I am still not at all in favour of offering any defence. Even if the court had accepted that petition submitted by some of my co-accused regarding defence, etc., I would not have defended myself.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
My applications submitted to the Tribunal regarding my interview during the hunger strike were misinterpreted, and it was published in the press that I was going to offer defence, though in reality I was never willing to offer any defence.
Believing a person deserves a defence is not the same as doing anything in your power to get him off scot-free.
I'm not a person who defends myself very often. I kind of let my actions speak for me.
The role of the defense is to be an advocate for their client, regardless of whether he did it or not, within the bounds of the law.
I never had any desire to defend myself, and never did I seriously think about it.
Everybody has a right to be defended, and every lawyer has a duty to defend people accused. And my office is to defend him, to discuss the accusation point by point, as I think this is a normal step in a democracy.
To be forced to defend oneself is an inherently undesirable position to be in. The focus shifts from ideas to the person conveying them.
I think I did very well against everyone who tried to defend me.
The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.
I will defend anyone as long as the client gives me total control of the case and pays up front.