Hello. I'm Matthew Hickling. On Din this video, I'd like to introduce you to the content off the Unit 34 Workbook published by the National Association Off Licensed Paralegals. Unit 34 is entitled Criminal Litigation for Paralegals. Unit 34 has five sections and in this video will be looking at Section two, which is entitled principles or professional con vote in criminal litigation or, to put it shortly, professional ethics. And here will be following some of the subheadings in section two off the workbook so that if you have the workbook in front of you, you should be able to follow this commentary alongside the text off the workbook. Section two begins and by talking about the role of the paralegal in criminal litigation, working for solicitors on also working for barristers the thing to remember is that generally speaking as an employee of a firm or working on behalf for representing someone else is a a legal represent where then you are adopting and banned by any off the professional requirements off that employment. So if, for example, you are working for a firm or solicitors in whatever capacity and whether it be on a sort of relatively freelance basis. If you're doing a one off job for them or whether you're fully employed by them, then you are bound by that. Whatever rules and regulations that they are banned by as well, regulation in the 21st century has expanded to include not only for examples, listers and barristers specifically, but also the entities from which groups of people work and certainly as faras the's listeners professional is concerned. The standards and regulations off these lists Regulation Authority refer both to individuals, listers and also to firms of solicitors. Andi any editors which provide legal legal services. You will also see in this section that there is a reference to reserved legal activities on this is from the Legal Services Act on it really is a selection off legal activities or legal services. If you like that is regulated to the extent of saying, Look, you cannot actually do these things. Things like litigation advocacy in court, on giving certain types of advice. You need to be a regulated person for that and say your workbook quite sensibly says, Look, you need to know, and wherever you're working and whoever you are, whether you're a paralegal training Celester or no Celester license compares what you got to know what it is that you are not only able to do personally, but also what you can do within the context of your regulatory environment and say the solicitor's profession is regulated by thes listed regulation authority, the bar by the Bar Standards Board. And wherever you're working as a paralegal, it's important for you to know the regulatory framework that you are working with. Ondas. I set a regulatory frameworks can that the tentacles can reach as far as these people who are not within that direct, regulated community. So, for example, this lessons regulation authority can impose sanctions on nonce listers who are working for within firms off solicitors. And so what your workbook does quite sensibly is not only give you some examples, but also says, But even if you're employed or self employed paralegal, you have you need to know that what you are regulated to dio on what you're not regulated to do under the heading of representatives. It also very sensibly appoint side that if you are representing affirms listers, then it is as if you were a person who was employed within that Firms listers, you'll see that the section goes onto it. Refer to reserve legal activities on this is just those types of things that are listed advocacy. Prosecuting on things like this, that for which your starting point is about you should not be doing this unless you are professionally qualified and regulated for the purpose. There are exceptions. Onda, the workbook, quite sensibly points out, wanted to exceptions as well, but hopefully at the point is well made. The workbook also refers toothy Knapton National Association License paralegals Kate of Ethics, which will apply in any event, If you are licensed by now, you submit and subject yourself to its code of ethics and its sanctions and remedies, etcetera. As we all know, when we when we join a profession, there isn't a specific reference to the criminal procedure rules that Onda of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, the criminal procedure rules seek to regulate the way in which people are prosecuted on the way that the courts function. They're supported by criminal practice directions, and all of it relates to when a person has bean charged. So in Section one of this workbook We principally looked at the police investigations on the pre charge things, and in this we are looking at more at a although ethics supplies pre charge and post charge the criminal procedure rules apply a post charge to criminal proceedings. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act refers to post charge obligations to disclose matters not only evidence but also unused material to defense lawyers and just to separate those out evidence. That evidence is really from a prosecutor on prosecuting you. And I say, Well, this is the evidence upon which I am now to rely in prosecuting you. So these are the statements. There's a CCTV. There's that the DEA, whatever on this is what I'm relying on to prosecute you. Additionally, during the course off the police investigations, we have come across a lot of other bits and pieces of evidence and information, which we are not using to prosecute you. And that is called unused material. And there are rules which regulate the disclosure off both evidence and unused material to a defendant. The you did also points out that some of this material can actually be very sensitive, say if you're police or prosecutors investigating some sordid sexual offenses and things like this. Then there are restrictions on the disorder. The disclosure that's disclosure is to be given, of course, to a defendant to whose accusation arrests upon that disclosure. But there are also procedures and obligations. For example, the prosecutor will say to the defendant's lister, Yes, this is disclosed to you on. Your client may observe it in your presence, but your client is not to be given any copies. Neither are you to make any copies on give them out. So there are certain restrictions that sensibly applied to all those sorts or things. The section goes on to talk about the duties owed to the client in criminal matters on the points out that there is a requirement to act in the best interests off your plant. Now this workbook doesn't look at things from the point of view or the bar ethics are barristers ethics? Eso, if you are working for Fleiss, is it will be the solicitous standards on regulations for which there are seven principles on, then a number off not only codes but also topic guides and things, all of which are certain. You you can see there open source at the Splices Regulation Authority or website. But the two sets of rules, if you like, are pretty much aligned in certain respects, and one of them is that there is a duty to act in the best interests off your plant. It's not an overriding duty. It's not the overriding duty by any means. It's one off. The dude is one of the principals force listers. But the principle that takes precedence, if you like with the others, is to uphold the rule of law on the proper administration off justice. And from this is derived the examples in your workbook that say, Well, if your client tells you there's some wants you to do that but actually to do that would to would be to mislead the court or perhaps put your put you in a difficult situation. Ethically, then I'm afraid. What is what? What is The priority is the public interest on not the actual interest of your client. It is still important as lawyers, whether West listers paralegal, spices or whatever, to remember that our purpose is to bring the betterment to a client. So if a client would be better off on their own or no better off on their own. Well, they're probably just better off getting on with it. And our purposes lawyers is to say we will be involved. And the idea is that with my help, you get a better outcome. But that better outcome is not to be achieved at any cost. Andi, there are professional sanctions, both individuals and criminal sanctions available as well. Um, if indeed you lie on your plants for heart. For things like this, your workbook also sensibly so points eight that what we can't do is lawyers is to vouch for the truthfulness off what our client says. So if a client says yes, I did it well. Did the client do it? It might be a matter of law. It might be a store whether what the client actually did immense to the commission of a criminal offence. It might be that the clients trying to cover for somebody else and if it lands, is I didn't do it. Well, it might be that the evidence is quite strong and you're thinking more. Really. It's looking quite strong with the clients that look, I didn't do it then your duty if you like to. The client is to advance your client's case, and that's another sir petting in your workbook to advance your client's case. Because you're not the arbiter off whether or not your your client did or didn't it may well be that you point to exercise. We look. The evidence is very strong. Can you explain this? And can you explain that? And while at the police station, you might not explore in detail in certain circumstances your client's account of events. When you get to court on, you're making a decision about whether or not to put your client in the witness box a dry or, for example, you need to know what what your client is saying on. If you don't know that, then it's very difficult to make decisions. Your workbook also says they must act fairly to your client, Andi. It gives a list, a bulleted list off, it says, where someone is in the role of providing advice, which includes ensuring that they are advised as to matters such as. And then there's a bulleted list, and what I would invite you to do with this list is to ask yourself is it information or council? Let me explain the word advice in English language covers both the situation where I give you information on also where I give you advice on where I give you information. That is, it is me giving telling you about two something. So if I were to advise you that London is the capital of England, for example well, that's no advice. That's just information. But we use the word advice on advised generically. But when we actually mean advise as lawyers, we mean council. This is my judgment. This is my analysis. This is my assessment. This is where things are better. So when you see under that heading in your workbook at fairly your client that's a bulleted list. I would invite you to take each one in turn and ask yourself, Is this information that I'm giving to the client or is this council in the sense of legal advice because it is important that our clients know whether we are giving them information or advice, And it would be wrong of us to say, Let me advise you about this or that if indeed its mayor information. And so when we give talk to glands. We communicate appliances lawyers, and we are very aware off whether or not we are giving information or council. No matter that we kind of use the word advice or advise to cover both so many in your book is then avoid conflicts of interest. Now there are principally two types of conflict of interest on. Certainly, for me, it's it's Lister. It would be what we call own client conflict. Onda, also a client, conflicts. So own conflict means about there is a conflict between me on the client. The principal off conflict is independence. I must act independently and be able to advise a client objectively and without any other factors in pinching on that advice. Put shortly, it means this. If you are my client and I am giving you legal advice, I must be able to advise you in a way that I would advise you if you were in fact, my only client. Nothing else should impinge on that. My personal interest mustn't impinge on it. That's the 1st 1 and the interests of another client mustn't impinge on it either. That's the 2nd 1 first one own client conflict, which means that something I am or what I do or something I know is actually causing me to advise you in a slightly different way that I would do if in fact, you were my client and client conflict is where I would advise you in a way that would be different in consequence of the fact that I'm actually got another client. That I am advising and say conflict of interest is really very important for us as Lester's to know that we need to avoid them on no when they arise on Not if you like Chase Chase the Money Week as lawyers, we are accused off chasing the fees. No matter what. Andi, I'll take you on us. My client Notwithstanding that I actually have a conflict I have found in legal practice that that is not generally true. In practice, I have found overwhelmingly that the lawyers that I have worked with have bean ethical have had integrity. Onda will be happy and ready not to act for somebody if indeed they feel compromised in any way your work, but goes on to talk about the duties owed to the court on the 1st 1 to act with integrity to the court, not too misleading. The court knowingly misleading the court. And so part of our job is to make sure that we are aware that we are officers of the court and situations can arise, and you're given a couple of examples in your workbook. Useful examples where you think, Actually, what should I do in these circumstances? And the answer is, don't mislead the court or put yourself in a position where, if what you know is actually a discovered or comes out, then that would compromise you ethically on DSO We do need sometimes to talk, to glance and say, Look, this is something that needs the court needs to know about because of known it might. It might look attractive to you in the shorter to sort of hide this, but if we hide it, then I'm afraid my advocacy would be in danger of misleading the court. There would be a significant risk off it. Your workbook also goes on talkback complying with the duties your duties in the progress of a case that talks about the criminal procedure rules on part one part one off the criminal procedure or supplies Teoh participants in criminal proceedings. Anyone who participates in any way in a criminal case, whether it be the lawyers, that the court clark, the Magistrates that judged anybody anybody involved in the case can be a participant and is therefore banned by the rules contained in part one part three of the criminal procedurals which is beyond the escape of this work. Work applies to parties Onda, of course, As a lawyer, you are not a party. The parties to the cases are the crown on the defendant or defendants. Whoever is listed as the name off the case Andan. What the workbook sends me points out rightly points out, is that if we as participants are aware that our clients, our client is not invent complying with her or his obligations under the rules and then we are obliged to notify the court and that is our obligation as a participant. If you look closely at the rules, you will find that actually one or two of the phrases are worded a little bit awkwardly. The rules, in fact, for the very first time when they were introduced in 2005 they introduced the concept of the guilty defendant wealth. Previously we had a little bean living with the presumption of innocence and said if you were accused of a crime but not yet convicted on us presumed to be innocent. But these rules, which refer to defendants who are accused of crime and not yet convicted you'll see in part one that it says that participants obligations are to make sure that the innocent are acquitted on the guilty, are convicted and therefore it is introduced, as I say for the first time, the concept off the unconvicted guilty defendant, you know, 34 off, then Section two, then goes on to talk about the duties owed when interviewing witnesses. We talk about interviewing witnesses very loosely. But what we probably more remember in our minds as lawyers is that if we consult with a client, it is the client's consultation with us. Say if, for example, we go to police station, we know that it is the client to has the rights to see us, not we having the right to see the client and say the clients actually have consultations with us on day when they do say we take those instructions and then when we take those instructions to court way, have to use those instructions in a way that is ethical. As an advocate on your workbook talks about some of the ethical duties off the Advocate not to lead a witness, discuss the evidence you prepare your witnesses at all not to discuss into your instructions, taking statements separately on it, says Do not make things up with a witness or let them make things that well, I would hope that you wouldn't need telling too strongly not to do that. Your work. What, then goes on to talk about the overarching duty off confidentiality on also makes a reference to legal privilege or legal professional privilege or client privilege. Whatever you want to label it, there are different types of privilege on this is the one that actually gives you protection in respect of what we talk about. So they are two separate concepts. Confidentiality. First of all, it is contractually based notion that actually means that if you come and see me, you're the client. I'm your lawyer, and everything we discussed will be confidential. It's not absolute, I'm afraid there are a certain permissions that can invade confidentiality and cause confidentiality to be, uh, to be opened up on exposed. They are things like acts of Parliament, terrorism act, Thea, Proceeds of Crime Act and certain statutes relating to income taxes. Court orders as well can cause a lawyer to be required to reveal that which would otherwise have bean confidential. Not for legal privilege, though. Legal privilege, client privilege, legal professional privilege. Whatever you want to label it, it talks in your workbook about legal professional privilege is when you and I communicate specifically about your legal problem with you seeking advice and me taking your instructions. And these communications are much more heavily protected. It's beyond the escape of your workbook to look at these things in too much detail. But please remember that when it talks about confidentiality that don't be confused by references that say that confidentiality can be exposed or breached if you like, by Operation of Laurel Court orders. Yes, it can. But legally, professionally privileged communications I cannot. And then that is because you as a client and needs to be able to come to me, your lawyer and discuss your legal problem knowing that our communications are not going to be revealed and as a matter of public policy that it's important that that that is possible and you should not be worried because otherwise I would not to be able to represent you. So to summarize in Section two talks about professional ethics essentially on the things you must do, mustn't do. Some of them are obvious. Some of them are less obvious. And some, although they are obvious ah, little bit more difficult to apply. It talks about conflict, talks about confidentiality. They're two separate and distinct, uh, principles. It also talks about keeping that confidence but confidence being capable of being breached. Unless, of course, it relates to legally privileged communications. And so, hopefully this introduction to section two off your unit 34 workbook will just help you to be digest the contents. Andi, kick them in perspective. So thank you for watching
Webinar
Slides
339 Users
4 Courses
13 Reviews
