What do you think?
Rate this book
Fake Law: The Truth About Justice in an Age of Lies
Could the courts really order the death of your innocent baby? Was there an illegal immigrant who couldn't be deported because he had a pet cat? Are unelected judges truly enemies of the people?
Most of us think the law is only relevant to criminals, if we even think of it at all. But the law touches every area of our lives: from intimate family matters to the biggest issues in our society.
Our unfamiliarity is dangerous because it makes us vulnerable to media spin, political lies and the kind of misinformation that frequently comes from other loud-mouthed amateurs and those with vested interests. This 'fake law' allows the powerful and the ignorant to corrupt justice without our knowledge - worse, we risk letting them make us complicit.
Thankfully, the Secret Barrister is back to reveal the stupidity, malice and incompetence behind many of the biggest legal stories of recent years. In Fake Law, the Secret Barrister debunks the lies and builds an hilarious, alarming and eye-opening defence against the abuse of our law, our rights and our democracy.
Most of us think the law is only relevant to criminals, if we even think of it at all. But the law touches every area of our lives: from intimate family matters to the biggest issues in our society.
Our unfamiliarity is dangerous because it makes us vulnerable to media spin, political lies and the kind of misinformation that frequently comes from other loud-mouthed amateurs and those with vested interests. This 'fake law' allows the powerful and the ignorant to corrupt justice without our knowledge - worse, we risk letting them make us complicit.
Thankfully, the Secret Barrister is back to reveal the stupidity, malice and incompetence behind many of the biggest legal stories of recent years. In Fake Law, the Secret Barrister debunks the lies and builds an hilarious, alarming and eye-opening defence against the abuse of our law, our rights and our democracy.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2020
787 people are currently reading
7017 people want to read
About the author
The Secret Barrister
13 books298 followersThe author, writing under the pseudonym of The Secret Barrister, is a junior barrister practising criminal law before the courts of England and Wales. The Secret Barrister is also a blogger who in 2016 and 2017 was named Independent Blogger of the Year at the Editorial Intelligence Comment Awards. As of the book's publication date in March 2018 the author had a substantial following on Twitter of nearly 88,000.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 435 reviews
November 2, 2020
What happens when the media and people have all decided someone is guilty and so any lawyer that might represent them should be cancelled? As happened with Ronald J. Sullivan in Harvard (he lost his tenured position, see below, in italics **). This is not about that case more than any other. This is what happens. You get more crime. You get more exploitation. You feed the media with fake news because essentially they will print anything that brings them viewers of their ads.
The first thing to note is that should you get arrested you should never, ever agree to take a polygraph test. See Arrest-Proof Yourself. They are not admissible as evidence because they aren't 100% accurate. They measure stress levels. Some people, feeling very intimidated, or perhaps they do know all about something but it was a brother or someone close, or just because they are jumpy, emotionally-unstable people cause the person administering the test to conclude they are lying or hiding something. Conversely, those with few emotions or no sense of guilt, psychopaths don't show the rise in stress level that would indicate their guilt. See You Have the Right to Remain Innocent
So you take a test, it says you are lying, so now the police take this as absolute 100% proof and that is their agenda and they will work to fit all evidence to it. Up to and including false confessions if they can get one. You've seen all the tv documentaries, you've read all the stories of people who spent years in prison, even death row, before it was proved (usually these days through dna) that they didn't do it. You can add to that police corruption, police wanting to clear up cases to make their own records look good for promotion and pay rises. See Among the Lowest of the Dead.
Let's say you have a high profile case, maybe a serial killer, maybe someone famous is involved, maybe someone who has committed a very interesting crime that the media will want to front-page for as long as it captures attention (on their ads). So you get band-wagonners. They think they can exploit the situation for their own gain.
I don't believe all the #Metoo stories. For example, sex with Weinstein was in exchange for fame, for becoming a film star. Some of them were really forced and some of them, going up to his bedroom suite in a hotel for what is essentially a job interview and knowing his reputation, knew exactly what might happen. Some of them did te famous and stayed quiet for a long time. Some of them didn't and got compensation and stayed quiet. Some of them were molested and raped without any prior knowledge that the man might do such things to them.
And now, some of them are coming forward and telling their stories and some of those are hopeful that since they didn't become rich and famous or because it never happened, they never even met the man but who will know that if it isn't brought up in court? And they are selling their stories to the media, truth or lies, that they might even get paid and some measure of fame that might lead to a reality show.
So a case goes to court unchallenged by any but the most junior of lawyers since high profile clever ones can't afford to screw up their careers taking it, and the police just load up the killer, the rapist, the burglar, the stalker, whatever, with all the other cases that he failed a polygraph on, or other evidence points towards him, or people came forward and said they were victims. And meanwhile the real killers, rapists, stalkers, burglars, traffikers and paedophiles are laughing and carrying on since some of their crimes have now been pinned on someone else.. And those who sought fame and money, their stories will never be tested in court, they stand no chance of publicly being called liars and having their reputations destroyed, which wouldn't in any case, hurt their chances of getting on a reality show.
____________________
Is the bible of this woke culture Animal Farm? ** "In 2019, Harvard Law School professor Ronald S. Sullivan Jr, a respected defence lawyer, found himself the subject of angry calls to resign from his faculty after agreeing to defend alleged sex offender Harvey Weinstein. His attempts to explain the importance of representing ‘unpopular defendants’ were drowned out by the rage of his students, whose petitions, marches and vandalism – Whose side are you on? was spray-painted on the faculty building – succeeded in evoking a shameful response from the university. Rather than reminding these bright young minds of the essential function of criminal defence, Harvard administrators promised a ‘climate review’ to investigate Professor Sullivan’s conduct. In May 2019, Harvard announced that his tenure would not be renewed."
In the UK, there was a case where lawyer Richard Egan was representing an unpopular client. The Daily Rag (aka Dailymail.co.uk) stoked the fires of abuse which culminated "in a letter marked with a swastika threatening to petrol-bomb his office and kill his children."
Take that to extremes and no person accused of anything that the populace thing they must be guilty of, MUST, all media evidence points to it, should be denied representation. There are countries like that, totalitarian ones. Do not speak out against whoever is running it and what that faction says people must believe and must not say. That was the USSR. That is China. That is what these people who go that Professor fired want? Yes, they do, for others, they see themselves as the ones making the rules and to be obeyed.
I fucking hate cancel culture. It is no longer trial by jury, it is trial by those so woke, no platform, no debate, and now no defence should be given to those they consider guilty of any crime, disrespect or just plain not agreeing with whatever trope they are espousing.
____________________
Warning If you are an American who believes that Christian values as defined by the Christian Defence Coalition or its offshoots like the Christian Legal Center , if you listen to Breibart News Network, if you believe that socialised medicine gives the State, as the sole provider, the 'right' to decide if children should live or die, if you believe that Stand Your Ground was a good law and preserved more human lives, if you believe that Britain is not a Christian nation and should be, if you believe the State has the right to own a woman's womb and decide if she should use contraception or have an abortion, then you are going to fucking hate this book.
SYG in the US
If you in any way supported anyone, lawyers, politicians, church, any organisation who campaigned to keep Terri Schiavo alive for all those years when it was obvious her own self had left the planet, that means you too. If you are British and like Nigel Farrage for any reason, you might not after reading this and it's nothing to do with Brexit.
____________________
Years ago, this guy, Tony Martin shot two burglars - as they were running away empty-handed. One died. He got charged with manslaughter and there was an outcry of support for him, he was only defending what was his. He said he had been woken by noises and come downstairs with his 12-bore pump action Winchester shotgun. This actually was half the truth. He had heard noises, by the time the men got in he was fully dressed and waiting in the breakfast room. He shot three times. And he did intend to kill them.
What came out in court but not in the media which played up the sympathetic angle, was that he lay in wait for them. The fatal shot was to the victim's back. (They were unarmed). He had repeatedly told his local farm group meetings that the best way to stop them, "shoot the bastards". He said he would 'blow the heads off' any who came into his home. He also said that criminals should be put in field and a machine gun turned on them.
He had previously shot at a man's vehicle who had tried to steal some apples from one of his trees and consequently lost his gun licence. So the gun he used to kill one man and injure another was illegal.
It doesn't sound like self defence any more. And the whole discussion in the book is on what is reasonable force and what if it is reasonable force (a man hit a burglar on the head just once, it fractured his skull) but the result is much greater than intended. In the UK these discussions are interesting.
In the US, 'stand your ground' is a licence to kill any intruder for any reason at all. Or not even an intruder, anyone you reasonably believe intends to harm or kill you. This is the usual police defence when they murder someone or other, especially minorities whom they are always certain were threatening them with (non-existent) guns.
In the UK, if you get prosecuted for shooting an intruder and you get a sympathetic jury, then you're acquitted, if you get one that isn't even with all facts the same and no one offering a different version of events, then you go to prison! Trial by media followed by trial by jury.
____________________
Why I read the book.
The Want to Read list dilemma
What makes a 10 star book? The writing, the information, the fact that the book has made me think to the extent it has changed my life. As this book has.
I'm in a ranting in reviews these days. Chicken and egg? Is it the books that inspire them or is it my mood?
The first thing to note is that should you get arrested you should never, ever agree to take a polygraph test. See Arrest-Proof Yourself. They are not admissible as evidence because they aren't 100% accurate. They measure stress levels. Some people, feeling very intimidated, or perhaps they do know all about something but it was a brother or someone close, or just because they are jumpy, emotionally-unstable people cause the person administering the test to conclude they are lying or hiding something. Conversely, those with few emotions or no sense of guilt, psychopaths don't show the rise in stress level that would indicate their guilt. See You Have the Right to Remain Innocent
So you take a test, it says you are lying, so now the police take this as absolute 100% proof and that is their agenda and they will work to fit all evidence to it. Up to and including false confessions if they can get one. You've seen all the tv documentaries, you've read all the stories of people who spent years in prison, even death row, before it was proved (usually these days through dna) that they didn't do it. You can add to that police corruption, police wanting to clear up cases to make their own records look good for promotion and pay rises. See Among the Lowest of the Dead.
Let's say you have a high profile case, maybe a serial killer, maybe someone famous is involved, maybe someone who has committed a very interesting crime that the media will want to front-page for as long as it captures attention (on their ads). So you get band-wagonners. They think they can exploit the situation for their own gain.
I don't believe all the #Metoo stories. For example, sex with Weinstein was in exchange for fame, for becoming a film star. Some of them were really forced and some of them, going up to his bedroom suite in a hotel for what is essentially a job interview and knowing his reputation, knew exactly what might happen. Some of them did te famous and stayed quiet for a long time. Some of them didn't and got compensation and stayed quiet. Some of them were molested and raped without any prior knowledge that the man might do such things to them.
And now, some of them are coming forward and telling their stories and some of those are hopeful that since they didn't become rich and famous or because it never happened, they never even met the man but who will know that if it isn't brought up in court? And they are selling their stories to the media, truth or lies, that they might even get paid and some measure of fame that might lead to a reality show.
So a case goes to court unchallenged by any but the most junior of lawyers since high profile clever ones can't afford to screw up their careers taking it, and the police just load up the killer, the rapist, the burglar, the stalker, whatever, with all the other cases that he failed a polygraph on, or other evidence points towards him, or people came forward and said they were victims. And meanwhile the real killers, rapists, stalkers, burglars, traffikers and paedophiles are laughing and carrying on since some of their crimes have now been pinned on someone else.. And those who sought fame and money, their stories will never be tested in court, they stand no chance of publicly being called liars and having their reputations destroyed, which wouldn't in any case, hurt their chances of getting on a reality show.
____________________
Is the bible of this woke culture Animal Farm? ** "In 2019, Harvard Law School professor Ronald S. Sullivan Jr, a respected defence lawyer, found himself the subject of angry calls to resign from his faculty after agreeing to defend alleged sex offender Harvey Weinstein. His attempts to explain the importance of representing ‘unpopular defendants’ were drowned out by the rage of his students, whose petitions, marches and vandalism – Whose side are you on? was spray-painted on the faculty building – succeeded in evoking a shameful response from the university. Rather than reminding these bright young minds of the essential function of criminal defence, Harvard administrators promised a ‘climate review’ to investigate Professor Sullivan’s conduct. In May 2019, Harvard announced that his tenure would not be renewed."
In the UK, there was a case where lawyer Richard Egan was representing an unpopular client. The Daily Rag (aka Dailymail.co.uk) stoked the fires of abuse which culminated "in a letter marked with a swastika threatening to petrol-bomb his office and kill his children."
Take that to extremes and no person accused of anything that the populace thing they must be guilty of, MUST, all media evidence points to it, should be denied representation. There are countries like that, totalitarian ones. Do not speak out against whoever is running it and what that faction says people must believe and must not say. That was the USSR. That is China. That is what these people who go that Professor fired want? Yes, they do, for others, they see themselves as the ones making the rules and to be obeyed.
I fucking hate cancel culture. It is no longer trial by jury, it is trial by those so woke, no platform, no debate, and now no defence should be given to those they consider guilty of any crime, disrespect or just plain not agreeing with whatever trope they are espousing.
____________________
Warning If you are an American who believes that Christian values as defined by the Christian Defence Coalition or its offshoots like the Christian Legal Center , if you listen to Breibart News Network, if you believe that socialised medicine gives the State, as the sole provider, the 'right' to decide if children should live or die, if you believe that Stand Your Ground was a good law and preserved more human lives, if you believe that Britain is not a Christian nation and should be, if you believe the State has the right to own a woman's womb and decide if she should use contraception or have an abortion, then you are going to fucking hate this book.
SYG in the US
If you in any way supported anyone, lawyers, politicians, church, any organisation who campaigned to keep Terri Schiavo alive for all those years when it was obvious her own self had left the planet, that means you too. If you are British and like Nigel Farrage for any reason, you might not after reading this and it's nothing to do with Brexit.
____________________
Years ago, this guy, Tony Martin shot two burglars - as they were running away empty-handed. One died. He got charged with manslaughter and there was an outcry of support for him, he was only defending what was his. He said he had been woken by noises and come downstairs with his 12-bore pump action Winchester shotgun. This actually was half the truth. He had heard noises, by the time the men got in he was fully dressed and waiting in the breakfast room. He shot three times. And he did intend to kill them.
What came out in court but not in the media which played up the sympathetic angle, was that he lay in wait for them. The fatal shot was to the victim's back. (They were unarmed). He had repeatedly told his local farm group meetings that the best way to stop them, "shoot the bastards". He said he would 'blow the heads off' any who came into his home. He also said that criminals should be put in field and a machine gun turned on them.
He had previously shot at a man's vehicle who had tried to steal some apples from one of his trees and consequently lost his gun licence. So the gun he used to kill one man and injure another was illegal.
It doesn't sound like self defence any more. And the whole discussion in the book is on what is reasonable force and what if it is reasonable force (a man hit a burglar on the head just once, it fractured his skull) but the result is much greater than intended. In the UK these discussions are interesting.
In the US, 'stand your ground' is a licence to kill any intruder for any reason at all. Or not even an intruder, anyone you reasonably believe intends to harm or kill you. This is the usual police defence when they murder someone or other, especially minorities whom they are always certain were threatening them with (non-existent) guns.
In the UK, if you get prosecuted for shooting an intruder and you get a sympathetic jury, then you're acquitted, if you get one that isn't even with all facts the same and no one offering a different version of events, then you go to prison! Trial by media followed by trial by jury.
____________________
Why I read the book.
The Want to Read list dilemma
What makes a 10 star book? The writing, the information, the fact that the book has made me think to the extent it has changed my life. As this book has.
I'm in a ranting in reviews these days. Chicken and egg? Is it the books that inspire them or is it my mood?
Read
October 1, 2020Essential and enraging. An informed look at the myths we're forcefed about the operation of the law (it's biased in favour of criminals! we pay far too much in legal aid!) and analyses not only the dreadful damage that's done to our rights and the body politic, but also takes a good look at who stands to gain from peddling these lies. Clue: it's not the general public. NB that while the current govt is rightly held up for its flagrant attack on human rights and access to justice, the previous Labour govt was just as guilty in its contempt for the rule of law.
A very important book, as was the first. We really need much better civic education in schools as a starting point, but since it's so much in the govt's interests to deny most people access to justice or a knowledge of their rights, I doubt we'll be getting that.
A very important book, as was the first. We really need much better civic education in schools as a starting point, but since it's so much in the govt's interests to deny most people access to justice or a knowledge of their rights, I doubt we'll be getting that.
April 9, 2020
This is a much-needed myth-busting book on the Commonwealth approach to law (UK centric, but I'm from Australia and it certainly has wide applicability here as well). I didn't enjoy 'The Secret Barrister' anywhere near as much as I enjoyed this book, and it really feels like the author has found their voice properly. There's a lot of really interesting cases covered in this book, and while I would have enjoyed some more personal anecdotes here and there, examining some of the big headlines of today was a fantastic approach. There's a lot to be said about the political attacks on the legislation that is designed to keep us safe from those who would prey on us, and this book states its case well. It's not easy to explain concepts like hearsay in layman's terms successfully, but the author manages this with ease and provides the reader with appropriate context. I was particularly fond of the section on anti-discrimination legislation and the socio-economic impacts of constraining the operation of the law. I look forward to reading more books in this vein from the author. I am also happy to say that this book plants them firmly on the 'Hated By The Daily Mail' list- a high honour indeed, and one to be thoroughly proud of.
July 25, 2022
3.5 Stars
English and Welsh criminal law distinguishes between 'complete' and 'partial' defences. A partial defence reduces culpability and the level of charge but a criminal offence has still been committed. 'Diminished responsibility' is an example of partial defence. The flaw is how we approach the issue of self-defence is located not in the law, not in its application by the justice system but in our common understanding and that understanding - or rather lack of it - can be more influential than the law itself.
The principle behind damages in tort is to restore the claimant to the position that they would have been in had they not been harmed by the actions of the tortfeasor. Contrary to the impression that may be gleaned from reports, courts and lawyers do not simply pluck figures out of the air, assessing damages ('quantum') as you may hear it called involved often aggressive arguments over the exact losses suffered or expected to be suffered. Since early medieval times, English law has provided for a system to compensation for citizens injured by the unlawful actions of others.
Weregild 'man price' installed a framework in which those harmed by the wrong of others would receive compensation. The consequences of being injured tend to be threefold:
1) Pain and suffering
2) Immediate financial loss, such as loss of earnings for time taken off work
3) Future financial loss, such as future loss of earnings or the cost of future care or treatment
The principle behind damages in tort is to restore the claimant to the position that they would have been in had they not been harmed by the action of the tortfeasor. Employment law is concerned with ensuring that in the workplace, your economic rights and human dignity are not infringed or exploited as a result of that imbalance of power. The point of rights is that they don't only apply to people we like. Rights - indeed the law - if they mean anything have to apply equally to all.
That's not to say that they don't have to be balanced against the rights of others or against the wider public interest, but we don't ride roughshod over them nor remove them entirely simply because a person is deemed 'undeserving'. A system of human rights which pleases those who rule over us is not a system of human rights at all; it is a system of unchecked executive power. Where a defendant pleads guilty, it means that he is accepting having committed a criminal offence in the way alleged by the prosecution. The legal aid is an essential pre-requisite to establish, fairly and safely that an accused individual is guilty of the charged alleged is ignored.
A common misconception is that the UK does not have a constitution. It does. What it lacks is a codified constitution: a single document setting out the rubrics and parameters of how our country is run. Instead, the rules are scattered throughout various Acts of Parliament, the common law and 'constitutional conventions' - unwritten but respected norms. Parliament can make or unmake any law it chooses. This is what we mean by parliamentary sovereignty. Secondary legislation - regulations made by government ministers exercising power granted to them by Acts of Parliament (primary legislation).
If we lose judicial independence, we lose the rule of law. The day a judge makes a binding decision affecting the rights and liberties of one of us, not on the legal and factual merits, but with a nervous glance to the press and public galleries or with a beady eye on political favor or punishment is the day that the decay in our democracy turns terminal.
Blog | YouTube | Instagram | Facebook | LinkedIn
English and Welsh criminal law distinguishes between 'complete' and 'partial' defences. A partial defence reduces culpability and the level of charge but a criminal offence has still been committed. 'Diminished responsibility' is an example of partial defence. The flaw is how we approach the issue of self-defence is located not in the law, not in its application by the justice system but in our common understanding and that understanding - or rather lack of it - can be more influential than the law itself.
The principle behind damages in tort is to restore the claimant to the position that they would have been in had they not been harmed by the actions of the tortfeasor. Contrary to the impression that may be gleaned from reports, courts and lawyers do not simply pluck figures out of the air, assessing damages ('quantum') as you may hear it called involved often aggressive arguments over the exact losses suffered or expected to be suffered. Since early medieval times, English law has provided for a system to compensation for citizens injured by the unlawful actions of others.
Weregild 'man price' installed a framework in which those harmed by the wrong of others would receive compensation. The consequences of being injured tend to be threefold:
1) Pain and suffering
2) Immediate financial loss, such as loss of earnings for time taken off work
3) Future financial loss, such as future loss of earnings or the cost of future care or treatment
The principle behind damages in tort is to restore the claimant to the position that they would have been in had they not been harmed by the action of the tortfeasor. Employment law is concerned with ensuring that in the workplace, your economic rights and human dignity are not infringed or exploited as a result of that imbalance of power. The point of rights is that they don't only apply to people we like. Rights - indeed the law - if they mean anything have to apply equally to all.
That's not to say that they don't have to be balanced against the rights of others or against the wider public interest, but we don't ride roughshod over them nor remove them entirely simply because a person is deemed 'undeserving'. A system of human rights which pleases those who rule over us is not a system of human rights at all; it is a system of unchecked executive power. Where a defendant pleads guilty, it means that he is accepting having committed a criminal offence in the way alleged by the prosecution. The legal aid is an essential pre-requisite to establish, fairly and safely that an accused individual is guilty of the charged alleged is ignored.
A common misconception is that the UK does not have a constitution. It does. What it lacks is a codified constitution: a single document setting out the rubrics and parameters of how our country is run. Instead, the rules are scattered throughout various Acts of Parliament, the common law and 'constitutional conventions' - unwritten but respected norms. Parliament can make or unmake any law it chooses. This is what we mean by parliamentary sovereignty. Secondary legislation - regulations made by government ministers exercising power granted to them by Acts of Parliament (primary legislation).
If we lose judicial independence, we lose the rule of law. The day a judge makes a binding decision affecting the rights and liberties of one of us, not on the legal and factual merits, but with a nervous glance to the press and public galleries or with a beady eye on political favor or punishment is the day that the decay in our democracy turns terminal.
Blog | YouTube | Instagram | Facebook | LinkedIn
September 11, 2021
Moral of the story, The Star, Daily Mirror and Daily Express should not be allowed to exist (110% behind this) and politicians fabricate everything regarding the law.
Interesting book and topic, I just found the writing a bit too lawyer like and less author like!
Interesting book and topic, I just found the writing a bit too lawyer like and less author like!
April 22, 2020
*NB publication has been delayed til August
I like to think I’m a critical thinker, I don’t just rely on the first page of google results for information, I never take Facebook posts or tweets at face value, and I’m sceptical of media headlines. In this day and age with information so freely available it should follow that the truth has no where to hide, but instead it increasingly feels as if truth is getting harder to find. It’s simplified to the point of meaninglessness by traditional media, ignored as inconvenient by politicians, twisted in favour of click bait tiles, and buried under social media pile-ons.
Nowhere is this more an issue than in the reporting on the law. “Fake Law”, the Secret Barrister writes, “[is the] distortion[s] of legal cases and judgments, spun and reformed for mass consumption.” Bias is implicit in communication, for which some allowances can be made, but a deliberate campaign to present misinformation as truth erodes society.
“Society only functions if we all abide by common, agreed rules. If we don’t understand our justice system, and if our comprehension is corrupted by misinformation, we can’t properly engage with arguments over its functioning. We can’t critically evaluate its performance, identify its flaws, propose sensible reform or even participate meaningfully in everyday conversation about the stories in the news. Our unfamiliarity also makes us vulnerable to those who would exploit the gaps in our knowledge to push ulterior agendas.”
The Secret Barrister supports his/her argument with examples from several different areas of law including Civil Compensation, Human Rights Law and Criminal Justice. He/she examines high profile cases to show how the media, politicians and/or special interest groups misunderstand or misinterpret the nuance of law in
Sometimes this could be blamed on ignorance, the law is complicated and at times convoluted, but too often it is deliberately reframed in order to manipulate or inflame debate to suit an agenda, from oversimplifying the medical issues pertaining to a dying child, to selectively reporting the facts of a home invasion, or promoting ‘exceptional’ cases as the norm to justify capping insurance claim amounts or cutting the budget of Legal Aid.
“It is bizarre that, for a nation so clearly susceptible to suspicion of ulterior motive, we disengage our critical faculties and swallow blindly the propaganda of billion-pound insurance companies. We lie back and allow ourselves to be enveloped in misinformed resentment towards our suffering neighbours receiving restitution, viewing it as a sore on, rather than a credit to, a civilised society.”
I found the range of examples fascinating to read about, some of which I was familiar with, some not. The cases are specific to the UK and its legal system (which is similar enough to the Australia’s that I understand the generalities) but ‘fake law’ is not a phenomenon unique to the UK. It is evident everywhere, under every regime, and has already had an impact on the integrity of legal process, which is particularly noticeable in country’s where the judicial system is unduly influenced by political stakeholders. The law is not perfect, something The Secret Barrister willingly admits, but its principals are worth defending.
“If we lose judicial independence, we lose the rule of law. The day a judge makes a binding decision affecting the rights and liberties of one of us, not on the legal and factual merits, but with a nervous glance to the press and public galleries, or with a beady eye on political favour or punishment, is the day that the decay in our democracy turns terminal.”
I found The Secret Barrister’s narrative to be very readable, the tone personable and the information is presented in a logical and accessible manner. There is a lot to explore, examine, and debate in Fake Law, and I’m happy to recommend you do.
I like to think I’m a critical thinker, I don’t just rely on the first page of google results for information, I never take Facebook posts or tweets at face value, and I’m sceptical of media headlines. In this day and age with information so freely available it should follow that the truth has no where to hide, but instead it increasingly feels as if truth is getting harder to find. It’s simplified to the point of meaninglessness by traditional media, ignored as inconvenient by politicians, twisted in favour of click bait tiles, and buried under social media pile-ons.
Nowhere is this more an issue than in the reporting on the law. “Fake Law”, the Secret Barrister writes, “[is the] distortion[s] of legal cases and judgments, spun and reformed for mass consumption.” Bias is implicit in communication, for which some allowances can be made, but a deliberate campaign to present misinformation as truth erodes society.
“Society only functions if we all abide by common, agreed rules. If we don’t understand our justice system, and if our comprehension is corrupted by misinformation, we can’t properly engage with arguments over its functioning. We can’t critically evaluate its performance, identify its flaws, propose sensible reform or even participate meaningfully in everyday conversation about the stories in the news. Our unfamiliarity also makes us vulnerable to those who would exploit the gaps in our knowledge to push ulterior agendas.”
The Secret Barrister supports his/her argument with examples from several different areas of law including Civil Compensation, Human Rights Law and Criminal Justice. He/she examines high profile cases to show how the media, politicians and/or special interest groups misunderstand or misinterpret the nuance of law in
Sometimes this could be blamed on ignorance, the law is complicated and at times convoluted, but too often it is deliberately reframed in order to manipulate or inflame debate to suit an agenda, from oversimplifying the medical issues pertaining to a dying child, to selectively reporting the facts of a home invasion, or promoting ‘exceptional’ cases as the norm to justify capping insurance claim amounts or cutting the budget of Legal Aid.
“It is bizarre that, for a nation so clearly susceptible to suspicion of ulterior motive, we disengage our critical faculties and swallow blindly the propaganda of billion-pound insurance companies. We lie back and allow ourselves to be enveloped in misinformed resentment towards our suffering neighbours receiving restitution, viewing it as a sore on, rather than a credit to, a civilised society.”
I found the range of examples fascinating to read about, some of which I was familiar with, some not. The cases are specific to the UK and its legal system (which is similar enough to the Australia’s that I understand the generalities) but ‘fake law’ is not a phenomenon unique to the UK. It is evident everywhere, under every regime, and has already had an impact on the integrity of legal process, which is particularly noticeable in country’s where the judicial system is unduly influenced by political stakeholders. The law is not perfect, something The Secret Barrister willingly admits, but its principals are worth defending.
“If we lose judicial independence, we lose the rule of law. The day a judge makes a binding decision affecting the rights and liberties of one of us, not on the legal and factual merits, but with a nervous glance to the press and public galleries, or with a beady eye on political favour or punishment, is the day that the decay in our democracy turns terminal.”
I found The Secret Barrister’s narrative to be very readable, the tone personable and the information is presented in a logical and accessible manner. There is a lot to explore, examine, and debate in Fake Law, and I’m happy to recommend you do.
May 19, 2025
Very interesting insights into the law. Perfect for anyone interested in the legal system.
September 4, 2020
The law is not an ass. It has been misrepresented over the decades by the press and politicians who wish to cement their power base and cover up their shortcomings.
The Secret Barrister's love of the law shines through this book, with a number of widely held beliefs about the law explained concisely and clearly, adding the much needed context necessary for the public to understand what the judgments are actually saying about the case in point.
The Secret Barrister's love of the law shines through this book, with a number of widely held beliefs about the law explained concisely and clearly, adding the much needed context necessary for the public to understand what the judgments are actually saying about the case in point.
September 28, 2020
To illustrate fake news, is it justifiable to describe the law in such a fashion. foreign defendants avoiding deportation by claiming in court their “right to family life” after they have “knocked up some local slapper”
The title of this book leads one to consider what is the relationship between Fake News and Fake Law and in some ways the comparisons can be canny. After all, ‘fake news’ is thought of as made up news, in fact, so much was the problem that the US President said: “We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!”. Then we have Fake Law, which is thought of as made up law as we go through legal judgements which are considered to be dishonest laws in the court of public opinion. The writer confronts this notion in his book whilst he attempts to fuse together fake news and fake law as being interlocking concepts.
The conversation in the early pages sets out the strangeness of the concept of law, which mysteriously aligns itself with the improbability of understanding what the law means even within context. The further conceptual understanding of law introduces us to a shadowy and sinister type of existence. So, when people refer to the law as ‘not fit for purpose’ or more curtly that the ‘law is an ass’, they are often referring to a law to have perfidious intensions.
Oliver Twist as the origin of the phrase penned in Dickens work where Mr Bumble was told that the law assumes that a wife follows the authority of the husband, he was so infuriated, he replied, “If the law supposes that,” said Mr Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass – a idiot.”
The book shows that the law indeed needs to be ‘supercharged’ so that the likes of Mr Bumble are not party to a law that is neither fit for purpose nor able to explain its purpose.
The writer takes on the challenge of explaining the law of self-defence. His explanation offers an insight on how politicians and the news media have an uneasy relationship on matters of popular opinion and how to address legal grievances held by victims of crime. Often the media win in this ‘tug of war’ because they able to shout the loudest especially, as it becomes the headline banner. For example, when burglars began suing victims of their crimes, it was David Cameron (former Prime Minister of Britain) who made a manifesto commitment declaring that the homeowner can use disproportionate force to tackle an intruder but cannot use grossly disproportionate force. This amended legislation became known as the “Batter the Burglar” law. In the meantime, this sat alongside what was going on in the US, where a change in similar legislation bought about “Stand your Ground Law”. Both acts were not brought into force to improve home security but to appease public opinion. This is when fake news begins to enter our conversation. The book frequently delves into a whirlpool of legal nonsense where one can easily lose their sense of direction especially, if you consider whether the law should protect the villain or the victim.
Helena Kennedy wrote that by changing the law to satisfy the victim can have unintended consequences. One such consequence, she wrote, is when the ‘victim’s movement’ campaigned for greater legal protections from the crimes committed by ‘villains’. This was seen as a trojan horse which allows the legal profession to attack the rights of defendants. This creates what is widely considered as the ‘illusion of inclusion’. Thus, separating the difference between what is objective law, and what consequently becomes ‘less objective’ in law.
The book continues by arguing that fake law creates an atmosphere of distrust and anger when there are external factions setting the agenda for the law to follow and to determine if, for example, a critically ill child should live or die. An early question in the book dominated this discussion where, (a) should public opinion alongside political dogma influence the life of death of the child or (b) should it be the opinion of the medical experts and the courts. How much weight can the law have when faced with such a dreadful dilemma argues the writer, it is here that fake law takes over the conversation. Although, it is also possible that the corruption of the process may finally attempt to change the decision which is notably influenced by external views opposed to those of the courts.
The debate scrutinises how fake law can become an emotive subject on child euthanasia and how political and public misbehaviour take advantage of this reaction by challenging unpopular legal judgements which brings into question the validity of our judicial process.
There are a number of misleading opinions which influences the reader towards gaining a bias view on the value of practicing ‘law by public consent’, (e.g.) such as those who wanted to kill the two 10 year old boys when they were found guilty of killing 2 year old James Berger in 1993. Public behaviour was vying for blood. which in part led to two 10 years children being judged in an adult court and not a juvenile court. Blake Morrison wrote in the Independent that James Bulger's murderers must get justice from an adult world. The anger of the adult world towards two 10 year old children reached a frenzied pitch which almost led to a public lynching.
Most of the middle chapters in the book describe procedural legal concepts, leaving the reader to decide what, how and where fake law is more prevalent. Parts of the book were beginning to show simplicity in its analysis of fake law, and I began to think if this book, although the earlier chapters were enlightening to read, began to reflect something like ‘Fake Law for Dummies’. It was at this point I began to skip large sections due to them being repetitive and intellectually tiresome.
However, Chapter 5 captures some important notions around Human Rights law, but it began to be confusing as the debate attempted to straddle itself between Fake Law and Fake News. The book does continue to express the relationship between these two interlocking ideals, but the concepts became confusing to put it mildly.
Whilst I was attempting to unravel some of the discussion points so that I could remain focussed on the key junctures within the debate, I found the writer beginning to stray towards bigoted expressions in order to illustrate behaviours towards a court decision. In any case, it was unacceptable when he attempted to simplify Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. This is where he argued, that the courts have to make unpopular decisions concerning foreigners committing crimes for which they should be but cannot be deported, specifically, when the defendants claim their “right to family life” after they have “knocked up some local slapper”.
While sexist jokes might seem ‘harmless’, they're actually not
Whilst one can appreciate how the law is manipulated to make it work for the defendant, and lawyers have been doing this since time began, so this is not a new phenomenon. The fact the writer has given this form of manipulation a new title “Fake Law” is no more fake today than it was a 100 years ago when lawyers did their best to get their client ‘off the hook’. It is true the law is manipulated to suit a particular purpose but to call it ‘fake’ illustrates that the law lies. the law can not lie. if it is not applied correctly, then it is the judicial system that has been corrupted to meet a specific purpose.
In conclusion, the term Fake Law is used in the title to sensationalise the book for improved sales rather genuinely attempting to tackle the concept for a better understanding of the law. The book is an interesting read but if you are looking for informative material to enlighten your thirst for law, then you should look elsewhere, Helena Kennedy’s work may not be a bad place to start.
After reading this work, I was still left simply asking the question, what is your point? All the writer has done is fused public opinion with political opinion. This work has primarily failed in its objective of trying to show that fake news and fake law are interlocked.
The title of this book leads one to consider what is the relationship between Fake News and Fake Law and in some ways the comparisons can be canny. After all, ‘fake news’ is thought of as made up news, in fact, so much was the problem that the US President said: “We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!”. Then we have Fake Law, which is thought of as made up law as we go through legal judgements which are considered to be dishonest laws in the court of public opinion. The writer confronts this notion in his book whilst he attempts to fuse together fake news and fake law as being interlocking concepts.
The conversation in the early pages sets out the strangeness of the concept of law, which mysteriously aligns itself with the improbability of understanding what the law means even within context. The further conceptual understanding of law introduces us to a shadowy and sinister type of existence. So, when people refer to the law as ‘not fit for purpose’ or more curtly that the ‘law is an ass’, they are often referring to a law to have perfidious intensions.
Oliver Twist as the origin of the phrase penned in Dickens work where Mr Bumble was told that the law assumes that a wife follows the authority of the husband, he was so infuriated, he replied, “If the law supposes that,” said Mr Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass – a idiot.”
The book shows that the law indeed needs to be ‘supercharged’ so that the likes of Mr Bumble are not party to a law that is neither fit for purpose nor able to explain its purpose.
The writer takes on the challenge of explaining the law of self-defence. His explanation offers an insight on how politicians and the news media have an uneasy relationship on matters of popular opinion and how to address legal grievances held by victims of crime. Often the media win in this ‘tug of war’ because they able to shout the loudest especially, as it becomes the headline banner. For example, when burglars began suing victims of their crimes, it was David Cameron (former Prime Minister of Britain) who made a manifesto commitment declaring that the homeowner can use disproportionate force to tackle an intruder but cannot use grossly disproportionate force. This amended legislation became known as the “Batter the Burglar” law. In the meantime, this sat alongside what was going on in the US, where a change in similar legislation bought about “Stand your Ground Law”. Both acts were not brought into force to improve home security but to appease public opinion. This is when fake news begins to enter our conversation. The book frequently delves into a whirlpool of legal nonsense where one can easily lose their sense of direction especially, if you consider whether the law should protect the villain or the victim.
Helena Kennedy wrote that by changing the law to satisfy the victim can have unintended consequences. One such consequence, she wrote, is when the ‘victim’s movement’ campaigned for greater legal protections from the crimes committed by ‘villains’. This was seen as a trojan horse which allows the legal profession to attack the rights of defendants. This creates what is widely considered as the ‘illusion of inclusion’. Thus, separating the difference between what is objective law, and what consequently becomes ‘less objective’ in law.
The book continues by arguing that fake law creates an atmosphere of distrust and anger when there are external factions setting the agenda for the law to follow and to determine if, for example, a critically ill child should live or die. An early question in the book dominated this discussion where, (a) should public opinion alongside political dogma influence the life of death of the child or (b) should it be the opinion of the medical experts and the courts. How much weight can the law have when faced with such a dreadful dilemma argues the writer, it is here that fake law takes over the conversation. Although, it is also possible that the corruption of the process may finally attempt to change the decision which is notably influenced by external views opposed to those of the courts.
The debate scrutinises how fake law can become an emotive subject on child euthanasia and how political and public misbehaviour take advantage of this reaction by challenging unpopular legal judgements which brings into question the validity of our judicial process.
There are a number of misleading opinions which influences the reader towards gaining a bias view on the value of practicing ‘law by public consent’, (e.g.) such as those who wanted to kill the two 10 year old boys when they were found guilty of killing 2 year old James Berger in 1993. Public behaviour was vying for blood. which in part led to two 10 years children being judged in an adult court and not a juvenile court. Blake Morrison wrote in the Independent that James Bulger's murderers must get justice from an adult world. The anger of the adult world towards two 10 year old children reached a frenzied pitch which almost led to a public lynching.
Most of the middle chapters in the book describe procedural legal concepts, leaving the reader to decide what, how and where fake law is more prevalent. Parts of the book were beginning to show simplicity in its analysis of fake law, and I began to think if this book, although the earlier chapters were enlightening to read, began to reflect something like ‘Fake Law for Dummies’. It was at this point I began to skip large sections due to them being repetitive and intellectually tiresome.
However, Chapter 5 captures some important notions around Human Rights law, but it began to be confusing as the debate attempted to straddle itself between Fake Law and Fake News. The book does continue to express the relationship between these two interlocking ideals, but the concepts became confusing to put it mildly.
Whilst I was attempting to unravel some of the discussion points so that I could remain focussed on the key junctures within the debate, I found the writer beginning to stray towards bigoted expressions in order to illustrate behaviours towards a court decision. In any case, it was unacceptable when he attempted to simplify Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. This is where he argued, that the courts have to make unpopular decisions concerning foreigners committing crimes for which they should be but cannot be deported, specifically, when the defendants claim their “right to family life” after they have “knocked up some local slapper”.
While sexist jokes might seem ‘harmless’, they're actually not
Whilst one can appreciate how the law is manipulated to make it work for the defendant, and lawyers have been doing this since time began, so this is not a new phenomenon. The fact the writer has given this form of manipulation a new title “Fake Law” is no more fake today than it was a 100 years ago when lawyers did their best to get their client ‘off the hook’. It is true the law is manipulated to suit a particular purpose but to call it ‘fake’ illustrates that the law lies. the law can not lie. if it is not applied correctly, then it is the judicial system that has been corrupted to meet a specific purpose.
In conclusion, the term Fake Law is used in the title to sensationalise the book for improved sales rather genuinely attempting to tackle the concept for a better understanding of the law. The book is an interesting read but if you are looking for informative material to enlighten your thirst for law, then you should look elsewhere, Helena Kennedy’s work may not be a bad place to start.
After reading this work, I was still left simply asking the question, what is your point? All the writer has done is fused public opinion with political opinion. This work has primarily failed in its objective of trying to show that fake news and fake law are interlocked.
December 16, 2020
Fake Law is one of those books that really should be compulsory reading in schools. Probably aspiring journalists and politicians should be required to pass an exam on it before being allowed to practice their chosen professions, particularly in England and Wales; the book makes no reference to Scotland, where we do things differently, and that's probably wise since The Secret Barrister practices in England and Wales and that's her area of expertise (we don't know whether TSB is male or female but rightly or wrongly I seem to hear the voice of a woman, and one from north of the Trent, probably north of the Mersey. I may be spectacularly wrong but I'm sticking with it until I know better).
The English Civil Law and its protections is often held up as one of the institutions to be proud of in principle (here in Scotland I'll reserve full judgment), but unlike other institutions like the NHS or the BBC, most people feel that involvement with the law is about other people, unsavoury types who aren't like them, so either through ignorance of how the law works or through the heart getting the better of the head, they resent its protections when it seems to be giving bad people benefits they don't deserve. Most people, of course, will pass their lives without ever being arrested and charged with an offence they didn't commit but some will find themselves on the wrong side of the law – it happens more often than we like to think – and when they do they may suddenly be grateful to have one of those lawyers who get murderers, rapists and paedophiles 'off the hook' on their side. And however much politicians and tabloids rail against huge amounts of Legal Aid being paid out to wrong'uns (who never actually see a penny of it as it is paid to the lawyers in less-than-generous remuneration for their work), those caught on the wrong foot should not have to sell their home to clear their name. The law should be available to all who need it. And don't get me started on the High Court and Supreme Court lawyers unfairly charged with "defying the people's will" over things like Brexit. Their only bias is towards the law as it stands (a bit of a mess to be honest, much of it inscribed in centuries of case law, but we pay them well for knowing their way around the labyrinth) and don't deserve the tabloid bile ("ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE") and consequent death threats piled on them for maintaining it.
The law is imperfect, and it certainly isn't in the business of being sentimental. It protects all those who act within it, even deeply-unpleasant toerags, but our freedom hinges on its consistent application to angels and devils alike. We all ought to understand a lot more about it, and that's where this book is a good start.
The English Civil Law and its protections is often held up as one of the institutions to be proud of in principle (here in Scotland I'll reserve full judgment), but unlike other institutions like the NHS or the BBC, most people feel that involvement with the law is about other people, unsavoury types who aren't like them, so either through ignorance of how the law works or through the heart getting the better of the head, they resent its protections when it seems to be giving bad people benefits they don't deserve. Most people, of course, will pass their lives without ever being arrested and charged with an offence they didn't commit but some will find themselves on the wrong side of the law – it happens more often than we like to think – and when they do they may suddenly be grateful to have one of those lawyers who get murderers, rapists and paedophiles 'off the hook' on their side. And however much politicians and tabloids rail against huge amounts of Legal Aid being paid out to wrong'uns (who never actually see a penny of it as it is paid to the lawyers in less-than-generous remuneration for their work), those caught on the wrong foot should not have to sell their home to clear their name. The law should be available to all who need it. And don't get me started on the High Court and Supreme Court lawyers unfairly charged with "defying the people's will" over things like Brexit. Their only bias is towards the law as it stands (a bit of a mess to be honest, much of it inscribed in centuries of case law, but we pay them well for knowing their way around the labyrinth) and don't deserve the tabloid bile ("ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE") and consequent death threats piled on them for maintaining it.
The law is imperfect, and it certainly isn't in the business of being sentimental. It protects all those who act within it, even deeply-unpleasant toerags, but our freedom hinges on its consistent application to angels and devils alike. We all ought to understand a lot more about it, and that's where this book is a good start.
January 21, 2021
"Surrender your rights."
Поредната книга, след чийто прочит стоя и се чудя дали най-лошото, което се е случвало на планетата ни, не сме ние всъщност? Този въпрос все повече се превръща в риторичен такъв...
Книгата се отнася изключително и изцяло относно правовата система в UK и как хората тук се превръщат във все по-големи мазохисти, но бих казала, че е чудесен пример как всъщност са нещата навсякъде. Масите са велика сила, която добре изманипулирана - може да помогне на избрана група хора да постигнат каквото си поискат, но е лесно да агресираш и разгневиш масите, трудно е да ги накараш после да се успокоят, което обикновено ухапва по дупето провокаторите и нещата тръгнат много зле. Както се случи с много лошо изпълнената игра на Дейвид Камерън относно извиването на EU ръцете. Всички знаем как завърши това и още не е свършило всъщност...
Като изключим цялостното депресиращо усещане, което тотално ме сдуха и отчая от живота, то идеята, че дори най-лошите случаи, в които наистина вярваш, че не е справедлив резултата и трябва да се направи повече - авторът е прав, че вместо да ламтим за по-сериозно наказание и по-лесен начин за постигането му, е по-добре да ламтим за подобряване на системата, така че да се намалят подобни прецеденти и да не се случи някой друг да избяга. Ако не друго, то, определено книгата постига целта си - да те образова, да те накара да видиш колко важно е да спазваш най-изконечните принципите на правовата си система и въобще на това да си човешко същество- по-добре 9 престъпници на свобода, отколкото един невинен в затвор. Показва и колко е важно това също да е част от образователната система (като цяло образователната система има нужда да бъде изтрита и сглобена наново, като говорим за нея) и как винаги трябва да подлагаш на съмнение какво четеш, да бъдеш много внимателен какви неща допускаш до feed-a си, защото искаме-не искаме ако нещо минава през очите ни, то ни влияе.
Абе, добра книга, наистина добра книга и определено ще изслушам и първата. :)
Поредната книга, след чийто прочит стоя и се чудя дали най-лошото, което се е случвало на планетата ни, не сме ние всъщност? Този въпрос все повече се превръща в риторичен такъв...
Книгата се отнася изключително и изцяло относно правовата система в UK и как хората тук се превръщат във все по-големи мазохисти, но бих казала, че е чудесен пример как всъщност са нещата навсякъде. Масите са велика сила, която добре изманипулирана - може да помогне на избрана група хора да постигнат каквото си поискат, но е лесно да агресираш и разгневиш масите, трудно е да ги накараш после да се успокоят, което обикновено ухапва по дупето провокаторите и нещата тръгнат много зле. Както се случи с много лошо изпълнената игра на Дейвид Камерън относно извиването на EU ръцете. Всички знаем как завърши това и още не е свършило всъщност...
Като изключим цялостното депресиращо усещане, което тотално ме сдуха и отчая от живота, то идеята, че дори най-лошите случаи, в които наистина вярваш, че не е справедлив резултата и трябва да се направи повече - авторът е прав, че вместо да ламтим за по-сериозно наказание и по-лесен начин за постигането му, е по-добре да ламтим за подобряване на системата, така че да се намалят подобни прецеденти и да не се случи някой друг да избяга. Ако не друго, то, определено книгата постига целта си - да те образова, да те накара да видиш колко важно е да спазваш най-изконечните принципите на правовата си система и въобще на това да си човешко същество- по-добре 9 престъпници на свобода, отколкото един невинен в затвор. Показва и колко е важно това също да е част от образователната система (като цяло образователната система има нужда да бъде изтрита и сглобена наново, като говорим за нея) и как винаги трябва да подлагаш на съмнение какво четеш, да бъдеш много внимателен какви неща допускаш до feed-a си, защото искаме-не искаме ако нещо минава през очите ни, то ни влияе.
Абе, добра книга, наистина добра книга и определено ще изслушам и първата. :)
July 20, 2025
I found Fake Law surprisingly funny, despite the serious subject matter. The Secret Barrister has a wonderful turn of phrase, and doesn’t hold back in criticising those who deserve it. But even without the laughs, Fake Law is a good read: it’s a crucial lesson in critical thinking and media literacy.
My full review of Fake Law can be found on Keeping Up With The Penguins.
My full review of Fake Law can be found on Keeping Up With The Penguins.
July 16, 2024
The book adeptly dismantles common misconceptions and myths surrounding the legal system, offering a stark look at how misinformation can distort public perception of justice. The Secret Barrister's blend of engaging anecdotes and rigorous analysis effectively highlights the complexities and flaws within the legal system, prompting readers to critically evaluate societal attitudes towards crime and punishment. While the book can be dense at times, its insights are invaluable for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of law and its impact on society.
September 10, 2024
Like reading the gov.uk site for 8 hours. Learnt a couple things
February 7, 2021
This is definitely one of my favourite books of 2021 so far. Regardless of whether you are in the legal field of not, this book by the Secret Barrister is worth a read!
The Secret Barrister highlights, both articulately and persuasively, the true limitations of the UK legal system alongside the meddling of the media and government to make matters worse ok certain occasions. Not only are the main areas of law covered to give a better understanding to the layman of stories that may have been misconstrued to the public, but clarification is given on how unbalanced legal cuts are to those who truly need legal representation. It is not to say that everything the media and government do are wrong but there are certain areas that need work and that is what this book focuses on.
I study and work in the legal field and this book does not fail to bring to light all the important issues that our legal system faces. It is easy to understand and should be something everyone in the UK, at the very least, should be reading.
The Secret Barrister highlights, both articulately and persuasively, the true limitations of the UK legal system alongside the meddling of the media and government to make matters worse ok certain occasions. Not only are the main areas of law covered to give a better understanding to the layman of stories that may have been misconstrued to the public, but clarification is given on how unbalanced legal cuts are to those who truly need legal representation. It is not to say that everything the media and government do are wrong but there are certain areas that need work and that is what this book focuses on.
I study and work in the legal field and this book does not fail to bring to light all the important issues that our legal system faces. It is easy to understand and should be something everyone in the UK, at the very least, should be reading.
August 21, 2021
This was an interesting book but it didn't live up to my expectations based on their previous book.
I found this book to be too jargon heavy and not all that interesting.
The main premise of this book was to dispell myths about law often shared in the news, media, social media and my members of government themselves.
While I found some of the chapters interesting, others weren't so. I often found myself getting bogged down by the technical language and dates, rather than following and absorbing the information itself.
I did learn a couple of things and definitely had some myths which I believed about law debunked which was great.
However, as a whole I didn't love this book as much as I wanted to.
If you are interested in law, I recommend this book but it doesn't make for light reading and took me a while to get through despite its small size
I found this book to be too jargon heavy and not all that interesting.
The main premise of this book was to dispell myths about law often shared in the news, media, social media and my members of government themselves.
While I found some of the chapters interesting, others weren't so. I often found myself getting bogged down by the technical language and dates, rather than following and absorbing the information itself.
I did learn a couple of things and definitely had some myths which I believed about law debunked which was great.
However, as a whole I didn't love this book as much as I wanted to.
If you are interested in law, I recommend this book but it doesn't make for light reading and took me a while to get through despite its small size
August 23, 2021
Unfortunately I lost the energy and willpower to finish this book. It starts off well enough and it is quite interesting to learn about how the press influences public opinion on emotive subjects. This includes things such as courts ruling on withdrawal of life support or refusing to allow people to be deported as they have a pet cat. You find out some of the underlying truths of these cases but then it all gets very repetitive. The language is quite technical from the outset and about halfway through the book, my eyes simply refused to read any more.
May 22, 2023
It’s giving ….
“ I have a lot of racist and xenophobic things to say and my family won’t talk with me about it at dinner anymore…”
Also random details about European Laws.
“ I have a lot of racist and xenophobic things to say and my family won’t talk with me about it at dinner anymore…”
Also random details about European Laws.
February 27, 2024
A stirring defence of the legal system in England and Wales, requiring some pretty harsh judgements (all probably well deserved) on politicians and the media, whose ignorance and/or malice has indeed created all sorts of unnecessary outrage and even some real-world disastrous legislative and procedural consequences. For instance, the tightening of restrictions over the last decade on who can claim legal aid are truly a moral and political scandal, but not a popular cause either with the right-wing tabloids or the left-wing SJWs (probably because they really are class and material problems, nothing directly to do with fashionable luxury virtue-signalling) so only folk like the Secret Barrister are making the case :-(
It’s clear even when it’s dealing with complicated matters, and a few errant details (e.g. Ronald Sullivan, a lawyer who was targeted for representing an unpopular defendant, did not in fact lose his tenured professorial position at Harvard, merely his position as Dean) do not detract from the force of the arguments and the attractiveness of the overall position.
And I give it five stars even though the chapter on medical issues examined in detail two cases that at the time I was “on the other side” of. The SB made a very good argument (though he did leave a few things out, and gave a bit too much weight to what American senators said about the cases, so I am not 100% persuaded) and gave me serious pause for thought. A book that can powerfully challenge my prejudices must be a good one.
It’s clear even when it’s dealing with complicated matters, and a few errant details (e.g. Ronald Sullivan, a lawyer who was targeted for representing an unpopular defendant, did not in fact lose his tenured professorial position at Harvard, merely his position as Dean) do not detract from the force of the arguments and the attractiveness of the overall position.
And I give it five stars even though the chapter on medical issues examined in detail two cases that at the time I was “on the other side” of. The SB made a very good argument (though he did leave a few things out, and gave a bit too much weight to what American senators said about the cases, so I am not 100% persuaded) and gave me serious pause for thought. A book that can powerfully challenge my prejudices must be a good one.
February 3, 2022
Just so good. Felt like I was being pulled back into my law school days but with cases that have happened in the last 5 years (quite frankly alarming that so many major ones were in my hometown???). Jack Hawkins remains to be an incredible narrator, exacly matching the witty and often exasperated tone of the author. I genuinely believe this book and TSB first ought to be required reading for law students from now on.
August 26, 2020
I'm fascinated by true crime and legal matters and jumped at the change to request Fake Law through the publisher, who provided me with a free copy to read and review.
This is a look at multiple UK cases which, reading in Australia, are reflected in case within our justice system. Where people surmise the law is clean cut, and did they or didn't they - this book gives all the shades along the spectrum showing why things are not always clear cut.
For example the book looks at provocation and a number of cases of self-defence. I can think of one off the top of my head locally where a man was charged following chasing another man who broke into his home and affected a citizen's arrest 330m from his home. Immediately following the arrest the arrested man died and there was a trial where it was claimed the home owner acted in self-defence and did not contribute to the man's death. In this case the jury returned unanimous verdicts of not guilty to the crimes of murder and manslaughter of the deceased.
The cases in Fake Law provided a whole different perspective on cases with similar presentations but different outcomes. Absolutely fascinating, and along with a few other true crime books I have read lately (including one form a current forensic scientist) I am intrigued by the actualities of the justice system vs the theoretical.
Thanks to Macmillan Australia for providing me this copy to read and review. I think I'll be quoting these cases for a while.
This is a look at multiple UK cases which, reading in Australia, are reflected in case within our justice system. Where people surmise the law is clean cut, and did they or didn't they - this book gives all the shades along the spectrum showing why things are not always clear cut.
For example the book looks at provocation and a number of cases of self-defence. I can think of one off the top of my head locally where a man was charged following chasing another man who broke into his home and affected a citizen's arrest 330m from his home. Immediately following the arrest the arrested man died and there was a trial where it was claimed the home owner acted in self-defence and did not contribute to the man's death. In this case the jury returned unanimous verdicts of not guilty to the crimes of murder and manslaughter of the deceased.
The cases in Fake Law provided a whole different perspective on cases with similar presentations but different outcomes. Absolutely fascinating, and along with a few other true crime books I have read lately (including one form a current forensic scientist) I am intrigued by the actualities of the justice system vs the theoretical.
Thanks to Macmillan Australia for providing me this copy to read and review. I think I'll be quoting these cases for a while.
November 22, 2020
One of the good guys: gathering the evidence and exposing the lies we're told in the service of tyranny. Who benefits from the deceit? They do. Who pays? We do.
When they come for you, as they will, pray you have The Secret Barrister arguing your case.
When they come for you, as they will, pray you have The Secret Barrister arguing your case.
March 19, 2023
Good, but doesn't quite match up to the original secret barrister book. Takes a look at famous public cases, and how they have been mishandled in reporting by the media. Slightly more familiar than criminal law which was completely new to me, but still enlightening.
March 5, 2023
took me an age to finish this but not for lack of being engaging/informative. It really just illustrates the ignorance, wilful or otherwise, of mainstream media and political figures vis-à-vis the justice system and the rule of law more generally. Well thought out with key practical examples of how legal myths are being perpetuated.
January 15, 2024
I feel like this should be mandatory reading for everyone in the UK, put it on the school curriculum.
July 3, 2025
Such an important book detailing the fourth estate's capacity to perpetuate misinformation and harmful narratives in a legal context.
So interesting to read about it in a British context where sensationalist journalism is far more rampant. NZ - although perhaps better insulated - is certainly not immune and I will be approaching legal journalism with a much more critical eye now.
I found the personal injury chapter and discussion of 'compensation culture' to be so fascinating, especially when considering our ACC scheme here!
So interesting to read about it in a British context where sensationalist journalism is far more rampant. NZ - although perhaps better insulated - is certainly not immune and I will be approaching legal journalism with a much more critical eye now.
I found the personal injury chapter and discussion of 'compensation culture' to be so fascinating, especially when considering our ACC scheme here!
July 30, 2022
A brilliant exposition of how the poor framing of legal issues in main stream media can drastically alter perceptions
Written clearly, for those with no legal knowledge to be able to grasp but with enough depth and insight (and wittiness) for all to enjoy
Only lost a star because I feel it took me forever to read despite not being overly long
Written clearly, for those with no legal knowledge to be able to grasp but with enough depth and insight (and wittiness) for all to enjoy
Only lost a star because I feel it took me forever to read despite not being overly long
February 17, 2021
A very interesting read, it puts right all those things that you thought you knew about the law, but didn't and tells some truly shocking facts about how politicians bend the facts to suit their own agenda.
July 27, 2021
This book should be compulsory reading before anyone is allowed to read, watch or listen to any media coverage of legal proceedings. Maybe then we would get less sensationalist media coverage as well as a better informed public .... that in turn would reduce a lot of the "rubbish" that is then posted onto social media!
Great book, wish I could have the Secret Barrister on hand whenever a big case hits the press.
Great book, wish I could have the Secret Barrister on hand whenever a big case hits the press.
August 7, 2022
Learnt lots of interesting and relevant things about the justice system. I think a fair few people would be very embarrassed if they realised how much trash they spout but here we are 🙃
Displaying 1 - 30 of 435 reviews