Prozessanwalt „überschritt wiederholt die Grenze“ mit Vergewaltigungsüberlebender

Isn’t that the purpose of a defence lawyer, to fight your corner? It should be on the judge to deem what’s acceptable.

Society wonders why people don’t want to support prosecutions or even report sexual assault in the first place. 

Our court procedures are adversarial by design. Who would put themselves through this? 

>The Faculty of Advocates complaints committee said Mr Alonzi repeatedly crossed the line of what was acceptable and found that his behaviour amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct on six of the 11 issues raised.

i think some people are quoting bits that are actually the commitee’s response to specific points rather than being a general comment on the barrister’s behaviour i think theyre still allowed to be fairly brutal. i also dont like the way the article mixes the reporting of the complaint with personal opinions. cant find the original source but ive tried to edit it down to just the facts of the complaint and response.

>Ms Wilson’s ex-boyfriend Daniel McFarlane was convicted of two rape charges which took place between December 2017 and February 2018 when he was a medical student at the University of Glasgow.

>The trial ended at the High Court in Glasgow in June 2022 and McFarlane was later sentenced to five years in prison.

>Ms Wilson’s complaints claimed that when questioning her, Mr Alonzi failed to comply with rules designed to protect women in rape trials from inappropriate questioning about their sexual history and character.

>The complaints committee found the lawyer “repeatedly crossed that line even after several fairly lengthy exchanges with the trial judge”.

>It said the repeated nature of the conduct took it beyond what could be considered excusable or inadvertent.

>One of the judge’s interventions came after Mr Alonzi asked Ms Wilson if she had heard of narcissistic personality disorder and whether she had it.

>Ms Wilson replied that she did not.

>The complaints committee found that asking questions without having seen a report or diagnosis by a properly qualified medical professional was “discourteous to the court and abused the privileged position” held by Mr Alonzi.

>They also found that, during closing speeches, Mr Alonzi deliberately referred to matters that had been ruled inadmissible, despite knowing the trial judge would likely be forced to direct the jury to disregard them.

>After McFarlane had been found guilty of rape, Mr Alonzi told the court his client “fell in love with the wrong person”, that he didn’t belong in court and that it was “difficult not to imagine some sense of injustice in it all”.

>The complaints committee said the remarks were inappropriate and should not have been made.

>They said it implied that the jury made an error and convicted an innocent man.