&quot;Most junior counsel present&quot; In W.S. Gilbert's The Maiden Brief -- a work of fiction set in England in the mid-nineteenth century -- when prosecuting counsel does not attend due to another case, the judge calls for &quot;the most junior counsel present&quot; to represent the crown in a criminal case at the Old Bailey. Does this literally mean the most recently qualified barrister who happens to be in the court? Was this known or common practice (rather than in the story for comic effect)? Might it still happen? What was the justification? Was it anything more than the general tendency to place inconveniences on junior parties? A link to the short story: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Foggerty%27s_Fairy_and_Other_Tales/My_Maiden_Brief
The reference to &quot;most junior counsel present&quot; does literally mean the most recently qualified barrister who happens to be in the court. That is confirmed by Polter's response: &quot;I was only called last term!&quot; The story takes place in 1860. By this time, it was common for the court to assign a barrister who happened to be in court to conduct the defence of an accused person. According to Bentley, English Criminal Justice in the 19th Century (1998), p 110–111: Assignment was a practice developed by the judges as a means of ensuring that prisoners facing grave charges did not go undefended for want of means. The judge would ask one of the counsel present in court to undertake the prisoner's defence without fee, a request never in practice refused … During the debates on the Prisoners' Counsel Bill of 1834, one of the arguments used against the assignment of counsel clause which it contained was that the judges already had power to assign counsel, and that counsel never refused to act … So far as one can judge from trial reports, assignment of counsel to poor prisoners in felony cases was, and remained, a rare occurrence during the late 1820s and 1830s, but became increasingly common during the 1840s and 1850s. But I can't find any historical analogue to Polter's virtuosic success in prosecuting a &quot;dock brief&quot; on behalf of the Crown. As Bentley explains, the practice of assigning counsel evolved for the benefit of the accused, not the Crown. And the barrister assigned was not invariably the &quot;most junior counsel present&quot; (p 114): The selection was made from amongst those in court not already engaged in the case. Sometimes the judge would call on the most senior counsel in court. Sometimes one of the barristers present in court would volunteer his services. Occasionally the accused would be invited to choose from the barristers in court. Modern practice The scenario in the story, where the advocate briefed to appear is in another court, having assumed (or hoped) that the present matter would not be reached in the judge's list, remains common in busy criminal courts throughout the common law world. Judges have various ways of dealing with this situation, where a hearing cannot proceed efficiently because of a lack of legal representation. Some matters, such as hearings at which an accused person must decide whether to plead guilty or not guilty, or make scheduling arrangements for trial, or be sentenced for a minor offence, are still routinely handled by lawyers who receive instructions on the day of the hearing. This is usually formalised through systems like the duty solicitors scheme operated by the Legal Aid Agency. When duty lawyers are unavailable, it is not unheard of for judges and magistrates to ask counsel physically in the courtroom to provide limited pro bono assistance to an unrepresented party. Such requests are limited to the kind of representation ordinarily provided by duty lawyers, and would not extend to conduct of a jury trial with zero preparation. As well as being significantly more demanding due to the greater complexity of modern criminal law practice, this would today be considered a breach of the right to a fair hearing. I have personally seen lawyers present in the courtroom, in suburban magistrates' courts around Australia, appointed to represent defendants at procedural hearings when there is no duty lawyer available. Lawyers volunteer for this as part of their professional duty to the administration of justice, or even as a way to find new clients. However, this never applies to a prosecution brief. At worst, an irritated judge might force another prosecutor in court for unrelated cases to account for their colleague's absence, or dismiss the case for want of prosecution.
This is not a quote, per se, rather, it is a meme. It is attributed to Gilbert Gray, and according to The Independent Saturday 7 March 1998 was originally: "I take it, Mr Gray, that your client is familiar with the maxim: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" "Indeed my lord, responded the QC drily. "In Barnsley they speak of little else." However, according to the Fortune Newsletter two years later, it was attributed to a different barrister, Charles Gray, who is reported to have recounted a story about a barrister in Reading who was asked by the judge whether his client was aware of the principle of Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), to which the barrister replied: "In the Irish village from which my client comes, M'Lud, they speak of little else". It is also attributed in 2005 to some unnamed judge referring to sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. As Tim Lymington notes, the Irish res ipsa loquitur version is attributed to Marshal Hall apparently was on the air in the BBC production The Trials of Marshall Hall originally from 1996, and is cited in a recent book review. The book review and Wiki versions of that statement differ slightly in the wording of the text, to wit Wiki: "Is your client not familiar with the maxim res ipsa loquitur?” replied, "My lord, on the remote hillside in County Donegal where my client hails from they talk of little else." vs. book review Judge: “Mr Marshall Hall, is your client familiar with the doctrine res ipsa loquitur? Marshall: “My Lord, in the remote hills of County Donegal from where my client hails they speak of little else.” Without a copy of the book, I can't say whether the reviewer mis-copied the quote, but at least we can believe that the linked quote represents the review author's wording. There is a much earlier work on the life of Marshall Hall, Marjoribanks, Edward For the Defence. The Life of Sir Edward Marshall Hall K.C. (The MacMillan Company, New York, 1929), which might contain the quote in question. At this point, I am inclined to take the Hall res ipsa loquitur quote as being original and the others as being derivative works.
I've retracted and replaced my previous answer. It is a citation to legal authority. It is probably a reference to the book &quot;Hale, The History of the Pleas of the Crown Hale PC&quot; (originally published 1736 with later editions also printed) (see 4.2.3) with Hale abbreviated &quot;Hal.&quot;, &quot;pl.&quot; being an abbreviation for &quot;plea&quot; (see 4.2.2) and &quot;cr.&quot; being an abbreviation for &quot;crown&quot;. Standard citation form is to spell it out, but if it is cited repeatedly later instances might be abbreviated. The link is to a scanned version of the out of copyright historical legal treatise on criminal procedure and substantive criminal law. Wikipedia also discusses it as does a law library Wiki.
It's happened before in real life. Here is a 1994 article describing an Illinois criminal trial where defense counsel pulled the old switcheroo and sat a different person with him at the defense table instead of the defendant. The defendant, instead, sat somewhere else in the courtroom. After a witness misidentified the perp as the person at the defense table (not the defendant), the judge directed a not-guilty verdict to settle the case but sanctioned the defense attorney instead. The appellate and state supreme courts upheld the sanction (by a one-vote margin in both cases) but dissenting opinions noted counsel and defendant technically broke no rules. From the article: The dissent said Mr. Sotomayor's intent was only to show the unreliability of the prosecution's witness. Moreover, seating a client at counsel's table is customary but not required. Nor is a lawyer obliged [...] to help a witness make an identification. Also, here is a similar but not duplicate question.
Yes When you are called for jury duty, you are given a list of expectations and duties. For example, Queensland requires everyone to dress neatly and New South Wales similarly so. The wording from NSW is: What you should wear You do not have to wear a suit and tie, but you should dress in neat, comfortable clothes. Do not wear thongs or shorts. As you may be sitting for long periods of time it is important to be comfortable, whilst still showing respect for the court. Why? Because wearing clothes that can be seen as disrespect to the court - e.g. very flashy or goofy ones - can get you expelled from court, fined or even jailed for contempt of court [NSW]. Victoria has a specific Juries Act, which includes the following language to point to its own contempt of court section: 84 Contempt of court Nothing in this Part affects the power of a court to deal with a contempt of court summarily of its own motion. 85 Enforcement of fines If a court fines a person under Division 2 or for contempt of the court, the fine is enforceable under the Sentencing Act 1991 as if the person had been found guilty of an offence
It's quite straightforward. Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act (1985) preserves the right for private persons to initiate criminal proceedings. You would have to find a solicitor, and instruct him that you would like to bring criminal proceedings against the defendant. He would essentially do what the CPS solicitors do, and find a suitable barrister to instruct on the matter. Unlike many other countries, regular barristers do prosecutions. In this case, the barrister wouldn't be instructed by the CPS, but by your solicitor. You do have to note that the Director of Public Prosecutions reserves the right to take over the case.
&quot;The whole truth&quot; is part of a formulaic phrase which has been operationalized to mean merely &quot;don't commit perjury.&quot; A witness simply answers the questions asked and is not permitted to go further. The witness is at the mercy of the lawyer's whims. The witness does not have a right to testify beyond the scope of the question asked. It is improper for a lawyer to cut off a witness when in the middle of providing an answer to the question asked, but those points are for the other side's lawyer and the judge to raise, not the witness. If the answer of a witness to the question asked on cross-examination leaves a false impression, it is up to the other side's lawyer to correct that by asking additional redirect examination questions of the witness in our adversary system. Asking questions that when answered truthfully leave a false impression because the answer presents an incomplete version of the whole story is standard practice in lawyering. This tactic is less effective, however, in jurisdictions like Colorado where judges and juries can also ask their own questions of witnesses once the lawyers are finished asking their questions.
Does the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Queen's Bench Division) ever exercise original criminal jurisdiction in serious cases (eg, a terrorism trial) in modern times? Has it ever exercised such jurisdiction since its creation by the Judicature Acts? No, with the exception of criminal contempt of court proceedings (which arguably don't constitute &quot;serious cases&quot;). Prior to the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, the Lord Chief Justice of the High Court was &quot;President of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal and Head of Criminal Justice, meaning its technical processes within the legal domain,&quot; but these duties were appellate and administrative in nature, rather than involving original jurisdiction, and under the 2005 Act the Lord Chief Justice can appoint another judge to these positions. England's criminal courts and civil courts were already almost completely separated before the modern &quot;High Court of Justice was established in 1875 by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873.&quot; The High Court is a direct successor to courts dating all of the way back to the 1200s, some of which had original criminal jurisdiction, but those predate the Judicature Act cutoff of the question. Caveats This said, English legal history is not a model of strict consistency, and I wouldn't be stunned to discover some random one-off original jurisdiction criminal trials in the late 1800s or early 1900s under statutes that have now been long since repealed that attracted little notice and have little or no modern legal importance. But, I have no actual knowledge of any such exceptions. For example, while the Admiralty Division of the High Court is now exclusively civil, I wouldn't be stunned to discover that the Admiralty Division at some point long ago, but after 1875, might have had original criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed on the high seas, like piracy and mutiny, even though it no longer has such jurisdiction. England's Admiralty Courts historically had this jurisdiction, and England's Admiralty Courts were consolidated into the High Court in 1875. But it isn't easy to discern from the resources available to me precisely when authority for crimes committed on the high seas was transferred from England's Admiralty Court to the Crown Courts (which have jurisdiction over these cases now). Similarly, while debtor's prison was abolished in England in 1869, a few years before the High Court was created, I wouldn't be shocked to find that the Queen's Bench division may have handled some residual original jurisdiction cases related to quasi-criminal body executions for non-payment of debts originally resulting in incarceration in debtor's prisons, in cases originally arising prior to 1869 that weren't fully wrapped up in 1875. Footnote Some countries with common law legal systems and a court system based upon the English model have courts called a &quot;High Court&quot; which consolidate the functions of the English &quot;High Court&quot; and the English &quot;Crown Court&quot; (which handles trials in serious criminal cases) in a single court. This is frequently motivated by a shortage of judges with the exceptional legal competence necessary to inspire confidence in the conduct of such proceedings. In U.S. practice, for example, it is the rule and not the exception, for felony criminal cases, civil cases arising in equity, serious civil cases arising at law, and both criminal and civil appeals from lower courts to all be handled by the same court of general jurisdiction (although the terminology, of course, is usually slightly different since the U.S. does not have, and has never had after 1776, a King, a Queen, or Lords, as a matter of constitutional law).