A recording of the incident was played in court yesterday in which Rayson, after he was remanded in custody, began shouting 'come here' repeatedly, referring to the Judge as 'big man'.
He then called out 'I will punch your f***ing face in you d***head'.Not a very sensible thing to do?
In mitigation his defence barrister Jane Brady said that her client was sorry for what he had done and being placed into custody was a 'tipping point' which led to his outburst.That outburst got him an extra month in jail.
But....why was he so upset? It's not like he's any stranger to jail, after all?
The court heard Rayson, a father-of-one, has 22 convictions for crimes including assault, drugs crimes, and public order offences.
But Anthony McGeorge, defending, said his client was keen to “change his ways”. He said: “He is a young man, who in my submission, needs help.”
Rayson also asked for eight other crimes to be taken into consideration – four thefts, three burglaries, and a taking of a car without the owner’s consent.I guess he didn't change his ways after all, Anthony. Still, you got paid, and you probably don't live anywhere near him, so it's all good, eh?
4 comments:
Well we often hear that courts of law are "theatre" so this kind of plea in mitigation is the fiction expected from defence barristers. OTOH, as I've written before, barristers are technically officers of the court. To voice a stream of lies in mitigation for scrotes is - or should be - a "striking off" offence for the lawyer concerned. In this case, Brady and McGeorge could - should - have said that in the interests of Rayson (and the general public), Rayson should be banged up for a substantial period. I don't think 8 months (+ 1 month for abusing the judge) given Rayson's criminal record cuts it as either deterrence or straightforward punishment.
Defence briefs and barristers don't lie. Any untruths they tell are led by "My client assures me...." and "As I understand it......." or similar platitudes. By doing this, they absolve themselves of any blame if, or when, their client goes on to be a mass murderer. They may be officers of the court, but they are also legal mercenaries, in it for the money and fame (just look at Michael Mansfield, allegedly). As a court case doesn't prove who is right, but rather who can produce the most convincing argument, there is very little connection between the law and justice.
Penseivat
"as I've written before, barristers are technically officers of the court. To voice a stream of lies in mitigation for scrotes is - or should be - a "striking off" offence for the lawyer concerned."
Proving they know it's a lie is the sticking point though, as Penseivat points out...
"As a court case doesn't prove who is right, but rather who can produce the most convincing argument, there is very little connection between the law and justice."
Perhaps the ASA stould step in, then?
Bit late to the party, but surely it is the job of the advocate to best put their client's position before the Court so that the Court can decide where the truth of the matter lies?
If every barrister who made a submission, based on their client's instructions, was struck off for lying, surely every barrister who's client was convicted after pleading 'Not Guilty' would have to be struck off after the trial?
Post a Comment