Those who have seen And Justice For All will remember the dramatic courtroom scene where Al Pacino reveals that his client is guilty and has admitted so himself.
Certainly many must be wondering about the dilemma faced by barristers regarding a confession of guilt by their clients.
In movies, the righteous counsel often emerges as the hero by turning the tables on the guilty party, but things are more complicated in real life.
So how can this catch-22 be resolved? First of all, it should be pointed out that under the rule of law everyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty. The court will first ask the accused whether he pleads 'guilty' or 'not guilty' to the charge.
Although the accused is solely responsible for choosing the plea, the barrister is ethically required to advise his client as to the most suitable course of action. The dilemma arises when the accused confesses to his lawyer that he is actually guilty, while insisting on pleading 'not guilty' to the court.
In this situation, the barrister is not necessarily discharged from representing his client. The Code of Conduct for the Bar of Hong Kong lays down various restrictions on how the barrister should proceed with such a case.
This 'confession' refers to a clear and unequivocal admission of guilt by the accused to his barrister. The confession made to the police or in court is different.