Govt Austerity Halts Fraud Trial - By Pm's Brother ---- Merged

[oracle]

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.

so how on earth do you get a no-lose-no-fee torequamada?

[oracle]

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.

so we jail the regulators as well.

yes the bankers were dealing financial heroin

yes the policemen were bent and taking backhanders.

[R K]

Defendant has a right to the same funding as prosecution, but it's striking in our system that the decisions are made by the jury who aren't paid and have no legal training whatsoever.

Whole system needs to be rethought.

[1929crash]

You want everyone to pay for you ?

Pay for your own lawyer....can't.....defend yourself.

YOU ARE NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY

I'm sorry but all this anti-legal aid stuff smacks of 'guilty until proven innocent.'

We know from study of capital cases in the US where this leads to - lots of innnocent people being executed.

Edited May 1, 2014 by 1929crash

[oracle]

Defendant has a right to the same funding as prosecution, but it's striking in our system that the decisions are made by the jury who aren't paid and have no legal training whatsoever.

Whole system needs to be rethought.

it really shouldn't be that difficult for a jury with no legal training to conduct a fair trial.

tying everybody up in knots of completely pointless jargon and "in-jokes" is the crux of the problem.

should be very,very basic indeed.

ie murder...the intentional killing of an innocent party(doesn't really matter whether the motive was a greedy insurance heist or drug dealer with an axe to grind with someone stepping on his turf,

the various degrees of which can assume whether this is a pub brawl gone bad/ love triangle bitchfest etc or a real hard motive to just go and off someone.

ie domestic love triangle where hubby finds out wifey's been cheating and decides to shoot wifeys lover sort of comes under murder 2(intentional with mitigating circumstances under law because marriage contract (in law)says wifey should not be putting out until divorced)

treason....the act of causing death, or intention to cause death of members of the country at large(please note I do NOT use the word STATE, or aristocracy or kings,queens etc..this is a violation againts the inhabitants of a designated location)..by a foreign political body or indigenous patrons acting in concert/on behalf of said foreign political body.

[okaycuckoo]

it really shouldn't be that difficult for a jury with no legal training to conduct a fair trial.

tying everybody up in knots of completely pointless jargon and "in-jokes" is the crux of the problem.

should be very,very basic indeed.

ie murder...the intentional killing of an innocent party(doesn't really matter whether the motive was a greedy insurance heist or drug dealer with an axe to grind with someone stepping on his turf,

the various degrees of which can assume whether this is a pub brawl gone bad/ love triangle bitchfest etc or a real hard motive to just go and off someone.

ie domestic love triangle where hubby finds out wifey's been cheating and decides to shoot wifeys lover sort of comes under murder 2(intentional with mitigating circumstances under law because marriage contract (in law)says wifey should not be putting out until divorced)

treason....the act of causing death, or intention to cause death of members of the country at large(please note I do NOT use the word STATE, or aristocracy or kings,queens etc..this is a violation againts the inhabitants of a designated location)..by a foreign political body or indigenous patrons acting in concert/on behalf of said foreign political body.

I'm sure that would work in Legoland, where everything fits together as expected. But then again in Legoland there is no crime, no dishonesty.

Go sit in a court and see how efficient the process is.

[South Lorne]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27238201

Austerity strikes again.

...hah ..hah...reject change and cause chaos ...the fraud office whoever they may be should investigate .this is not democracy if people can mess up the process of law due to sour grapes over the level of fees....we all suffer ...government needs to get a grip ...fast...

[1929crash]

What the pay-for-your-own defence or defend yourself brigade are missing is that they are willing to pay for the prosecution, the judge, court staff, buildings and all the other paraphernalia of the criminal justice system, but draw the line at the defence. Is this because they really think that anyone fingered by the CPS is truly guilty?

The second point is that the court experience is intimidating enough if you have a lawyer - so how realistic is it to expect somebody to conduct their own defence? Some may be able, but the vast majority would be overwhelmed.

Thirdly, what about a situation where you need to hire an expert to refute an expert bought and paid for by the prosecution? Or I suppose defendants must now be their own DNA and forensic and medical or accountancy experts too.

And finally, what about knowledge of the law? Sometimes this is crucial but lay people are expected by the posters on this forum to have as much knowledge of the law and of legal procedures as professionals.

Fair trials were at the heart of Magna Carta - we can celebrate its 800th anniversary next year by the death of the right to representation ina court of law.

Edited May 1, 2014 by 1929crash

[1929crash]

...hah ..hah...reject change and cause chaos ...the fraud office whoever they may be should investigate .this is not democracy if people can mess up the process of law due to sour grapes over the level of fees....we all suffer ...government needs to get a grip ...fast...

In a market society is not forcing people to work for less than they are willing to accept a form of slavery?

[gf3]

Go sit in a court and see how efficient the process is.

I might take you up on that. What do you think I will find out?

[okaycuckoo]

I might take you up on that. What do you think I will find out?

First you'll find how difficult it is to get into the court. Most stuff is dealt with in private.

Then that nobody else bothers to spectate the administration of justice - you'll be alone, perhaps approached by someone inquiring why you're there, because your presence is exceptional.

Then that there's no real confrontation because most evidence is dealt with on paper. So as a spectator it's impossible for you to understand the case because the basic evidence is not made public in open court. This is all for the sake of efficiency - unless the efficient way is to have an open adminstration of justice.

I understand the doubts about staging a drama for the sake of truth, but this way you might as well get your decision from a government bureaucrat (outsourced).

Also I reckon the jury was the best institution we had (it's not entirely gone) - but legislators think judges know more about life, for some reason.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

What the pay-for-your-own defence or defend yourself brigade are missing is that they are willing to pay for the prosecution, the judge, court staff, buildings and all the other paraphernalia of the criminal justice system, but draw the line at the defence. Is this because they really think that anyone fingered by the CPS is truly guilty?

The second point is that the court experience is intimidating enough if you have a lawyer - so how realistic is it to expect somebody to conduct their own defence? Some may be able, but the vast majority would be overwhelmed.

Thirdly, what about a situation where you need to hire an expert to refute an expert bought and paid for by the prosecution? Or I suppose defendants must now be their own DNA and forensic and medical or accountancy experts too.

And finally, what about knowledge of the law? Sometimes this is crucial but lay people are expected by the posters on this forum to have as much knowledge of the law and of legal procedures as professionals.

Fair trials were at the heart of Magna Carta - we can celebrate its 800th anniversary next year by the death of the right to representation ina court of law.

yes, very good. you come out with all that to justify the THEFT of our iincome to massively over pay lawyers. oh, the irony.

tto me this looks to be just a political game because they want to keep their inflated public sector incomes. they are refusing to work for a massive some of money as opposed to a really massive some of money. lawyers, if you ask me, are not their to help you only themselves. the guaranteed winner when you go to court is the legal profession. their public sector hand outs shouldn't be cut, they should be stopped.

[South Lorne]

In a market society is not forcing people to work for less than they are willing to accept a form of slavery?

...no...in this case it's what the public purse can bear ..and as you should know ..that's not very much ..but there are always sharks that

demand more...

[TheCountOfNowhere]

...no...in this case it's what the public purse can bear ..and as you should know ..that's not very much ..but there are always sharks that

demand more...

isn't forcing us to work and taking 60% of the earnings and giving it to the unproductive where the real slavery is...?

[South Lorne]

isn't forcing us to work and taking 60% of the earnings and giving it to the unproductive where the real slavery is...?

...yes....absolutely....except for most work is not enforced ...and working while paying for the disabled and sick is part of a decent society....and there needs to be a net for those in-between jobs....

[TheCountOfNowhere]

...yes....absolutely....except for most work is not enforced ...and working while paying for the disabled and sick is part of a decent society....and there needs to be a net for those in-between jobs....

Are you serious...large chunks of society have no option other than to work.

Regarding the disabled and sick, I'm happy to pay for them to be looked after, but do I have to buy them cars and sky tv ?

Also, on a philosophical point, is prolonging the life of some serious sick and in pain people using expensive wonder drugs and highly paid doctors not a bit cruel and potentially open to abuse by drug companies and/or the recipient of funding ?

The NHS have ultimately not stopped 1 person from dying.

As a country, we need to get back to basics, the people forcefully taking your money needs to be reduced, it's too open to corruption and abuse.

[SarahBell]

In an unexpected development, a judge has halted a fraud trial becuase legal aid cuts make a fair trial impossible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27238201

Vested interests.

If there is no legal aid then less cases will get to court and some really well paid people will not have a job anymore.

What about justice?

Well make the court system cheaper and more efficient. And you do that by people being paid less.

[Bloo Loo]

Defendant has a right to the same funding as prosecution, but it's striking in our system that the decisions are made by the jury who aren't paid and have no legal training whatsoever.

Whole system needs to be rethought.

the great thing about a Jury is that it should be putting common sense to the situation.

The Prosecution have to present their evidence as to guilt...that would be motive, opportunity and ability.

The defence either produces evidence of total refute, like, an alibi (was somewhere else for example) or another, innocent explanation.

The defendants themselves are the source of this evidence...The Judge is supposed to cut through any jargon and ensure the trial is fair. However, in the case of a LTD Company, Lawyers are usually required and expected. but, at the end of the day, the defendants know exactly what they did.

[2buyornot2buy]

Sounds like you arguing a move towards a inquisitorial system is the only option.

[1929crash]

The state has no financial inhibitions when it comes to presenting their case and therefore it should not quibble about providing a level playing field for the defence, otherwise it is not fai and not just.

I think that all these ill-informed posters arguing for minimal amounts to be spent to keep people out of jail would have a Nigel Evans-like epiphany if their sorry asses were ever hauled through the criminal justice system.

And as for doing it yourself, you have no idea! Does anyone remember the Barry Bolsero fit-up over the murder of Jill Dando?

Edited May 2, 2014 by 1929crash

[2buyornot2buy]

I haven't had any experience with the CPS, obviously a entirely different beast to the PPS who I can only describe as utterly inept. I would have no problem what so ever appearing as a litigant in person.

The current system, as it stands overly complex and ludicrously expensive. It needs to be reformed.

[porca misèria]

What the pay-for-your-own defence or defend yourself brigade are missing is that they are willing to pay for the prosecution, the judge, court staff, buildings and all the other paraphernalia of the criminal justice system, but draw the line at the defence. Is this because they really think that anyone fingered by the CPS is truly guilty?

The second point is that the court experience is intimidating enough if you have a lawyer - so how realistic is it to expect somebody to conduct their own defence? Some may be able, but the vast majority would be overwhelmed.

Thirdly, what about a situation where you need to hire an expert to refute an expert bought and paid for by the prosecution? Or I suppose defendants must now be their own DNA and forensic and medical or accountancy experts too.

And finally, what about knowledge of the law? Sometimes this is crucial but lay people are expected by the posters on this forum to have as much knowledge of the law and of legal procedures as professionals.

Fair trials were at the heart of Magna Carta - we can celebrate its 800th anniversary next year by the death of the right to representation ina court of law.

How things have changed since, say, the McDonalds Two. Or innumerable cases that never hit the news ...

But here you're missing the crucial point: Dale Walker is himself a lawyer. This is another case of the Mafia closing ranks and protecting its own.

[Nationalist]

I've attended courts ranging from local mags to High Court at the RCJ. No one asks why are you here? They just assume you have business there, eg you could be a journalist. Hint: wear a suit and you can pretty much go anywhere, including in my case judge-only areas of the RCJ (Oops!). As for the papers, in the mags the case is generally clear without seeing papers, in the higher courts they do spend a lot of time with their heads down referring to paragraph numbers. In theory you can demand to see the papers because justice is open to the public (not family courts though). Journalists do this (make an application to the judge). I don't know what would happen if a lowly member of the public tried it.

I've bogged on this particular case. It has ramifications. It's the first use of live ammunition in the previous phoney war of lawyers vs Min of Justice.

[1929crash]

How things have changed since, say, the McDonalds Two. Or innumerable cases that never hit the news ...

But here you're missing the crucial point: Dale Walker is himself a lawyer. This is another case of the Mafia closing ranks and protecting its own.

The Macdonalds Two was a civil case. No prison time at the end of it, and the two were obviously competent.

[1929crash]

I've bogged on this particular case. It has ramifications. It's the first use of live ammunition in the previous phoney war of lawyers vs Min of Justice.

Good blog post.