Counsel personally liable

thedarkman

unread,

Apr 14, 2011, 7:51:41 PM4/14/11

to

Does anyone know if there has been a recent case in which barristers,
lawyers, police can be held personally accountable for suppressing
evidence as per

http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=230434

thanks

martin

unread,

Apr 14, 2011, 7:55:10 PM4/14/11

to

you expect someone to watch an hour of telly? Why can't you condense the
question and pose the scenario.

Graham.

unread,

Apr 14, 2011, 8:52:58 PM4/14/11

to

"martin" <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message news:4da7894b$0$2502$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...

It will be a Zionist conspiracy. With him it's always a Zionist conspiracy.

--
G.

thedarkman

unread,

Apr 16, 2011, 5:38:15 AM4/16/11

to

On Apr 15, 1:52 am, "Graham." <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> "martin" <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:4da7894b$0$2502$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...

Thanks for nothing, moron. I wanted to know if the if Hall v Simons
had been extended to the criminal law so that prosecution barristers
who suppress evidence can be prosecuted.

Greegor

unread,

Apr 16, 2011, 6:18:55 AM4/16/11

to

Britain or Canada?

Logician

unread,

Apr 16, 2011, 7:36:14 AM4/16/11

to

Law on professional negligence is growing very rapidly - the
incremental approach of Caparo is apparenly leading a lot of new areas
of negligence (expert witnesses are no longer protected).

Andrew McGee

unread,

Apr 16, 2011, 11:00:37 AM4/16/11

to

"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b54c9100-01d6-493d...@k36g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...

Britain or Canada?

Hall v Simons allows barristers to be sued, not prosecuted, by their
clients, not by anyone else, for negligence committed in court.

AFAICS that always applied to criminal cases just as much as to civil cases.

However, I think you are talking about something different.

You appear to have in mins deliberate suppression of evidence which ought
not to be suppressed. Your example assumes that this applis only to
prosecution barristers i.e. not to defence barristers and presumably not to
any other part of the prosecution team. You also seem to have in mind
prosecution rather than a civil action.

My response is that the conduct you describe would be hard for a barrister
to commit by himself; IOW other members of the prosecution team would
necessarily have to be involved.

The deliberate suppression of relevant evidence which is required to be
disclosed would seem to me to amount to serious professional misconduct by
counsel. There is also likely to be at least an attempt to pervert the
course of justice, which is a criminal offence.

However, if you want the defendant to be able to sue counsel for this, then
i do not think that Hall v Simons has anything to do with it. Nor do i think
that this is necessarily the best approach. The misconduct can be dealt with
by professional sanctions or by the criminal law, whereas the prejudicial
effects of the suppression may well, depending on circumstances, warrant a
retrial.

Andrew McGee

totallyconfused

unread,

Apr 16, 2011, 11:28:46 AM4/16/11

to

On Apr 16, 4:00 pm, "Andrew McGee" <amh...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> "Greegor" <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> Andrew McGee- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I provided an example the other day of a policeman being dealt with
for supressing evidence.
TC