In the 1790s an authoritarian Government led by Pitt the Younger brought a series of treason trials against radicals who were accused of ‘Jacobinism’. Mild mannered individuals faced a grisly public execution.
Some defended themselves ably and well, but for the majority their deliverance depended on Thomas Erskine and his junior, Vicary Gibbs.
Erskine forfeited his office as personal attorney to the Prince of Wales to defend these so called traitors. He asserted his independence, and thus the independence of the Bar.
I doubt if any of the public called him names, at the behest of politicians. The people knew who was on their side in those fevered days: Erskine.
When he triumphed the mob was about to go on the rampage - in protest at the oppressive prosecutions - Erskine, whose fabled oratory could have whipped them up into a frenzy, addressed them, & powerfully invoked the rule of Law. The mob dispersed in near silence.
He was no demagogue, but a servant to the Rule of Law. His example teaches us many things, still relevant today: Barristers do not choose, nor do we judge, whom we defend; we advance their case at whatever personal cost.
I have seen barristers broken by the responsibility they bear; others spending arduous hours in preparation, to be paid at rates set in the 1990s; many standing firm when Judges form precipitate opinions. It isn’t easy.
We do this because we believe we underpin a free society under the rule of law. Demagoguery may persuade some to send hate mail, or to utter threats. Lawyers, in the past, have faced worse than that.
But who will defend those trolls? We shall. Without holding back. To the best of our ability. And then the people who currently vilify, and deride defenders of serious crime, will need someone to defend them.
When someone’s inciting you to demonise lawyers, whether they defend those accused of crime, or protect the stateless, and dispossessed, you need to ask yourself ‘Why?’ Cui bono?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
