder to speeding.

When prosecuting, we are performing a public service. Our role is to act fairly and with integrity. [THREAD]
We don’t prosecute out of vengeance, or with personal animus towards the accused. We don’t seek a “win” at all costs. We don’t ask for “the maximum sentence”. We don’t appeal to a jury’s worse nature, or use tricks or adverse publicity to secure cheap advantage.
We take fairness seriously. We ensure disclosure - material capable reasonably of assisting the defence or undermining the prosecution - is made. If we believe there’s insufficient evidence & a risk of wrongful conviction, or it’s not in the public interest to prosecute, we say.
Read 8 tweets
The Secret Barrister Profile picture
12 Nov
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.
Read 5 tweets
The Secret Barrister Profile picture
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
The Secret Barrister Profile picture
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
The Secret Barrister Profile picture
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
The Secret Barrister Profile picture
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

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!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @BarristerSecret