Australia Samantha Murphy, 51, last seen leaving her property to go for a run in the Canadian State Forest, Ballarat, 4 Feb 2024 *Arrest* #12

[Deleted member 296739]

These two terms might be used interchangeably in most places around the world, but in Australia there’s a crucial difference between what these two legal professionals do. A solicitor’s main job is to represent their clients in court and to negotiate with other parties involved in criminal cases, such as the prosecution or the defendants themselves.

On the other hand, barristers are more often than not tasked with arguing cases on behalf of their clients before the courts, and they’re also expected to perform extensive research into relevant case law and law codes before presenting their arguments to judges and juries alike.

( it's a big question and requires a longish answer, because, AUstralian barristers are a slightly different animal than an English barrister, or a Jamaican one, or a South African one, .. barristers are mainly found in British Commonwealth ) countries.. )

This site will do it better than I can, and quicker! What Is The Difference Between A Solicitor And A Barrister In Australia? - Lawyer.com.au

Thank you for your thoughtful reply- and for my evening reading

 

[Deleted member 296739]

I'll add to this what I've observed in the lower courts. There's a front desk where the accused has to check in before the appearance. The administration staff will ask if the accused has a lawyer. If not, they'll help link him up with one. There will be a local lawyer there doing other cases, or popping in to see what's going on (I don't know if many do this, but the one I knew had very informal habits). So the lawyer and client have a chat, the lawyer handles the appearance and later they meet eg at the lawyer's office and fill out the forms or whatever to request Legal Aid for the work done and needed to be done.

Ok so it might be very spur of the moment or impromptu in some circumstances?

 

[Rocket333]

I just can't come up with another explanation that fits the parameters. I've probably missed something so significant, like an elephant in the room that I am not seeing..

It’s intriguing. What is going on for the accused if the evidence is strong and the legal advice is congruent with the evidence, yet the accused is hellbent on sticking his heels in and flying relatively solo with what may be a very risky choice? Could be another path of intentional self destruction, even possibly consistent with his character and journey through life to date?

 

[Deleted member 296739]

It’s intriguing. What is going on for the accused if the evidence is strong and the legal advice is congruent with the evidence, yet the accused is hellbent on sticking his heels in and flying relatively solo with what may be a very risky choice? Could be another path of intentional self destruction, even possibly consistent with his character and journey through life to date?

Are you allowed to represent yourself in Australia?

 

[Trooper]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply- and for my evening reading

You don't say where your viewpoint is coming from, I am presuming you could be American, you can correct me., ( I don't mind!!) . if you are, ... a Barrister is the equivalent, , in many ways, not exactly, but close enough, to an American Trial Specialist Lawyer.. a Gerry Spence, .... this sort of professional trial defender..

Then, there are, in Australia, as in the USA, specialist Prosecuting Barristers ( or prosecuting attorneys ) ... in AU , they work for the State Public Prosecutor, for the USA= District Attorney.

 

[Trooper]

Are you allowed to represent yourself in Australia?

You certainly are, and some make it to the front of the bench and give voice... it's a statistical record that Australia has as many ningnongs who opt for this performance as any other country on earth. Even though they have access, for free , to some terrific legal minds, oh no. up they get, ... it is a credit to duty solicitors all across Australia that those that try this silliness on don't often get as far as actually appearing in court to vent.

It is usually after careful and expert input that this point of view is headed off at the pass. ... if it wasn't for the guy or gal at the admin office at the court, AU courts would be full of it!..

 

[JLZ]

Ok so it might be very spur of the moment or impromptu in some circumstances?

Yes, but not barristers as such. They only get a client upon referral from the solicitor, the first lawyer. In minor matters the client won't need one. Legal Aid has rules about what it won't pay for, and the rules are not generous.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

You don't say where your viewpoint is coming from, I am presuming you could be American, you can correct me., ( I don't mind!!) . if you are, ... a Barrister is the equivalent, , in many ways, not exactly, but close enough, to an American Trial Specialist Lawyer.. a Gerry Spence, .... this sort of professional trial defender..

Then, there are, in Australia, as in the USA, specialist Prosecuting Barristers ( or prosecuting attorneys ) ... in AU , they work for the State Public Prosecutor, for the USA= District Attorney.

Yes currently North American- and that helps

 

[Deleted member 296739]

You certainly are, and some make it to the front of the bench and give voice... it's a statistical record that Australia has as many ningnongs who opt for this performance as any other country on earth. Even though they have access, for free , to some terrific legal minds, oh no. up they get, ... it is a credit to duty solicitors all across Australia that those that try this silliness on don't often get as far as actually appearing in court to vent.

It is usually after careful and expert input that this point of view is headed off at the pass. ... if it wasn't for the guy or gal at the admin office at the court, AU courts would be full of it!..

Got it! Thank you

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Yes, but not barristers as such. They only get a client upon referral from the solicitor, the first lawyer. In minor matters the client won't need one. Legal Aid has rules about what it won't pay for, and the rules are not generous.

Thank you for explaining

 

[Trooper]

It’s intriguing. What is going on for the accused if the evidence is strong and the legal advice is congruent with the evidence, yet the accused is hellbent on sticking his heels in and flying relatively solo with what may be a very risky choice? Could be another path of intentional self destruction, even possibly consistent with his character and journey through life to date?

It 's all a bit murky, I cannot get where Stephenson is coming from, what logic is driving any of what he does. He has , in my amateur observation, been on the self destruct highway for some time, and this reprehensible murder was the outcome of a chartered journey.. .. maybe a sort of Last Hurrah kind of act.. you know how some criminals chose death by cop, well,. some choose obliteration by court... .

This is entirely my own opinion ... I have no special insight into how this bloke is thinking..

 

[SouthAussie]

It’s intriguing. What is going on for the accused if the evidence is strong and the legal advice is congruent with the evidence, yet the accused is hellbent on sticking his heels in and flying relatively solo with what may be a very risky choice? Could be another path of intentional self destruction, even possibly consistent with his character and journey through life to date?

One thing is for sure, so far he is not trying to go the "look at me now, I have short hair, glasses, dress really well, and couldn't possibly have done this crime" route. Like so many other alleged criminals do.

Of course, that could change by the time the trial rocks around.

imo

 

[JLZ]

One thing is for sure, so far he is not trying to go the "look at me now, I have short hair, glasses, dress really well, and couldn't possibly have done this crime" route. Like so many other alleged criminals do.

Of course, that could change by the time the trial rocks around.

imo

That would be premature. It will be interesting to see how he presents at trial.

(I'd want to wear a glorious wig, make them all feel shabby in their horsehair.)

 

[Rocket333]

One thing is for sure, so far he is not trying to go the "look at me now, I have short hair, glasses, dress really well, and couldn't possibly have done this crime" route. Like so many other alleged criminals do.

Of course, that could change by the time the trial rocks around.

imo

I’ll start. I think he’ll neaten up, tie the hair back and trim the beard, but not revert to the previous clean cut image of when he was charged. I think he’ll visually distance himself from who he was in March, and retain some of the new wilder look for preparation in case he has to endure a significant stint inside.

 

[JLZ]

Great, thanks. If Galbally has in fact exited the scene, what’s happened? Why would Patrick not understand and appreciate their value and that they are his best bet? What’s wrong here?

Perhaps he's like Justin Stein, drug user, liar, someone who can't tell the truth and can't see or doesn't care that everybody knows he's lying. Now PS tells the Galbally firm he couldn't have done this because he was with his mate, or something like that, and they're trying to get his alibi sorted and it's lie upon lie, they remonstrate, he sulks, eventually they're fed up with having their time wasted and sack him as a client. You can't represent someone you can't communicate with--can you? (ALL HYPOTHETICAL)

 

[Trooper]

I cannot resist bunging up my fave vid clip of a chap in Wangaratta, VIC, who was determined to represent himself and got into a terrific muddle, in the end, attempting to arrest the magistrate and police officers... a salutary lesson if ever there was one on the premise of assuming that courts are for amateurs....

sov cits who represented themselves in Australian courts - Search Videos

www.bing.com

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Perhaps he's like Justin Stein, drug user, liar, someone who can't tell the truth and can't see or doesn't care that everybody knows he's lying. Now PS tells the Galbally firm he couldn't have done this because he was with his mate, or something like that, and they're trying to get his alibi sorted and it's lie upon lie, they remonstrate, he sulks, eventually they're fed up with having their time wasted and sack him as a client. You can't represent someone you can't communicate with--can you? (ALL HYPOTHETICAL)

Maybe as well, he has the proof he didn't kill Samantha, so why pay those extra huge $$$ with the Galbally team ?

 

[Deleted member 296739]

I cannot resist bunging up my fave vid clip of a chap in Wangaratta, VIC, who was determined to represent himself and got into a terrific muddle, in the end, attempting to arrest the magistrate and police officers... a salutary lesson if ever there was one on the premise of assuming that courts are for amateurs....

sov cits who represented themselves in Australian courts - Search Videos

www.bing.com

Oh my oh my oh my goodness!

 

[Trooper]

Maybe as well, he has the proof he didn't kill Samantha, so why pay those extra huge $$$ with the Galbally team ?

Whatever he has, or says , or hopes, he still had to give the Magistrate , yesterday, his Notice of Alibi, he did not do so, and now has 14 days to produce one . Just because one doesn't pay, or does not want to be represented by a qualified legal rep does not excuse one from adherence to court procedure.. It is Stephenson that must catch up on court protocol, not the court bow to Stephenson's mental capacities..

Sadly, Stephenson will find that, like others before him, the court plows on regardless of Stephenson's point of view, and /or his feelings..

I simply reject the idea that Stephenson was the paying client of Galbally's. someone was paying, it was not Stephenson.

 

[Trooper]

Oh my oh my oh my goodness!

We do have 'em, Harriet. He would have by passed a fully qualified and , ( to him ) freely given solicitor to present his case in legal terms and in terms the judge would have accepted.. but no!!..