Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- 1 The nature of advocacy
- 2 Preparation
- 3 Witnesses and questions
- 4 Examination-in-chief
- 5 Cross-examination: its qualities
- 6 Cross-examination: method and style
- 7 Cross-examination of experts
- 8 Cross-examination on documents
- 9 Re-examination
- 10 Admissibility, objections and submissions
- 11 The addresses
- 12 Plea in mitigation
- 13 Appeals
- 14 Legal writing
- 15 Etiquette and ethics
- Index
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- 1 The nature of advocacy
- 2 Preparation
- 3 Witnesses and questions
- 4 Examination-in-chief
- 5 Cross-examination: its qualities
- 6 Cross-examination: method and style
- 7 Cross-examination of experts
- 8 Cross-examination on documents
- 9 Re-examination
- 10 Admissibility, objections and submissions
- 11 The addresses
- 12 Plea in mitigation
- 13 Appeals
- 14 Legal writing
- 15 Etiquette and ethics
- Index
Summary
Introduction
[12000] Most people charged with a criminal offence plead guilty. The task of the defence advocate is to persuade the sentencer to impose the lowest possible punishment. The art is to allow the sentencer to become convinced that the most appropriate disposition happens to be the most lenient one.
[12005] The plea in mitigation is a harrowing procedure for the person who has pleaded guilty or been found guilty. The offender, whose immediate future depends on the outcome, is probably feeling both repentant and fearful about the result. It is a hugely responsible task for the sentencer who needs to tailor a sentence to fit the crime and the offender. The duty of the advocate is correspondingly important. It calls for a good deal more than the recitation of some well-worn formula or string of stale phrases.
Sentencing judges must be vigilant to ensure that they do not accept uncritically at face value all submissions to the effect that the person standing for sentence is “at the crossroads”, “has seen the error of his ways”, “is at a turning point of his life”, or “has excellent prospects of rehabilitation”. Often such submissions have no justification in fact and are based on no more than wishful thinking.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Advocacy , pp. 129 - 136Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007