Below is a media release from the President of the New Zealand Law Society commenting on the defence lawyer's role. The comments are made in light of the recent criticism of Judith Ablett Kerr QC for acting as the defence counsel for Clayton Weatherston.

Media release - for immediate use Wednesday 12 August 2009

Anger at Ablett Kerr misplaced

Anger directed at Judith Ablett Kerr QC for defending Clayton Weatherston is misplaced and indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the lawyer’s role, New Zealand Law Society President John Marshall QC says.

John Marshall made his comments after media reports of hate mail, abuse and death threats directed at the defence lawyer and damage to her property.

"This abusive and threatening behaviour directed against a lawyer who is simply doing her job is totally unacceptable and the Law Society regards it very seriously," he said.

"It is natural that people are angry and distressed by such cases but they are quite wrong to identify the lawyer with the client’s actions.

"Those who question why Judith Ablett Kerr ‘chose’ to defend Clayton Weatherston need to realise that a lawyer actually has no choice in the matter. The general rule is that lawyers must accept the clients who ask them to act for them.

"Under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, which is based on international human rights agreements, people arrested and charged have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer, and the right to present a defence. These are fundamental rights that are basic to the rule of law. In order for these rights to be effective, lawyers must act for people regardless of the nature of the person or the case.

"Under their governing legislation, lawyers have a fundamental obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand.

"More precisely, under their professional rules, a lawyer must not, without good cause, refuse to accept instructions from any prospective client for services within that lawyer’s fields of practice.

"The personal attributes of the prospective client and the merits of the matter upon which the lawyer is consulted are not considered good cause for refusing to accept instructions.

"The lawyer is also, subject to an overriding duty to the court, obliged to follow the client’s instructions," John Marshall said.

"The rules say that as far as possible, the defence lawyer must protect the client from being convicted and must put the prosecution to proof in obtaining a conviction, regardless of any personal belief or opinion of the lawyer as to the client’s guilt or innocence.

"The lawyer must also put before the court any proper defence in accordance with the client’s instructions.

"When you realise that these are the rules, then you can see that Judith Ablett Kerr was doing the job she was required to do and it is absolutely unacceptable that she is subject to the sort of abuse that has been directed at her," John Marshall said.

ENDS

© Scoop Media