I find this troubling,
@Valerie Eliot Smith .
The first thing that comes to mind is that this inquest is supposed to be a fact finding exercise, not a defence of a legal client accused of some offence. In that context nobody has any business trying to manipulate the words of witnesses in order to pre-empt criticism of a potential defendant in a way that may be unjust in terms of the interests of the victim in the case and the community at large.
I would actually challenge the concept that a lawyer has a duty of this sort anyway. It is a duty that the profession has imposed on itself for its own convenience, despite it being patently at odds with the cause of justice, which is what lawyers are supposed to help us with. It has given us the Post Office fiasco, which as far as I can see is entirely the fault of lawyers who were prepared to bury evidence and even, it seems, advised, burying evidence.
The
human duty of everyone in this inquest is to find out why things went so wrong. Not to take sides.
The primary professional duty of every lawyer remains the same,
@Jonathan Edwards and that it to represent the interests of your client, as instructed, even if those are personally distasteful.
Lawyers also have an overriding duty to the court to act professionally and to assist the court at all times. Finally, there is the ultimate personal duty to act with honesty and integrity.
It can be a difficult balancing act but one which is undertaken by every lawyer on a regular basis.
While the duty remains the same, the environment may vary. The tone of proceedings is very different as between different types of court - criminal, civil, tribunals, inquiries, inquests - each has its own purpose. The tone and atmosphere is set largely by the judicial/quasi-judicial person in charge.
Some proceedings are primarily adversarial, others are investigatory. The
focus may vary but the
duties remain the same.
An inquest is a collaborative exercise but is still required to establish facts. This necessitates testing the evidence in cross-examination. Personally, I wasn't keen on the style of counsel for the RD&E but there was nothing inappropriate about it. Had there been, the coroner would have stopped it immediately.
It is quite right to say that, historically, there are many examples where lawyers have failed horribly in carrying out their duties, often with catastrophic consequences.
Doctors are required to treat "without fear or favour". If doctors are asked to save the life of a mass murderer do they refuse?
********************
FYI: I was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1987. I practised as a barrister in different areas of law until 2000 (when I became too ill to continue). I still retain my membership of the Bar Council (the Bar professional body) and I keep up to date with developments.
For the last ten years, I have been a Visiting Scholar at Queen Mary University of London at their Centre for Commercial Law Studies.
My husband is a retired judge who sat in several different jurisdictions. His work involved frequent professional and moral dilemmas (as is the case for all members of the profession) which we discussed in depth on a regular basis. Examining such challenges is often painful but is essential in maintaining personal and professional integrity.
