interestrateripoff Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27238201 A judge has halted a serious fraud trial involving defendants who could not get representation following cuts to legal aid. Alex Cameron QC - the prime minister's brother - argued the trial could not go ahead because the state had "failed to provide" adequate representation. He was representing some of the defendants free of charge as they sought to get the trial halted. The judge said there was no prospect of a fair trial. Austerity strikes again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) In an unexpected development, a judge has halted a fraud trial becuase legal aid cuts make a fair trial impossible. Fraud trial halted amid legal aid row A judge has halted a serious fraud trial involving defendants who could not get representation following cuts to legal aid. Alex Cameron QC - the prime minister's brother - argued the trial could not go ahead because the state had "failed to provide" adequate representation. He was representing some of the defendants free of charge as they sought to get the trial halted. The judge said there was no prospect of a fair trial. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27238201 Edited May 1, 2014 by 1929crash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Mods please merge (or better still, delete IRRO's thread) as we've almost simultaneously posted on the same topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 We are toffs...give our profession free money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted May 1, 2014 Author Share Posted May 1, 2014 Copycat!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 wot, no heart attack, no too ill to try, just too stupid to argue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 The key bit is this of course. You did know that? Dave and Alex don't agree, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 We are toffs...give our profession free money. It's all about giving defendants a fair hearing. If Plod fit you up for something, do you want to argue personally against Treasury counsel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Heaven forbid people think the unthinkable and that lawyers should cut their rate to what the sheeple (fraudsters or not) can afford. That isn't how markets work! Edited May 1, 2014 by aSecureTenant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Heaven forbid people think the unthinkable and that lawyers should cut their rate to what the sheeple (fraudsters or not) can afford. That isn't how markets work! Its worse, the trial was about property fraud. Next time im in court, ill plead poverty. Edited May 1, 2014 by Bloo Loo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2buyornot2buy Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Replace the current adversarial system with an inquisitorial system. Cheaper, faster, simpler and nothing new. It's in a lawyers interest, using the current adversarial system to prolong the process. Junior counsel, senior counsel, experts, discovery, multiple solicitors for both sides. It all adds up. More time = more fees. Edited May 1, 2014 by 2buyornot2buy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corruption Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 It's all about giving defendants a fair hearing. If Plod fit you up for something, do you want to argue personally against Treasury counsel? Nah this is a way of getting his clients off, and he has succeeded. One can only presume this type of fraud was a public school boy sort of crime, the justice system doesnt want this ilk going to jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Nah this is a way of getting his clients off, and he has succeeded. One can only presume this type of fraud was a public school boy sort of crime, the justice system doesnt want this ilk going to jail. Has the Judge merely halted the trial, or has he abandoned it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corruption Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Has the Judge merely halted the trial, or has he abandoned it? It doesnt mention a retrial, so i am unsure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 It's all about giving defendants a fair hearing. If Plod fit you up for something, do you want to argue personally against Treasury counsel? You want everyone to pay for you ? Pay for your own lawyer....can't.....defend yourself. YOU ARE NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 It's the system looking after its own again. WTF do you expect when the Defendant is himself a slimy lawyer who knows how to play the system? Would it be better to go ahead then get it struck down on appeal when the Right Judge has been procured and the inconvenience of a jury dispensed with? If Hoogstraaten can pull off a classic Innocent Until Proven Broke, how much more so a true insider like Walker? And it's a nice headline for the parasites complaining of cuts to Millionaires Benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 You want everyone to pay for you ? Pay for your own lawyer....can't.....defend yourself. YOU ARE NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY Seriously? The cops would be fitting poor people up left, right and centre, and fair trials would be the preserve of the rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corruption Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Seriously? The cops would be fitting poor people up left, right and centre, and fair trials would be the preserve of the rich. SOunds like what we have had for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Seriously? The cops would be fitting poor people up left, right and centre, and fair trials would be the preserve of the rich. the prosecution present their evidence. Whatever your defence council is, you have to refute the evidence and explain it in court. shouldnt be too hard if you are innocent. if you are well fit up by plod, then no amount of silk is going to get you off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Putting the state beyond scrutiny The Government’s proposals include a Henry VIII clause that gives the Lord Chancellor the power to change the rules on what constitutes ‘the public interest’. As many of the cases are to be brought against the government then there could be a significant temptation to adopt a very narrow definition of the public interest, thereby reducing the number of protective cost orders, thereby reducing the number of Judicial Reviews. You can see that an unscrupulous politician seeking to stifle criticism may find this temptation overwhelming. You could also argue, if you wanted to be more dramatic about it, that it is the sort of move that is step on the road to tyranny, as politicians seek gradually to put the state beyond scrutiny. Yet it is the sort of obscure, technical, backroom change that few people notice or engage with. When they should be making a serious noise about it. http://www.alexsarchives.org/putting-the-state-beyond-scrutiny/ Reforms to the legal system are becoming real disturbing. I think we'll see a push to conciliar courts, like Star Chamber, because independent courts are too restrictive of government. Already been done in financial services - FCA, ombudsman, "independent" third parties like Clifford Chance for RBS. Edited May 1, 2014 by okaycuckoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corruption Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 As someone who has been in court a few times in his life id say legal aid lawyers are generally a f'en disgrace anyway and are only there for the easy money. How about solicitors accepting this and doing something about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Seriously? The cops would be fitting poor people up left, right and centre, and fair trials would be the preserve of the rich. Yes seriously, I'm sick of paying for every Tom Dick and Harry. My tax liability is 60%+ every year. Im happy to pay a fair level of taxation for the good of society but i'm being robbed to pay for the public sector, bankers and sponging useless pointless solicitors. Show me the bit of paper where I agree to pay to fund everyone else to have a decent life to the detriment of my own ? No wonder this country is going down the pan. Edited May 1, 2014 by TheCountOfNowhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corruption Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Yes seriously, I'm sick of paying for every Tom Dick and Harry. My tax liability is 60%+ every year. Im happy to pay a fair level of taxation for the good of society but i'm being robbed to pay for the public sector, bankers and sponging useless pointless solicitors. Show me the bit of paper where I agree to pay to fund everyone else to have a decent life to the detriment of my own ? No wonder this country is going down the pan. Birth certificate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 One can only presume this type of fraud was a public school boy sort of crime, the justice system doesnt want this ilk going to jail. Recently in Ireland some bankers were convicted of fraud but the Judge said it would not be right to jail them because the regulators failed to regulate them properly. So on that basis an Irish burglar could escape jail time because the police were not on hand to prevent his crime? This sucking up to the financial class has become endemic, too big to fail, too rich to jail is apparently the thinking here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Birth certificate? That's about right. Show me the copy that I signed...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.