Well, this seems to be a remarkably good coincidence - I only come by here when time permits, around once a month or so, and it just so happens there are two (!) threads talking about criminal law. You couldn't make it up, etc.
Anyway. This is a bit more interesting (and important) than the theft thread, so I'll put my tuppence worth in here. (Bear in mind I'm away from my books, so all this is just off the top of my head.)
Boring jurisprudential point first: perjury doesn't apply here. There is a bit of debate over this point - some have argued that technically, every single person who enters a "not guilty" plea and then is found guilty has, by the letter of the law, committed perjury. However, the usual way of getting around this is to explain that (a) a plea isn't evidence entered under oath, and (b) perjury only applies to evidence given during the course of a trial, and the trial only takes place after - and because of - the plea (i.e. the plea itself isn't actually part of the trial, it's the final part of the process determining whether there's going to *be* a trial.) Anyway, I don't think anyone in this country has *ever* been prosecuted for perjury in relation to their *plea* in criminal proceedings.
I would be astonished, frankly, if any criminal proceedings could be brought against the solicitor. There is no such thing as "incitement to (commit) perjury" (indeed, for the last year and a half there hasn't been any such crime as "incitement to" almost anything, these things now being covered by "encouraging or assisting crime" under sections 44-46 the new Serious Crime Act 2007, ss.44-46); the most relevant offence you'd potentially be looking at by that line of argument would be perverting the course of justice, which is usually taken very more seriously. But this isn't that, either. On a really basic level, an offence is only committed where the conduct in question is unreasonable and deliberately meant to achieve the purpose of the offence (I'm paraphrasing really broadly, but this is the gist).
Anyway. Less technicalities and more practical help. Goddess: Mr Chris has already been through all the salient points - it's a massive hassle and almost impossible to get the conviction itself removed, the SRA is your best avenue for redress in terms of the advice that you state was given to your son, and an open complaint file with them *might* carry a tiny amount of weight with the Navy recruitment office, though I'd say right from the outset (based on nothing, just the way it looks) that such a prospect seems pretty unlikely.
From your description it does appear (purely on the face of it) that the advice your son was given *may* have been negligent, but - and I'm aware how pompous and condescending this is going to sound, unfortunately it's what will likely be going through the mind of any solicitor you approach - it's really important to be absolutely crystal clear on what you were advised and what exactly was said.
Prior to call, I worked as a paralegal in a firm of solicitors and saw a lot of complaints, and most of them were baseless - nearly all of them were situations where someone had fundamentally misunderstood the advice they were given, and where their account differed substantially from what the solicitor (or the barrister they'd employed) stated they had actually said. Quite often, the advice the solicitor was claimed to have given would be something no sane and competent solicitor would ever have said, and the fault stemmed from the client going off with the wrong impression. Not always, but almost always. In criminal cases in particular, a scared, bewildered defendant is quite capable of getting totally the wrong end of the stick and then in hindsight convincing themselves the wording used was a lot more specific in terms of what they believed they were being told to do. As Mr Chris said, therefore, if you make a complaint, be aware that the solicitor there should have made an attendance note, and it's entirely possible that that note won't tally at all with what you were told. Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not accusing you of being wrong, let alone making something up, but it will very likely be the default assumption you will have to battle against.
In broader terms, re: professionalism I can't really speak for solicitors, but barristers are entirely allowed to tell someone who insists they're not guilty to plead guilty anyway, provided that advice is reasonable (it may not sound as though this could ever be reasonable, but I have advised clients to do this in the past, usually because they are actually transparently obviously guilty, and/or they're so shifty/inconsistent/arsey/useless under questioning that a court will definitely find them guilty, and/or the evidence against them is overwhelming and they have nothing at all to counter it with other than saying they didn't do it (and without having any of the necessary details, it seems this might have been the situation in your son's case); in any of those situations, there's realistically just no point bothering to plead not guilty when you could save everyone's time and money by just pleading guilty at the earliest possible opportunity and getting an automatic discount on sentence, plus whatever other benefits might be there (like the ones you say the solicitor brought up, like not getting an adult record etc.) From what you say, other than the Navy recruitment part, if the solicitor's assumption was that he would definitely lose, then their advice wasn't necessarily negligent in any of those respects.
Now, the really bothersome bit is the solicitor's insistence that his Navy application wouldn't be affected - I can't see how any legal representative could possibly provide competent advice on Navy recruitment policy, unless they'd specifically researched it before meeting you and been assured this wouldn't be a problem. One of two things will have happened here: the solicitor made a note saying "I advised the client and his mum that this wouldn't affect his Navy application", in which case hello negligence, or the solicitor made a note which made no mention of you ever discussing the Navy (or even specifically saying she gave no such advice). I'd say my first stop would be to contact the solicitor and ask for a copy of their attendance note from the hearing, and see what happens from there.
|