And when the witness has answered a question and the defendant wishes to ask them a followup, the court has to wait for him to write it down?
I've never heard of this before. I wonder what the problem is.
As for the self-representation, we know two things here. The first is that the existing KC and junior have withdrawn. The second is that MG has chosen to represent himself. The second implies the first but it's not necessarily the reason for the first.
The main reasons I have experienced for withdrawal are as follows:
1) the defendant wishes to say in court something that they are perfectly allowed to say when representing themselves but a barrister isn't allowed to say on their behalf, such as
1a) that the crown offered a plea bargain (contrary to what many say, this happens a lot in England, especially when there are multiple indictments) or
1b) that a jury can nullify even against a judge's instructions;
2) the barrister has got right up the defendant's nose;
3) continuing to represent on a not guilty plea would compromise the barrister professionally, which usually means the defendant has privately admitted committing the offence.
Note that MG is now entitled to ask CM questions. As far as I am aware, she hasn't been discharged and is still in the witness box.
Edit
Has the crown finished cross-examining CM? Indeed did they cross-examine her at all? The normal order is for the crown to cross-examine before a co-defendant does.
I asked AI how these factors might apply in the case of a sovereign citizen. I suspect this may be the case:
A defendant identifying as a sovereign citizen could significantly influence the reasons for a KC junior withdrawing and the defendant's subsequent decision to represent themselves. Here's how:
* Defendant Wishing to Say Something Inadmissible for a Barrister:
* 1a) Plea Bargains: A sovereign citizen might believe that the Crown's offer of a plea bargain is evidence of the illegitimacy or fraudulent nature of the legal system. They might want to bring this up in court not just to inform the jury, but as part of their broader argument that the court lacks jurisdiction or authority over them. A barrister, bound by rules of evidence and professional conduct, would be unable to present such arguments if they are legally irrelevant or inadmissible.
* 1b) Jury Nullification: Sovereign citizens often hold beliefs that they are not bound by the laws of the state and that juries have a right (and perhaps a duty) to disregard laws they believe are unjust. A sovereign citizen defendant might explicitly try to persuade the jury to nullify based on these beliefs, regardless of the judge's instructions. A barrister could never ethically or legally advocate for jury nullification.
The fundamental clash here is between the sovereign citizen's belief system, which often rejects the legitimacy of the state and its laws, and the barrister's duty to operate within that legal framework. The barrister would likely find the defendant's desired lines of argument to be legally nonsensical, potentially harmful to their case within the established legal system, and professionally unethical to pursue.
* Barrister Getting "Right Up the Defendant's Nose":
* This is highly probable with a sovereign citizen client. Their core beliefs often involve distrust and rejection of legal professionals, whom they might see as agents of an illegitimate system. They are likely to be highly resistant to a barrister's advice, legal strategies, and understanding of the law. The barrister, in turn, would likely find the client's beliefs and proposed "legal" arguments to be baseless and frustrating. This fundamental incompatibility in worldview and approach would make a working relationship extremely difficult, if not impossible, leading to the barrister's likely desire to withdraw.
* Continuing to Represent Compromising the Barrister Professionally (Defendant's Confession):
* This becomes even more complex with a sovereign citizen. Even if the defendant confesses to the barrister in private, their understanding of "guilt" and the legitimacy of the charges might be so fundamentally different from the legal definition that it wouldn't necessarily trigger the same ethical obligations for the barrister in the traditional sense.
* However, if the sovereign citizen insists on presenting a defense based on demonstrably false factual claims (even if rooted in their belief system), the barrister would still be professionally compromised by actively participating in such a presentation. The barrister's duty is to the court as well as to the client, and they cannot knowingly mislead the court.
* Furthermore, a sovereign citizen might demand that the barrister present pseudolegal arguments or engage in disruptive courtroom tactics that are completely unacceptable and professionally damaging for the barrister.
In conclusion, the fact that the defendant is a sovereign citizen significantly increases the likelihood of all three reasons for withdrawal being relevant. Their rejection of the legal system's legitimacy, their desire to voice legally unsound arguments, and the high probability of a breakdown in the client-barrister relationship due to irreconcilable differences in worldview make it very challenging for a barrister to ethically and effectively represent them. The barrister would likely conclude that continuing representation is professionally untenable. The defendant, in turn, might see self-representation as the only way to voice their "truth" and challenge a system they believe is illegitimate.
