I was looking for something else, when I came across

[lovingboth]

the obituary for Judge Boreham (most famous for being in charge of trials of the 'Yorkshire Ripper' Peter Sutcliffe and the Brighton bomber Patrick Magee).

As is usual, he'd been a leading barrister before being appointed as a judge, including...

In 1970, he appeared in one of the more exceptional murder cases of the time, representing Trooper Michael Hanson, who was charged with his wife Carol over the sexual assault and murder of a 10-year-old girl near Colchester. Carol Hanson claimed her husband had stabbed the child to death.

Four days into the trial, Hanson told Boreham that he had, in fact, killed the girl, but that he wanted his wife put away to stop her associating with other men. He nevertheless refused to change his plea to guilty and, as a result, Boreham neither cross-examined Carol Hanson nor made a closing speech to the jury. Despite this, she was also convicted, and jailed for a recommended minimum of 20 years. An application for a retrial was refused, and, in 1997, she died in obscurity in prison.

There's more about the case here, but for one of the UK's main miscarriages of justice of the last century, there's amazingly little on google.

At 27 years inside before her death, she shared the 'record' with Stephen Downing (freed), a decade longer than the Bridgewater Four (17 years), the Birmingham Six (16 years) or the Guildford Four (15 years).

Comments

[kake]

Thank you, that was interesting. That poor woman.

I found it odd that the second article you link to compares her with Myra Hindley and Rosemary West - I thought there was no doubt they were guilty.

I was also surprised to read the bit about Mr Hanson confessing to his lawyers. I hadn't thought about it before, but I'd sort of assumed that if someone told their lawyer they were guilty then there would be some rule or something against the lawyer pretending in court that the client was innocent. I know very little about law - I do realise that it often doesn't seem to have much to do with common sense, but then neither does general relativity.

Perhaps I should point karen2205 at this as something I'd like to have explained to me - she was asking what people would like her to write about. Or perhaps someone else who reads this would do the honours.

[lovingboth]

AIUI, there are several rules a barrister with a client known to be guilty is expected to follow. One of them is that you don't put them in the witness box, for example.

[karen2205]

The Solicitors' Practice Rules impose a variety of duties on solicitors. In this case - where your client has specifically told you he committed the crime (NOT where you merely suspect that he did*) the rules put you in a difficult position. Your overriding duty is to act in the best interests of your client. However, you also have a duty to not mislead the court. So, in these circumstances there are limits on what you can say on your client's behalf in court. You *can* 'put the prosecution to proof' - cross examining its witnesses and seeing how well its case holds up; if the prosecution can't prove its case beyond reasonable doubt then your client will be found not guilty. What you can't do is say anything to the court to mislead it eg. you can't assert your client's innocence while cross examining prosecution/other defendants' witnesses, nor can you present any form of defence to the court.

If after admitting his guilt to you your client insists that he wants to plead not guilty and enter a substantive defence you *must* decline to act. You can't tell the court why you have withdrawn - you resort a catch-all phrase like 'for professional reasons' (there are other rules of conduct that can force you to withdraw from a case), because you still have to act in the best interests of your client.

If you merely suspect that your client is guilty (but don't *know* this to be the case) then you are free to say whatever you like in his defence ie. you can assert his innocence/put forward a defence.

I don't know the details of the rules that bind barristers but I believe they mirror these provisions.

Prod me with a cluestick if this doesn't make sense. We were looking at this on Monday and it's fairly fresh in my mind, but I'm not sure how lay reader friendly I've managed to make it.

[kake]

Thank you, that does make sense. So Boreham was breaking the rules when he continued to represent Hanson, or were the rules different then?

Also... why does anyone guilty who wants to plead "not guilty" ever confess to their lawyer? Does it only ever happen by accident? Or is it a known way of getting rid of your lawyer and getting a new one? (I'm assuming there are cases where you don't get to pick your own lawyer, right? I mean, if I got accused of something and sent to court I certainly couldn't afford to employ a lawyer, so I'd get given one, wouldn't I, and I wouldn't get to pick who?)

[karen2205]

The current version of the SPR came into force in 1990. I don't know what the rules were like before then, however, I suspect Boreham was very close to breaking the rules, though judging by what's written above it sounds like he may have managed to stay inside them on a technicality eg. his not cross examining Carol Hanson/making a closing speech.

Withdrawing from the case would have probably been a more proper course of action, however, given that he only learnt of Hanson's guilt in the middle of the trial it may have been his decision that it was in Hanson's best interests for him to continue to represent him (constrained as he was as to what he could say) than for Hanson to find a new lawyer at that point.

Also... why does anyone guilty who wants to plead "not guilty" ever confess to their lawyer?

Because they're young or not very well educated or have mental health problems or are very stressed would be my best guess. If you're a newbie criminal and you don't know that your lawyer is restrained in what he can do if you admit your guilt then yes, you might well do so by accident.

You've actually given me a good idea for a post - a 'what to do if you're arrested' post might be a good idea. If you are arrested you have the right to call a lawyer - there ought to be a list of local solicitor's firms available - use the list and select a firm that has funding to provide criminal defence services. If you use a firm that has that funding all the advice you receive at a police station is free of charge regardless of means.

If you're charged with something you can get public funding towards the cost of your defence by obtaining a Representation Order from the Magistrates Court. This is an 'in the interests of justice test' not a means test. The test considers such factors as the likelihood of you losing liberty (if convicted of the offence - it doesn't consider the strength of the evidence), losing your livelihood, damage to your reputation, the need to have a lawyer conduct cross examination of witnesses because there are issues too complex to expect a litigant in person to do that, complex legal issues in the case etc. AIUI, it's very rare for public funding to be denied.

Another part of the SPR is that you must do nothing to interfere with someone's right to use the lawyer of their choice - so there are strict rules about accepting commission from third parties, and in circumstances like death bed wills eg. if a son asks you to go and take his dying mother's will, you've got to be absolutely certain that *she* wants you to act for her, not that her son does. Even when you're getting public funding you still get to choose your solicitor.

[kake]

You've actually given me a good idea for a post - a 'what to do if you're arrested' post might be a good idea.

I think it would be a very good idea. You've already taught me something I didn't know about it.