Video
You need the Flash Player (version 7 or higher) to view this clip - download Flash. http://media.open2.net/barristers/role.flv Copyrighted The Open UniversityAudio
Save this MP3 file to your computer You need the Flash Player (version 7 or higher) to use our MP3 player - download Flash. Copyrighted The Open University Download What can I do with this?Text
Abigail Bright: I think the role of a barrister as a public servant is first and foremost to rehearse in the best possible way public argument and debate. And I think, when I say best possible way I think we would judge that according to whether a client on behalf of whom the barrister is acting thinks that the barrister has done as good a job as the client himself or herself would do if only they had the barrister’s legal training, the privilege of legal knowledge and a familiarity with court etiquette, rules of evidence.
Mr Justice Calvert Smith: I think they play a crucial role and one which as a country we should do our best to preserve. They provide independent advice from a self-employed, if we’re talking about the self-employed bar, perspective to lay clients in civil cases, in criminal cases, in family cases, in all three of which, as I’ve said in answer to another question, can be quite unpopular and difficult advice. They have no permanent relationship with the client, be the client a government department or a person or a company or whatever. They are brought in to give independent advice and frequently that independent advice is sensible, saves the client unnecessarily expense or indeed sometimes imprisonment and so on.
Gary Slapper: The role of barristers within the legal system is to the best of their ability to express on behalf of their clients the relevant case in accordance with the facts of that case and the law, to put the best conceivable argument in furtherance of the needs of their client. So it’s excellent advocacy, and by virtue of all barristers doing that in all cases so that all rights are properly vindicated, protected or prosecuted then the society in which that happens gains because it’s a rights-vibrant society, it’s a place where the laws on the paper are translated into the laws in real life.
Lynn Tayton: In the court context, they are there to represent their clients and protect their clients’ interests fearlessly, even if that client is personally unpalatable to them. And they must do that within a strict set of ethical rules. They’re there to test the factual evidence, and if the barristers do their work properly then both sides of any argument are comprehensively put before the court so that a judge is then in a position to consider all the issues and give a fair and just decision.
Mr Justice Calvert Smith:Because, by and large, the bar trusts itself and the judiciary, which is by and large drawn from the ranks of the practicing bar, trusts its former colleagues not to mislead it, not to try to take unfair advantages by not revealing the truth and so on, the business of the court I believe in this country is conducted in a far more effective way so that real issues are the ones which are decided by the court rather than side or even non-issues which are dreamt up for tactical or other reasons. And the traditional oral advocacy, the ability to conduct the proceedings in real time in front of the public rather than, as happens in many other jurisdiction, principally on paper with very little evidence actually being given and tested on oath with cross-examination is a peculiar skill of the barrister which obviously starts being learnt at law school and is passed on by pupil masters and senior members of the Chambers and so on. It is absolutely essential and one of the sort of jewels of the crown of the English legal system.
Gary Slapper: In addition to advocacy, which is an important and very well known part of what barristers do, they have an additional and important role within the legal system to construct, compose, design and deliver advice to clients, individual clients and organisations about what the law is and how the law would unfold were it to ever be tested in court. Quite a lot of barristerial work is of that kind so legal disputes, if you like, are edited out of the court process by virtue of people reading counsel’s opinion in detail and deciding that as a result of that they will proceed in this way rather than that way which as a result avoids a particular dispute. Or that it so clearly vindicates, protects, it confirms their right, that when that view is expressed to another side of what might be a debate, a dispute, that the other side concedes that they, having taken their own legal advice from barristers, that it’s a battle not worth entering into and so they concede. And that way rights are socially protected.
Jane Goodey: The barrister’s role is to represent the people that they’re defending in the most passionate way they can but always balancing that as a truly professional with the responsibilities that they have towards the court.
Abigail Bright: As a public servant a barrister’s first duty is, in fact, to the court rather than to their client or to a certain point of law in which they’re arguing, and I think that’s often overlooked. So I think most advocates work with that very firmly in mind. When I say most, really all advocates.
Gary Slapper: There is a deeper, wider social purpose served by ten thousand barristers doing their ordinary everyday work and that is the promotion of democracy which is an extremely important point about which the bar, and British society at large probably, is very modest and it’s a slightly less visible thing going on. But the democracy is a society that is run by rules in accordance with the rules as opposed to one which is governed by the wishes of a dictator or a dictator monarch or an army. So in a democracy with rules it works well to the extent that the rules are properly applied, and they’re properly applied if you’ve always got recourse to a legal system and having someone who knows that system and those rules give vent to them properly within the legal system. That’s what, that’s the life blood of a democracy based on rules, and so the net result of barristers doing their work and their role within the legal system is to give the life blood and action to democracy.
Choose another video
What makes a good barrister?
The Open University
Our panel of legal experts consider what it is that makes a good barrister. Read more : What makes a good barrister?
What makes a good judge?
The Open University
The figure who must ensure that both sides feel the justice process is fair. But what does that entail? Read more : What makes a good judge?
What makes the legal system just?
The Open University
If a legal system is to dispense justice, it must be just. How do you create that in the courts? Read more : What makes the legal system just?
The court in 10 years' time
The Open University
We asked our panel what we might expect to see if we arrived in the courtroom of 2018. Read more : The court in 10 years' time
Login or Register to post comments
Comments on: "What is the role of the barrister?"
Denis McCarthy has started a thread discussing What is the role of the barrister?.
Re: Comments on: "What is the role of the barrister?"
Just a few basic points on the role of the barrister.
The barrister is an officer of the court. He or she acts on behalf of a client but, unlike a solicitor, whose exclusive duty is towards the client and who can therefore be sued for negligence, the barrister’s primary duty is to the court and therefore to justice. A barrister’s role in the drama of the law is therefore to play a part in ensuring that justice is done by ensuring that his or her client is provided with the best representation, in the forum of the court before the judge, that he or she is capable of providing. Technically, a barrister, in return for his or her services, which provide advocacy for the client, but more importantly serve justice, is given an honorarium not a fee, and certainly not a salary. Traditionally, this honorarium was placed in a pocket of the folds of his or her gown, following the Roman model. In this way, the possibility of bribery was avoided – the barrister received the honorarium in secret, blind, as a mater of honour, and, in some circumstances, might get nothing at all! In practice solicitors provide this fee and are therefore the people who ‘brief’ the barrister. The barrister cannot be approached directly by the client and what is more the barrister cannot sue the client for the honorarium. The ‘classic’ statement about role of the barrister in the Common Law is set out in Denning MR’s judgment in Rondel v Worsley [1967] 1 Q.B. 443 atarting at p 493. In this case, the plaintiff, Norbert Fred Rondel, one of the Kray’s enforcers attempted to sue his barrister for negligence when he was sent down for GBH. This is how Denning MR described the facts:
During the night of Saturday to Sunday, April 5, 1959, there was a dance at a house, 13 St. Stephen's Gardens, W.2. In the early hours, at 2.30 in the morning, a man named Manning was at the door. He was the doorkeeper. Norbert Fred Rondel went to the house. He went, he says, on behalf of Peter Rachman, the landlord. He spoke to Manning. There was an outburst of violence. Manning was severely injured. His hand was so damaged that it had to have nine stitches. And he lost the lobe of his right ear. Rondel admits that he did it, but he says that he was attacked by Manning. He was looking for prostitution and acted in self-defence. When it was suggested that he used a knife, he hotly denied it. He claims to be an expert in judo and karate. It would be degrading, he says, for him to use a knife. He told the judge in chambers: "I tore his hand in half and bit part of his ear off." Even before this court he exulted in his achievement. "It sounds difficult in cold blood," he said, "but I can demonstrate it." We did not accept the offer.
However, although Denning MR’s judgment in Rondel v Worsley is the ‘classical’ statement of the role of the barrister, a great deal has changed since 1965. In the first place, many barristers provide advice outside the courts and for this advice they can be sued. Secondly, many barristers are now employed, by the state and by businesses. Thirdly, since the Mackay reforms of the early 1990s, solicitors with advocacy qualifications can appear in court. Finally, the most recent reforms of the present Labour government will allow barristers to enter into partnerships with other professionals, both legal and lay. The consequence of all of these changes mean is that the role of the barrister, and the Bar, have been radically transformed in the last 20 years. In further episodes of The Barristers, the highly controversial impact of these changes will become very apparent. The ‘classical’ age, epitomised in Denning MR’s judgment in Rondel v Worsley is now at one with Nineveh and Babylon, to say nothing of Cicero’s Rome!
Re: Comments on: "What is the role of the barrister?"
Are you allowing sentimentality into the equation?
Did Cicero strike for £91 per hour not being enough?
Re: Comments on: "What is the role of the barrister?"
Some people say that it's picky to point out logical falacies in someone's Rhetoric. Other people say "making obvious logical falacies in your Rhetoric undermines your arguement".
There are so many things wrong with this statement, should I start with a Roman Patrician being employee by SPQR, Cicero striking over pay, or sterling as a currency in the Roman era?
I can't decide, except that making obvious logical falacies in your Rhetoric undermines your arguement.
Re: Comments on: "What is the role of the barrister?"
Barristers do a law degree (3 years), then pay £12,000 for a year long post-graduate Bar Vocational Course (1 year). If they can get a year of Pupillage (1 year), they will do it as a minimum wage job. They have their office in chambers to pay for, clerks, secretarial services, legal exec services, etc.
Their task is to be their clients mouthpiece, i.e. say what their client would say if their client had the eloquence, the mind, and the knowledge of the law.
I wouldn't strike if offered £91/hour either, but then again I'm not a Barrister, and I don't have their overheads.
The headline amount disguises the economics involved. Is this hours of court time or preparation time multiplied by £91? How many hours of preparation and research is done? How many hours of secretarial time? Establish their outgoings before you pre-judge.