Up Front: A Kink in the Pants
125 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
at least waiting until...
-
Eddie: Hell yes. But I admire the people who do.
Mark: I doubt Comeskey is disingenuous in this matter but I don't think he's necessarily complicit either. I think he's probably acting as required by law - but the definitions of the actions required to fulfil the principles can vary.
-
I trust the system as far as I can see it, which requires transparency. You know that saying, justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done? Yeah.
Eternal vigilance, etc.
-
Yes, sorry Mrs Skin 'disingenuous' was not the word i wanted. I was trying to express a sense of personal detachment.
-
In that case you are quite right. (Though it's professional detachment that's required).
-
I trust the system as far as I can see it, which requires transparency. You know that saying, justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done? Yeah.
Eternal vigilance, etc.
I know what you're saying, but I have very serious reservations about the current OJification of the NZ court system. I feel even if it were all broadcast/streamed live but media were banned from reporting or rebroadcasting it'd be a better scenario.
-
...until verdicts heard.
-
even if it were all broadcast/streamed live but media were banned from reporting or rebroadcasting it'd be a better scenario.
Is that an issue with over-transparency or with reporting methods?
-
Is that an issue with over-transparency or with reporting methods?
I can't really call reporting methods into question, there being no rung too low to stoop to in that field as I see it, and it's private enrterprise. However I like the idea that people can go to court and observe, or could be allowed to watch via the wire if a genuine interest is there, but I found in the Bain Case that there was a lot of editorialization, and more so that when citizens are being served this stuff with their cornflakes that it can be divisive, and in that particular case I felt the high profile and public questioning of the verdict in no way encourages my faith in the system.
-
I suppose Chris Comeskey is no worse than the lawyer who recently got his client off by using innuendo and gossip to claim one (DEAD) victim was having an incestuous affair with his daughter (another DEAD victim), therefore providing a motive for multiple murder that excused his client.
-
Basically I'd like less courts as top headline...
-
His client is maintaining his innocence and has indicated he'll appeal. Where's the bit that says the lawyer should disregard this and drop it?
Just my turn of phrase; I don't mean he should drop it completely if the client tells him to appeal and continue that line. (Although, can you appeal in such a way in NZ law? You can't just restate your case again, can you?) But I don't see the point in speaking to the media about the specifics.
The case is over, the verdict is in: guilty. He did his job - next case please.
Or, the case isn't over, and an appeal is on the way. Cool: so why discuss any particular of the appeal in the media in between the trials?
It's one thing as a lawyer to have to stick to your client's obstinate instructions; it's another thing to unnecessarily embrace a 'blame the victim' approach, which he seemed to here.My point is that it may not be his choice. His client may have instructed him on this element too.
The client may have instructed him to keep making that case in the media after the verdict? I suppose he could have - I really never thought of that. If so, fair enough, I guess. His job is to advocate for his client.
-
Yeah Tom, I'd say Comeskey isn't even in the same ballpark in this case.
-
...meaning, not half as bad an aspersion to cast.
-
Say with regards to this guy
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2522467/Sophie-Elliott-murder-trial-delayed/
Photo plastered over the internet, reputation already half toasted, and the jury hasn't even been selected. I feel that's just wrong.
-
You can listen to what Comeskey said after the verdict here. Now, my personal opinion is that his comments there are over the line of obligation to his client, but that line is to some degree subjective. I also think asking a lawyer if he thinks his client is guilty when you know there might be an appeal is just dumb.
-
...but I found in the Bain Case that there was a lot of editorialization, and more so that when citizens are being served this stuff with their cornflakes that it can be divisive, and in that particular case I felt the high profile and public questioning of the verdict in no way encourages my faith in the system.
If the Bain trials hadn't been followed publicly right from the start, would karem have even got involved?
Also, "...in no way encourages my faith in the system" is kinda begging the question.
-
OK my main point here, and one that I'm obviously not putting forward well, is that it is almost always wrong to personalise a lawyer's actions or statements.
A lawyer's role is quite different than the general public perception of it (and that's another issue).
A lawyer's role requires different ethics than those of a 'normal person'. Sometimes those ethics can be perceived as unsavoury, but they are necessary* under our current conception of a lawyer's role. The role is a result of our adversarial system.
Sometimes the 'problem' lies with the lawyer. One debated example is where they take the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law as a basis for their tactics - like using delay tactics to attempt to run the other party out of money in an attempt to force settlement.
From what's been said here (not having kept up with media reports), I don't see Comeskey as having stepped outside his ethical role. We don't have to like the defence he is running on behalf of his client, but to my mind the debate isn't about whether he should run it but whether the role of a lawyer, and the ethics (and so the defences) that spring from it, is right for our society.
*Everything is arguable.
-
It struck me that Comesky's defence was so obviously distasteful and ludicrous that it might be a deliberate attempt to subvert his duty to the client.
-
That post looked so much smaller when I was writing it.
-
Emma: lawyers' obligations to their clients are quite defined. It's a heavily regulated industry. The line isn't actually all that subjective.
-
Stephen - as noted above by Angus, the lawyer pretty much has to act as instructed.
-
I'm liking the title of this thread, gets me every time.
-
I'm late to this, but here are some observations, in no particular order.
As others have said, a lawyer must act in the best interests of his/her client, to the exclusion of other interests. If this involves trying to find someone else to pin the blame on, so be it. That's not the lawyer's fault - it's his/her job.
Also, a lawyer must not refuse client instructions without good reasons.
So certainly, insofar as the letter of the law goes, Comesky's all to the good.
But two other observations:
If Comesky really wanted not to act for this guy he'd have found a reason. Lawyers turn people away all the time, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for spurious ones.
Also, most court lawyers are underpaid and underworked, and do good work. There is, however, a small group of high-profile individuals who seem to bask in the notoriety controversial cases bring.
So the "only doing his job" line only goes so far.
-
Scott - I agree in a general sense with your observations, except that you seem to be implying that Comesky is morally culpable for taking on this client in the first place, never mind the defence he ran.
I certainly agree the 'only doing his job' line only goes so far. But I think there's a lack of understanding in the community, including here, about what a lawyer's job is.* So I don't think there's much point in making the argument. In this case it looks to be (at best) a marginal call anyway.
*It took me until 2nd year to understand how very narrow the role is - contrary to general opinion. Perceptions of what lawyers do are really misleading, and considering the role they have I reckon that's not good. But I accept that I'm a bit of a nerd about it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.