The problem is not that accused people have rights. They should. The problem is that the legal system has confused rights with performance, fair trial with strategic escape, and justice with whoever can afford, access, or attract the best representative.

A court of law should not be a theatre where truth is negotiated by skill. It should not be a place where one person’s criminality becomes survivable because their lawyer is sharper, richer, more connected, more emotionally detached, or more willing to use procedural weakness as a moral hiding place. When the outcome of justice depends less on what happened and more on who argued it better, the system is already admitting its own low standard.

The official defence is always the same: everyone deserves representation. Article 6 protects the right to a fair and public trial, and that includes criminal proceedings. Barristers in England and Wales also operate under the “cab rank rule,” meaning they generally cannot refuse a case simply because the client is unpopular, unpleasant, or accused of something terrible, provided the case is within their competence and they are available.

But that is exactly where the moral question begins.

Because there is a difference between ensuring a person is not abused by the state and actively engineering doubt so that truth cannot land. There is a difference between testing evidence and helping someone hide behind its absence. There is a difference between preventing wrongful conviction and turning court into a game where the guilty survive because the system requires proof beyond what the victim, the harmed, or reality itself can carry.

The law already knows lawyers are not meant to lie. Solicitors must not mislead the court, clients, or others, including by being complicit in a client’s misleading acts. Barristers owe their first duty to the court in the administration of justice, must act with honesty and integrity, and their duty to the client is subject to their duty to the court. So the system already admits the higher principle: the lawyer is not supposed to be a weapon for the client. The lawyer is supposed to remain bound to justice.

Yet the practical culture often feels lower than the written standard. Because “do not mislead the court” is treated as enough, even when a lawyer can still build a defence around technical gaps, evidential weaknesses, witness exhaustion, procedural errors, intimidation-by-cross-examination, or the strategic destruction of confidence. That may be lawful. That does not automatically make it moral.

And this is where the public disgust comes from.

People are not angry because they want innocent people unprotected. People are angry because they can sense that the system has created a professional class that can stand beside destructive people, package their defence, protect their route home, take the money, and then pretend their hands are clean because the rules were followed.

That is not truth. That is procedural laundering.

The Crown Prosecution Service itself says prosecutors must act fairly, independently, and objectively, and must act in the interests of justice, not merely to secure convictions. That standard should apply to the whole courtroom ecosystem. The prosecution should not be chasing convictions for ego, statistics, politics, or public pressure. The defence should not be chasing acquittals as trophies, invoices, reputation, or intellectual sport. Both sides should be accountable to truth.

Because the current adversarial model creates an absurd moral split: the prosecutor is told not to win at all costs, but the defence is culturally permitted to “defend robustly” even when everyone can smell that truth has been buried under technique. The result is a system where innocence and guilt are not always discovered; they are performed through procedure.

And yes, evidence matters. Without evidence standards, innocent people are destroyed. Disclosure failures can collapse cases, delay justice, harm complainants, and also expose innocent defendants to devastating false prosecution. Parliament’s Justice Committee recorded that disclosure errors happen across crime types and that failed disclosure damages the criminal justice system in the eyes of victims and witnesses. The Liam Allan case is a brutal reminder of why defence scrutiny is necessary: a rape trial collapsed after late disclosure of messages that threw the prosecution case into doubt.

So the answer is not “remove defence.”

The answer is: raise defence back into truth.

Defence should mean: prove the state’s case properly; protect the accused from abuse; expose false evidence; prevent wrongful conviction; make sure the process is clean. Defence should not mean: help the guilty escape responsibility because the evidence was not perfect enough, the victim was not composed enough, the system was not resourced enough, or the lawyer was talented enough to turn uncertainty into freedom.

Not everyone should be defended in the same way.

Everyone should be protected from state abuse. Everyone should have their rights respected. Everyone should be presumed innocent until the case is proved. But once a lawyer knows, not merely suspects, but knows through the client’s own admission or the facts before them, that the person is guilty, the moral obligation should become narrower: protect the process, do not fabricate innocence; test the evidence, do not manufacture illusion; argue lawful mitigation, do not perform moral exoneration.

A lawyer who knowingly helps a dangerous person walk back into society has not merely “done a job.” They have participated in the future consequences of that person’s freedom. And society should stop pretending that professional distance erases moral consequence.

Because criminals do not disappear after acquittal. They go home. They raise children. They train other people in their worldview. They learn from what protected them. They discover which gaps work. They adapt. They become better at avoiding consequence. And one day the harm does not stay theoretical. It returns through another family, another child, another workplace, another street, another body.

That is the part the system refuses to metabolise: a wrongful acquittal is not neutral.

It is not just “the system working.” It can become a public risk transferred into the future. It can become the cost another innocent person pays because today’s courtroom preferred procedure over truth.

And then everyone acts shocked when violence repeats, when fraud repeats, when abuse repeats, when coercive people learn how to speak the language of innocence better than their victims can speak the language of harm.

The standard should be higher.

A justice system worthy of humanity should not ask, “Can we defend this?” first. It should ask, “What is true? What is safe? What is fair? What prevents both wrongful conviction and wrongful release? What protects the individual without betraying the whole?”

Because a system built only to defend rights without discerning responsibility becomes a shelter for the responsible-but-unaccounted. And a society that celebrates clever defence more than truthful resolution has already chosen performance over protection.

So no, the goal of court should not be defence.

The goal of court should be truth, justice, protection, restoration where possible, containment where necessary, and accountability where earned.

Defence has its place.

But truth must sit above it.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

write abou this. reasearch anything that reinforces this.

not everyone should get defended and the fact the law, the one system that’s intended at defending us depends on the abilities on the lawyer if the criminal gets scout free or not, speaks on the low standards people are willing to have, impose, be resopnsible for. If you know your client is a criminal the lawyer should be the first to mention. the goal of a court of law should be about trruth not defense. defense lets criminals walk free, allows the premeditated to go scout free if not enough evidence for their criminality to be veto by the courts. our system condones well represeted criminals, do not ever think it was build for the people. lawyers of criminals are just as criminals themselves and if it was for me, a lawyer trying to defend someone who doesn’t have the integrity to deserve it should be taken to court themselves on their morals. Cause how do you live with yourself? by making and spending money?! wow, parent of the year! while the crimnial goes home tpo train more criminals and one day the karma of the lawyer is their child affected by the same child raised by the same criminal they defended years back… my childre will be ready, but how do we allow all of this to happen and act okauy with it, until we are personally involved?! bystanders are the new standards