| dc.description.abstract | This thesis explores the reasons behind barristers' advice to defendants in the
Crown Court on plea, primarily through interviews with criminal law practitioners
themselves. Beginning with a critical overview of the current research, the thesis argues
that the views of criminal barristers are a neglected significant source of information in
developing an understanding of why particular advice is given. The thesis, in the context
of other research, analyses the data from interviews conducted with current practitioners
on the London and the Midlands Circuits, and discusses the various drivers that act upon
barristers in deciding what advice to give. Starting with the actual advice given and the
advising styles adopted, the thesis explores why guilty pleas might be advised and plea
bargains sought with prosecutors. The research goes on to examine the impact of various
influences, including legal, ethical, cultural, regional and financial to produce an
overview of what factors impact upon a barrister's advice. The thesis argues that the
current view of the Bar sustained in much of the literature is insufficiently nuanced and
outdated, and that the reasons behind the advice given to defendants on plea are
extraordinarily varied, occasionally contradictory, and highly complex. The thesis
concludes that the data from the interviews warrants a rethink of why particular advice is
given and that discovering what drives barristers’ advice is critical to formulating law
and government policy. | en_US |
