Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

That's how I read it, Richard. I hold no brief for these two, but if you say something which is true at the time you say it, or someone else says it, and you thereafter remain silent, knowing that others, including the court, have been misled by a change in circumstances, are you under an obligation to disabuse them?

Bridgwater was put in that position. He was a duty solicitor, saw a client for the first time in the cells for the first time and minutes before he appeared before magistrates, His client told him he had previous, he may even have shown him a list of his antecedents. The prosecution outlined its case making no mention of previous. Bridgwater mitigated without mentioning the previous, but without saying there were none. He just said nothing on the point. He was struck off and the whole profession was unanimous in feeling he had been hard done by. What if he had mentioned them and his client had made a complaint?

Whilst not an exact parallel, I know, when do we come under a duty to disabuse someone we, or someone else, has correctly put in a certain frame of mine, or knowledge, when circumstances later change? What would our client say if we did?

Your details

Cancel