Explanation for those in a non-British law jurisdiction: A barrister is a specialist in putting the case of the adveraries in court. They are instructed by solicitors, lawyers, and work in Chambers where the clerk books in cases into the diaries of the barristers. Barristers generally don't have any choice of who they would like to represent.
These are the stories of a young woman barrister who represented a wide range of people. The most outstanding cases were the 17 year old - but 18 and an adult at the time of the case - caught with a mass of paeophile pornography on his computer. He'd been groomed and lured in at 12 himself. This struck a real chord with me.
I was in Santo Domingo on holiday with my 11 year old son. He was using the hotel computer outside our room. I asked him what he was doing and he said, "Mummy there's a poor boy who's very sad who says nobody likes him in school. I'm going to be his friend." I said let me see. There was a young man, lying down naked apart from briefs. That's how easy it was.
(When I got home I positioned our pcs at 90 degrees from each other in the study which had no curtains - it's a rainforest - I could see the screen reflection in the windows. There was no wifi until he got to 16.)
There were other cases that were similarly moving, drug addicts caught in situations where rape, violence and prostitution were their inescapable daily routines. Men with mental issues that were visible to all (except for some reason court psychiatrists for the prosecution) who were then imprisoned rather than sent for treatment. Children who had been turned against one parent by the scorned one. Other cases too.
It was interesting to see how the barrister, the author, mined the paperwork, the questions and answers from the witness box and what her client told her for the absolute nugget around which the case was built and which would prove one side or the other was right, or innocent, or otherwise. A lawyer friend of mine, a QC who is also a barrister (as in the US, the Caribbean combines the two roles), says that he isn't there to defend the innocent or prosecute the guilty, justice isn't his job. He is there to represent his client's case to the very best of his ability. The jury will vote on who made the best case and the judge will administer justice. It's a very cynical view of the law. But perhaps the only possible fair one.
One case in the book impressed me as to the difference between a civil and criminal proceedings where the same evidence would be offered and how the victim would be treated. A woman from Bangladesh had been married to a British man of Bangladeshi origins and brought over to the UK. She had never met him before. She was abused physically and sexually by both her husband and her mother-in-law, who took her passport from her and locked her in the house. Eventually she managed to escape to a family member's house with her daughter, Her husband took the child without her permission but she was returned to her by the police.
Now, if the woman had gone to the police to lay a complaint of abuse and rape when she went to court, she would have been kept far from her husband in different witness rooms, would have had the opportunity to give evidence remotely or would have been screened in court from him. If the husband had decided to act on his own behalf, a barrister would have been employed by the court to put his questions to her. Everything would be done so that their paths would not cross.
But because it was a civil case, they sat in the same corridor, the same canteen, he could question her about his alleged violence and rape in any way he chose, and even run his finger across his throat as a threat to what he would do to her. A terrifying ordeal, perhaps especially to someone from a different culture who spoke almost no English.
Since the case hung on whether or not he did rape and abuse her the barrister had to find some sort of proof, it was just his word against her's. But she did. Her husband as one of his first actions on greeting his new wife in his English home, had ripped up her precious scrap book which contained an autographed picture of a Bollywood star. He was questioned about this - this shows the absolute cleverness of the barrister, of why we employ barristers, specialists in questioning in court, I'm going to quote it verbatim:
"‘It had a note in it, to my wife, from another man. Like, a love note. I wasn’t going to have that.’
‘The note was written before you met?’
‘Yes. But she was my wife now, wasn’t she?’
‘And so when you married, what was hers became yours?’
‘Yes. That’s how it is in our culture.’
‘To do with as you wished?’
‘It’s natural. She knows and I know what her role as a wife is.’
‘A page of the book offended you, so you tore the whole thing up?’
‘I’ve already admitted that, haven’t I?’
‘Her book, her possessions, her body, her freedom – they all belonged to you …’
‘Look, it’s different. Islamically, the wife has only duty for her husband, whether she does it willingly or not.’
Click. Got him. His last phrase is chilling, isn't it?
What happened to the wife after that? She got a temporary order giving her residency and the child, and he took off for Bangladesh, sending her very insulting material and divorcing her as she had brought dishonour on his family by bringing him to court for rape, abuse and taking her child. He of course suffered no dishonour by being a violent rapist.
The mother-in-law was ordered to produce the passport and so the wife was able to establish her identity and get housing and benefits and an independent life. Although not necessarily a happy one.
In her culture, being divorced for dishonouring her husband by exposing the private secrets of a family in public, meant that she was almost certainly going to be rejected by all future potential husbands and many men (and their powerful mothers) would not want their families to mix with her, nor their children to be friends with her's. There is no sympathy for victims if they are women. Indeed there is sympathy for the man, how dare she report she was raped and abused, the poor man, going through that, no wonder he divorced her. It's a very cruel culture.
We talk about human rights, but when the persecution, no matter how extreme, is traditional -
"“I asked them why when they persecute men, for religion or colour it was seen by the world as oppression and when they persecute women, it was dismissed as tradition.” Emer Martin
Rewritten March 1st 2020