Lawcast 215: Francis Fitzgibbon QC and Amanda Bancroft on Criminal justice

Lawcast 215: Francis Fitzgibbon QC and Amanda Bancroft on Criminal justice

My guests today are Amanda Bancroft, author of the Beneath the Wig blog and Francis Fitzgibbon QC, a leading silk and author of the Nothing Like The Sun blog

We look at the criminal justice system.  Topics include – the role of the prosecution and defence counsel, ‘How can you defend someone you know to be guilty/unpopular defendants’, overview of the rules of evidence designed to ensure a fair trial, the role and power of the jury, contempt of court laws and the recent verdict in the PC Harwood manslaughter case.

Listen to the podcast


I’d like to thank Lawtel, WestlawCassons For Counsel, City University Law SchoolDavid Phillips & Partners Solicitors, Inksters SolicitorsIken, LBC Wise Counsel, Carrs Solicitors,  JMW Solicitors – Manchester, Pannone, BPP Law School, Brecher Solicitors and Cellmark for sponsoring the  the free student materials on Insite Law – appreciated.

In association with The Lawyer

With thanks to the Law Society for sponsoring the  Law Review Weekly  and my Lawcasts

One thought on “Lawcast 215: Francis Fitzgibbon QC and Amanda Bancroft on Criminal justice

  1. I have not really heard any informed person saying that previous unproven allegation should have been disclosed to the jury. That would certainly be a bad path to go down. But I am a little disappointed that you didn’t mention that the Guardian footage shows Harwood carrying out a similar push on another innocent bystander earlier that day: [at 2:05]. Surely since part of his defence was that the force was lawful, this should have been put to him at trial as it was directly relevant to his state of mind on the day. It also seems that the various allegations and findings of misconduct against Patel were not put to the jury either – surely as a witness he has no right to have this kept secret?

    The other thing that depresses me, perhaps even more than the acquital, is that all thuggish police bloggers have been asserting throughout that the police are entitled to use force on anyone they like provided it is ‘reasonable’. I strongly object to this view and demand the same protection from assault by the police as applies to everybody. There has to be a prior lawful basis to use force on soemone (except, bizzarely, children).The BBC appeared to indicate that this flawed view of ‘reasonableness’ was what the judge directed, although I suspect this is not the full story. But I feel the acquital will reinforce this view amoing police officers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *