Right and Wrong
Like most people I've been agog at the amazing fall from grace of the former government energy minister - Chris Huhne - who has now admitted 'perverting the course of justice' by persuading his wife (at the time) to accept his punishment for driving over the speed limit.
But the most worrying part of the whole shameful episode - which included various people lying, cheating and deceiving over time - was not the grubby behaviour of Chris Huhne.
Not even the fact that this MP, former MEP and government minister managed to spin things out over the two years since he was charged - all the while knowing full well that he was 'bang to rights'.
No the thing that stuck in my craw was the revelation that Chris Huhne's lawyers have been trying desperately in recent months - to have the case thrown out - and prevent it from ever being heard in court.
Apparently this was down to the fact that the evidence against Huhne was 'thin' - because there were only two witnesses to the events at the time - Chris Huhne and his by now estranged wife, Vicky Price.
Which is not of course to say that Chris Huhne didn't act very badly by getting someone else to accept his punishment - all it says is that the prosecution would have a difficult job proving their case given the lack of independent witnesses.
Yet it seems pretty cynical behaviour to me that defence lawyers take the view that what's most important is that the prosecution have to prove their case - when they should be advising their clients, first and foremost, to tell the truth.
What is the world and the legal profession coming to when clients and their lawyers sit tight - arguing for a technical knock-out - or simply refuse to say anything - when they should have a duty to co-operate with the courts instead of lying and dissembling.
Otherwise the law is in danger of becoming a cynical game - a challenge for highly paid adversaries in the legal profession - instead of a search for the truth and justice.
Just imagine the far more serious consequences of this kind of behaviour when people are charged with murder or rape - is the job of a defence lawyer to get his client off almost at any cost - or do they have a duty to encourage their clients to give an honest account of their actions?
Maybe there's more to this than meets the eye - maybe Huhne did not come clean with his lawyers until very late in the day - although why would they not simply ask him straight out: 'did you do it or not?'
Seems to me that things have come to a pretty pass if defence lawyers are not really interested in whether their client is telling the truth - in their guilt or innocence - but only in whether the 'other side' can prove their case in a court of law.
