There are some cases that are so gruesome and troubling that the attorneys who represent the accused perpetrators face backlash.

Concerned and convinced that they already know all the answers, the public frequently asks the question: “Why would you represent someone like that?”

Some go as far as accusing lawyers of being money hungry and immoral. However, the justice seekers are reminding Jamaicans that their profession dictates that everyone deserves a defence.

Queen’s Counsel Peter Champagnie told the Jamaica Observer that an attorney-at-law takes an oath and is obliged to defend any matter that he or she takes on to the best of his or her ability within the confines of the law.

“In fact, the canons of the profession go further and say that an attorney-at-law should not likely refuse to take a retainer… shouldn’t likely refuse to take a case, in other words,” he argued.

“Every single person is entitled to a defence if it’s available to them, and the law, as we have it and practise it, [is] that persons are presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise. Every single soul is entitled to a defence once they request an attorney. That’s the law. So we’re obliged to do that. As an attorney, the moment you start to play judge, you’re stepping outside what you are duty-bound to do.”

Champagnie likened the responsibility of attorneys to that of doctors.

“I always make the analogy and say what if, for instance, you have a shoot-out between a police officer and a gunman, and during the shoot-out, the gunman shoots the police and the police is killed instantaneously? The gunman is also injured by the police’s gunfire and he is taken to the hospital and the doctor is told about the shoot-out between the police who is now dead. The doctor is obliged the save the life of that individual. You have to,” he told the Sunday Observer.

He further questioned who would act as a moral gatekeeper to determine what case should and should not be taken.

“How are you going to determine that? The moment you start there, you are playing judge and that’s not your role. There are certain clients that I represent to the best of my ability and acquittal is the result. Personally, it’s not somebody you have reservations about, in terms of their behaviour and so on.

“But if it is that you are doing your job, then that’s it. They don’t have to become your friends afterwards. You don’t have to associate with them. But you do your job. If you can’t do that or if it’s an issue for you, then go into conveyance, go into real estate law, go into probate, go into company law, go into banking. We are necessary.”

Human rights attorney Isat Buchanan said when certain details are shared in the media, because of emotions, characters are assassinated and people take sides accordingly. But when it goes before a judge, he added, it is a totally different thing.

“I take instructions. I look at the evidence. The rules of evidence are used. A lot of times facts that are put out in the media are not what are before the court. We are just officers of the court, similar to the prosecutor. Every defendant has a right to representation and they are cloaked in the presumption of innocence. And, at the end of the day, the judge is the referee and the jury is the referee,” Buchanan told the Sunday Observer.

“From day one I would’ve known, both as a defendant and now as a defence attorney, that evidence is important. I’ve sat on both sides before and it can be most disheartening when somebody says, ‘I am innocent,’ and gets found guilty and have to pick up the pieces of their life. If clients tell me they are innocent I have no reason to disbelieve them. If I look at the evidence and it says otherwise for me, I will advise them not to waste the court’s time, which is my duty.”

Meanwhile, attorney Alexander Shaw described himself and his peers as creatures of instructions.

“That’s the starting point. So based on the instructions that we receive, we have to act accordingly. The main role of an attorney in a trial is to ensure the person gets a fair trial. If the person is saying, ‘Listen, I am innocent,’ your role as an attorney is to ensure the person gets a fair trial. There are times when you will have to evaluate your moral standing, but based on the canons of ethics, we just can’t refuse a case because we don’t want to do it,” Shaw told the Sunday Observer.

“We have to have good grounds to refuse the case because a court can compel you to stay in a matter if you decide that you don’t want to do it. The court can tell you to take on a matter if persons are refusing to do the case based on the notoriety of the incident or the individual involved,” he continued.

Sometimes, Shaw added, it is believed that the criminal is caught, when that isn’t the case.

“It happens time and time again. That is why the attorney has a very delicate job in trying to balance the views of the public and that of his client. You’re primary duty is to that of your client because sometimes the things that you are exposed to, by virtue of being that person’s attorney, the public would not even be aware of.”

And that is why, he said: “We have to ensure that we abide by the constitution, which is that you are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Not that you are innocent… but presumed to be innocent. So we can’t approach it to say the man is actually guilty.”

Shaw told the Sunday Observer that far too often members of the public make up their minds and cast judgement without knowing the facts.

“Most of the times you hear one side of the story. A story has three sides. In instances where the evidence is so damning and staring you in the eye, attorneys will have to tell the person that it is best for them to take a certain course because there’s no way they can say they are innocent. But when there is a doubt, you have to go by your instructions, regardless of your views,” he said.

“Until someone you know or love is in that situation you will never understand. There are instances where what we hear in the public is not the truth,” Shaw stated.