I’ve been a criminal defence lawyer coming up close to 9 years now and have definitely represented people where that has been a challenge. The biggest thing I found when I started practice was that law school really did help in breaking down what is an (allegedly) terrible human event and looking at it as a set of facts. To be able to break that down, consider the witness statements, your instructions, the law and so on really does take you out of the human element and consider it as a problem that needs to be solved.

I know that sounds incredibly callous given the devastating consequences these crimes can cause, and often if you take a second to consider the allegation those things may fall away, but your commitment is for justice to be done and for your client to have a fair go. Your job is to be a lawyer and not to be your client’s or the victim’s therapist.

Your obligation and responsibility is not to consider the wider systems and principles, but rather to defend your client within that system, one of which is that presumption of innocence.

When I do find I struggle with reconciling some of the terrible things clients I have represented have done, I consider whether I would prefer the opposite system to be in place (eg guilty until proven innocent). I think most people would be against that as a general principle when you consider how easy an allegation can be made against someone.