The Sliding Scale of Justice.
Like Premiership footballers, or Formula One racing drivers, successful solicitors and barristers aren’t enamoured with the idea of working for minimum wages. The best charge more.
As a society, we ensured that the poorest and most vulnerable had access to the best legal advice and support when the State threatened criminal sanction by subsidising that advice through the legal aid fund.
The list of ‘household name’ top level barristers available to you through the legal aid system has shrunk since Chris Grayling took a scythe to the legal aid rates. Would you expect Wayne Rooney to continue to score goals for £200 a week, just because you are a Manchester United fan – or to walk off into the sunset where his superior skills are valued in a suitably superior manner?
The consequences of this are obvious – even if you are entitled to legal aid, and only a very narrow band of the most vulnerable are, you won’t be accessing the finest legal brains unless you happen to chance upon a particularly philanthropic senior member of the legal profession.
The alternative is to mortgage your home and soul, and pay for legal representation yourself – it can be incredibly expensive. Michael Le Vell is reputed to have paid £250,000 to prove that he was the victim of a false allegation. There is no redress from the State. No apology.
Today, April 13th 2015, Chris Grayling has surreptitiously added a new layer of expense. Sneaked in at the end of last month, under cover of election fever, he has used his devolved powers to decree that not only must you pay to be represented against the might of the State, but if convicted you must pay to ‘use’ (sic) the facilities of the State such as the judicial system.
We abandoned capital punishment because we recognised that people could not only be falsely accused, but falsely prosecuted and falsely convicted. Being reburied in St Patrick’s Cemetery in Leytonstone and granted a posthumous pardon would have been of scant consolation to Timothy Evans.
Today, he would have had the indignity of paying £1,200 for having the nerve to plead ‘not guilty’ in a Crown Court to add to his woes. He could have pleaded guilty in a magistrates court for a mere £150…
The majority of cases in our criminal courts are not those against the wealthy and celebrated – despite the media attention that is given to these cases. The majority of cases are against the poorest and most vulnerable, many are ill-educated and close to unemployable. A high proportion are in receipt of benefits. Offences like dropping litter or drinking alcohol in a protected zone will immediately receive an additional £150 court fee. These charges will not be means tested, and if unpaid will result in – guess what? – imprisonment. They will apply after the current ‘victim surcharge’, prosecution costs and fines.
They will deter individuals from pleading ‘not guilty’ and demanding ‘judgement by their peers’ in the Crown court. There is no discretion for the court to reduce or remit the fee if a defendant finds himself in court for the first time, or merely prosecuted on a technicality.
We have permitted a perverse system of justice where the rights enshrined in the Magna Carta aren’t absolute but are enjoyed on a sliding scale according to your means.
If the position is that those convicted of offences should pay towards the costs involved in bringing them to justice, then justice and fairness would suggest that those wrongly prosecuted should be entitled to recover their costs in defending themselves following an acquittal, a right lost by the vast majority of defendants in 2012.
Where was it said ‘To none shall we sell justice’? Oh yes, Magna Carta.
In the year of the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, we have, through this, forfeited our right to criticise other countries and their justice systems, ours is now based on justice for the highest bidder.
- Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 9:17 am -
Not a bad idea in principle and all part of the Americanisation process. There’s a lot of low-lifes who probably plead not guilty just to be awkward and drag matters out. In an ideal world where the police and CPS did not construct cases out of no objective evidence, then it probably wouldn’t be a bad idea, but in reality it will just be a different crap version of a gamed system that like most other State enterprises is designed to simply generate jobs and income for those involved in the policing and prosecution business..
There’s always these guys but I suspect that unless you’re a member of an oppressed minority you’d get short shrift.
http://www.barprobono.org.uk/pro_bono_protocol.html- The Blocked Dwarf
April 13, 2015 at 9:28 am -
There’s a lot of low-lifes who probably plead not guilty just to be awkward and drag matters out.
There used to be this weird thing about no man being forced or coerced to enter a ‘guilty’ plea….’justice’ I think it was called…I recall seeing a documentary about it on the History Channel. Back in them unenlightened Olden Days, you could even get away with murder cos if you were found ‘Not guilty’ then there was nothing anyone could do to have you retried. Thank God we now live in a more enlightened age, where VICTIMS can appeal any sentence and CRIMINALS can be tried as many times as it take for VICTIMS to get JUSTICE.
- Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 9:38 am -
They call it Plea bargaining in America and seem to think it’s a great idea. I sat through a court case where some geezer was so obviously guilty, right from day one and the opening arguments, that I couldn’t understand why we were wasting so much time and money going through this rigmarole. After about four days it came to light why. The most telling prosecution witness began his testimony and there was a huge kerfuffle and we were all sent out of court. It turned out that this witness’ testimony had not been given to the Defence. One can assume that the [somewhat chav] defendant had simply been advised by his Brief to plead not guilty because the Brief couldn’t see how “the law” was quite going to nab him. All the events were not disputed, the dispute was whether this particular guy was driving the car when it started ramming the other cars (including police vehicles). The missing witness had the missing link. Incompetence and legal niceties seemed to be far more the issues than “Justice”.
- JuliaM
April 13, 2015 at 12:28 pm -
That pretty much entirely describes both my recent jury cases…
- scorpio
April 14, 2015 at 3:32 am -
Moor Larkin,
“I couldn’t understand why we were wasting so much time and money going through this rigmarole. ”
I hope you never called for jury service again. Your readiness to condemn the unfortunate chavvy car thief in the dock in this case that you describe yourself as serving on a jury contrasts so sharply with your utter dismissal of any claim of sex abuse against any VIP or celebrity that you comment on, quite frankly suggests a level of default subjective bias that is really not healthy in any jury member.
- Moor Larkin
April 14, 2015 at 9:21 am -
I was ready to be convinced otherwise, but it became obvious that the only defence he had was that they couldn’t eyeball him in the driving seat, except they had, but the CPS hadn’t told the defence brief about that witness. Anyhow, we never got to hear ANY defence in the end so who knows what he had up his sleeve. I was quite looking forward to being Henry Fonda but only if there was evidence, rather than just a technicality at issue. It’s the technicalities of the law that the public detest, not the spirit of the law.
the other jurors were fascinating. Right from the first time we were in the jury room (which is where we spent most of the time) there was one loudmouth who was saying “he’s obviously guilty” right from the off, whereas I kept my own counsel. I was looking forward to tussling with him if the opportunity arose. he needless to say got himself made Jury leader… … The more worrying ones were the ones who said almost nothing but seemed to agree with everything. There was another guy who seemed determined to find anyone innocent no matter what, just on principle of the thing… a sort of barrack-room lawyer type who thought the law was designed to make sure nobody ever got convicted of anything. 12 individuals, which is the idea I guess. I take your point nevertheless and can only plead a desire to be provoking…
- Moor Larkin
- JuliaM
- Moor Larkin
- The Blocked Dwarf
- The Blocked Dwarf
April 13, 2015 at 9:22 am -
I get the feeling that §16 is where the truth of it is buried….
- Alex
April 13, 2015 at 9:29 am -
I hope and pray that I never have to appear in court. I was unaware of these changes to “our” legal system. It’s absolutely scandalous! I recall many years ago when Sir Gerald Nabarro was chrged with a motoring offence and he got his secretary to say she was driving the car. He got off on appeal, and when interviewed afterwards all but admitted to “buying justice”. I well remember many ordinary people saying at the time how there was “one law or the rich, and another law for the poor”. I think it’s also correct to say that the bastard Ernest Saunders got £1.3 million in legal aid. Things it appears are now much, much worse. I’m sure many faced with proceedings will plead guilty, it being the least expensive option. It just goes to show how utterly out of touch those governing us are with the day to day realities for ordinary folk. May they all rot in hell.
- windsock
April 13, 2015 at 9:36 am -
Hell is the place they are making a home for all of us. Well, the poorer among all of us.
- The Blocked Dwarf
April 13, 2015 at 9:44 am - Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 9:47 am -
Everyone is equal in Hell. Socialist paradise.
- The Blocked Dwarf
April 13, 2015 at 9:51 am -
- Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 9:52 am -
Free Heat Treatment baby
- Bill Sticker
April 13, 2015 at 4:39 pm -
Nah. With Socialism there are no sun loungers at all. Unless you’re one of the privileged few.
- Moor Larkin
- The Blocked Dwarf
- The Blocked Dwarf
- Mudplugger
April 13, 2015 at 11:05 am -
I seem to recall that the fragrant Asil Nadir, the Polly Peck fugitive who spent many years in Northern Cyprus evading creditors, was magically awarded Legal Aid when he deigned to return to Britain, shortly after the 2010 election. I also seem to recall that he was a substantial donor to one party’s funds. Funny that.
- Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 11:21 am -
I’d have thought there’s more than enough champagne socialist lawyers around to fund the defence of the down-trodden criminal masses. They could set up a Trust and tax-evading charities could soon begin to assist the genuinely in need and the media could sell their stories and recoup even more cash for civil defenders… so long as the crims are not sex offenders and so politically ineligible for defence of course. Burn ’em.
- Moor Larkin
- windsock
- The Blocked Dwarf
April 13, 2015 at 9:41 am -
*His goat gotted therefore ANOTHER comment*
I pleaded “Guilty”. “Guilty as sin”.
The Judges refused to accept my guilty plea.
Let me just repeat that: “The Judges REFUSED to accept my guilty plea”. Despite the Judges knowing full well I had committed the acts, they were not convinced I had committed the crimes I was charged with (ie knifing someone 6 times isn’t automatically the crime of attempted murder).
The Judges entered a plea of “Not Guilty” on my behalf….much to my brief’s amazement.
What can I say? The Lord holds his hand over the Righteous and the Not-So -Bloody Righteous both.
- windsock
April 13, 2015 at 10:01 am -
Most of the “vulnerable” – poor, on benefits, well below average middle class with nothing to mortgage – can’t even afford to plead guilty. Thy’ll end up in prisons, which will be increasingly run by A4E, G4S. Serco etc…. who will charge the taxpayer more to do this and to build newer, bigger debtors’ prisons while increasing their share dividenss. I wonder who are shareholders in these companies?
I’m looking forward to spending my pensioner years in a poor house, not because I am a criminal, but eventually, something will be found in all of our pasts on which we can be nabbed. Perhaps this is what Yewtree is for – it’s just a training exercise.
- windsock
April 13, 2015 at 10:03 am -
Please excuse the poor typing.
- Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 10:11 am -
And who will be enabling of this? Lawyers. Know thine enemy.
- The Blocked Dwarf
April 13, 2015 at 10:43 am -
Most of the “vulnerable” – poor, on benefits, well below average middle class with nothing to mortgage – can’t even afford to plead guilty
Actually it will be those of us on benefits who are the only ones who can afford to commit crimes and plead “Not Guilty” because courts will have to order the fines deducted from Benefits….and they are only allowed to deduct a certain percentage a week.
- windsock
April 13, 2015 at 12:05 pm -
That will change…
- Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 12:27 pm -
The numbers suggest that there is one particularly overwhelming qualification…
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j-Cupt_CeiI/VQ8sRO_e7oI/AAAAAAAAG5I/3qOujdlBP0E/s1600/image002.jpg- The Blocked Dwarf
April 13, 2015 at 1:38 pm -
Interesting….that it plateaus in the Thatcher years then skyrockets with the tail end of Major and the start of the Blair regime and has continued ever since….might be a lesson for us all in there..
- Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 4:13 pm -
To be fair, it seems to start climbing as John Major was elected.
Back to Basics? or…. Rise of the Puritans perhaps.
Blair came in on a wave of tough on crime, tough on the causers of crime…- The Blocked Dwarf
April 13, 2015 at 6:20 pm -
To be fair, it seems to start climbing as John Major was elected.
Nanny Thatcher (She wot put the ‘knee-to-the-goolies’ into ‘Nanny’ and the ‘govern’ in ‘governess’) having left the play room.
- Moor Larkin
April 14, 2015 at 9:35 am -
Picked up by the boys and thrown out I seem to remember. The bastards even made the ickle girl cry. Beasts.
- Moor Larkin
- The Blocked Dwarf
- Moor Larkin
- The Blocked Dwarf
- Moor Larkin
- windsock
- The Blocked Dwarf
- windsock
- FrankH
April 13, 2015 at 10:03 am -
“We abandoned capital punishment because we recognised that people could not only be falsely accused, but falsely prosecuted and falsely convicted. Being reburied in St Patrick’s Cemetery in Leytonstone and granted a posthumous pardon would have been of scant consolation to Timothy Evans.”
If we’d had this system in Timothey Evans’ day, do doubt he or his heirs would have received a bill for the rope and the hangman’s time.
This country has a history of government providing a “service” that their “clients” don’t want and demanding payment. I well remember my indignation when the Child Support Agency added their fee to my increased child support. It felt like the final kick in the balls after they’d beaten me to the ground.
- Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 10:15 am -
The CSA was to try to stop the rest of us being forced to pay for the upkeep of other people’s children. I recall it sparked a debate at the time about why should folk who had no children have to “pay” for those who did (schools etc.) Perhaps that is one reason for the state encouraging the growth in the acceptance of gay adoption. Now, nobody has an excuse not to think of the cheeeldren, and pay up.
- Moor Larkin
- Contrary view
April 13, 2015 at 10:38 am -
And, interestingly, should you fall foul of traffic police you end up being screwed by the screws. I remember being nabbed in my teens by two officers who made up my replies to their questions. Then, once, I was driving too slowly (i.e. at the speed limit) for a copper in a car with sirens and lights on – on his way to an emergency, but he still had time to pull me over and give me a mouthful. Fortunately, his dog couldn’t corroborate his evidence. Then, there’s the unmarked car full of coppers that harrasses you: driving far too close behind, overtaking unsafely, jamming on brakes when they are in front, etc, until you try to avoid them and perhaps exceed the speed limit. I won’t go into the case where they set up a speed camera in a 40 area, clocked several motorists at over 35, lied about where the trap was – usually, they do it just inside the restricted area, and catch you slowing gradually because there’s a bloody juggernaut on your rear bumper. And if you argue? Don’t get me started. Pay now, and it’s cheap, go to court, and you’ll get screwed.
Plus, the bastards make up laws as they feel like it. “No photos here, chum!”
In reply to Moor as to why you need to pay for the schooling of other people’s kids (when you haven’t any of your own): the answer is that if you live long enough to get a pension, as there’s no magic fund out there, your pension will come out of taxation, and you need those kids to grow up to be taxpayers. The argument works better if you relate it to benefits, and the children of benefits claimants who grow up (home-schooled) to be benefits claimants themselves.
- Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 10:50 am -
re. the kids are alright and welfare.
About 15 years ago I fell off the career machine and after 20 years of paying tax [the last 12 or so at higher rate] I had to wander down to the Yob Centre along with my fellow Hoi Polloi and sign on. £50 a week. I may need some help with my mortgage if I don’t find a job soon. Ok, no problem – here’s some forms… I started filling them in… How much money have I got saved. Fair enough. I’m not going to ask until I’m broke am I… When I got to the page where I had to tell them how much was in my children’s bank accounts, I closed the questionnaire, ripped it up and threw it in the bin. You either have a career in work or you have a career on welfare. I choose work. Took me three months to find it again, living on casual labour and tax rebates.That last was the funniest. When I was in the dole office asking for help, I said, to be honest I’ll have a considerable amount of tax rebate from this year; how do I claim that? Oh, you cannot do that until you have a job Mr. Larkin. Oh, great, so if I cannot find a job, you keep my tax? And in the meantime I have to give you my childrens savings? State of a nation buried by busy bureaucrats milking the system and baling out the workshy.
- Pud
April 13, 2015 at 12:52 pm -
I had a similar experience. Because I’d had the cheek to still manage to save some money despite paying high rate tax (only because the cut-off point hasn’t been raised by successive governments in line with inflation, not because I really was “rich”), the Job Centre told me I would only get the minimum Jobseekers Allowance until I had spent all my savings.
I don’t have a problem paying tax towards social security that’s there in case I or anyone else needs it but I was very hacked off at being expected to fund everyone else but get very little benefit when I needed it.- Odd job man
April 13, 2015 at 1:37 pm -
Moor,
You’d have got it at the end of the year, but the system with PAYE is designed for people on predictable weekly/monthly earnings, and I doubt if you would have got the whole rebate in one dollop even with a job.
Those of us who work don’t understand how to play the system, whereas the workshy soon learn.
- Peter Raite
April 13, 2015 at 2:32 pm -
Not a rebate, but when I started working again in July 2012 (after my post-violuntary redundancy “gap year”), I paid hardly any tax on my first salary payment, because four months worth of my tax-free allowance was applied to it.
- Peter Raite
- Odd job man
- Pud
- Moor Larkin
- Mudplugger
April 13, 2015 at 11:17 am -
Another aspect of the criminal process is evident to those sad enough to watch the various ‘police chase’ TV programmes. Some toe-rag nicks a car and does a Lewis Hamilton (without the skill) along public roads, so Plod sets off with half a dozen traffic cars in pursuit, some of which are often expensively damaged, plus a groovy helicopter which costs around £1,500 an hour to operate. If they do finally catch the toe-rag and prosecute, he usually gets a few hours of (optional) community service and a handful of points on a license he will never bother to get.
At a logical level, that offender was entirely responsible for all the expenditure involved in his detention and prosecution, so where’s the penalty which recognises that cost to the rest of us ? If there is no real penalty, then such ‘men of straw’ have open season to commit whatever costly offences they choose with impunity.
- Contrary view
April 13, 2015 at 1:25 pm -
This is one of my bugbears. It usually ends up with the stolen car written off or damaged in some way, and the original crime victim faced with increased insurance costs. Then the rest of us are faced with the costs of repairing those police cars. Heaven forbid that any innocent is killed or injured in the pursuit: the police driver is never prosecuted. Don’t the thick bastards in uniform realise that their willingness to go in pursuit encourages the little scrotes?
- Contrary view
- Chris
April 13, 2015 at 11:18 am -
Pity the fool who – spurred on by positive thoughts – decided to go back to University 14 years after his first rudderless stab at ‘higher education’ and study law, with the aim of trading my steady but boring 3-shift job for a more satisfying career as a solicitor, only to find his three years studying not only cost him his job (foul play from employers, not helped by piss-poor Employment Law all played out whilst I was studying said module) and much more besides, but also took place whilst said legal industry was being cheapened and dismantled. Ending up with me witnessing the decline first hand (in every way including socially). What ‘the industry’ wanted as products of what was formerly an impressive qualification and was now being doled out to anyone & everyone so they can undertake a sanitised career in ‘law’ that is effectively little more than politicised and ruinous call centre work on (for most graduates) shop assistant wages, but for someone wanting more than conveyor belt mediocrity, without ‘connections’ I was knackered.
Priceless insight, but insight doesn’t pay the bills or numb the despair.
Another thing to bear in mind is Grayling and his asset-stripping cartoon ‘Tories’ didn’t come to ‘power’ until after I received my degree that is barely worth the paper it’s written on. I have New Labour to thank for such a poisoned legacy – something I cannot help but bear in mind every time I see an idiotic hectoring tweet from middle-class numpties urging everyone to vote for the bastards who sold the country down the river in the first instance. http://retardedkingdom.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-root-of-all-evil.html- Mr Ecks
April 13, 2015 at 1:22 pm -
NuLabour are scum, BluLabour are scum and Grayling is one of the scummiest ever.
- Mr Ecks
- Engineer
April 13, 2015 at 11:21 am -
Is this something to do with ‘harmonisation of EU laws across member states’?
- Peter Raite
April 13, 2015 at 2:38 pm -
I was under the impression that it was mostly civil – rather than criminal – law where there has been an attempt at parity, usually in a way that no country ends up with less advantageous terms than they had previously. This is why we have the pretty much adequate period of posthumous copyright of 50 years bumped to 70, solely because Germany has always had 70 years.
- Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 4:14 pm -
Human Rights Law must have had an effect on criminal law.
- Peter Raite
April 14, 2015 at 11:24 am -
Except that that’s connected to the European Convention on Human Rights/European Court of Human Rights. It’s not part of European Union harmonisation, or the EU as a whole.
- Peter Raite
- Moor Larkin
- Peter Raite
- Chris
April 13, 2015 at 11:39 am -
In the 20th Century, the legal industry was based around the notion that the majority (law-abiding) needed protecting from the minority (law breaking).
In the 21st Century, the legal industry is now based around the notion that the majority should, by hook or by crook, be criminalised so that ‘The State’ can effectively take control of everyone as much as possible, using the beliefs nurtured in the days when prosecution didn’t necessarily mean persecution too. The ever-growing underclass that served the purpose of providing ‘the fear’ to strengthen the power of the law now provide another purpose – as the Court of (moronic) Public Opinion.
All fall down.- Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 11:47 am -
I rather think that elements in the legal industry have decided the poor down-trodden criminals have been economically abused by the rich, and now is the time for retribution and redistribution. Viva la revolucion and shake your booty – the victims of society are comin’ atcha.
- Chris
April 13, 2015 at 12:04 pm -
I think it’s not so much ‘the rich’ they target as ‘the comfortable’ – the folk who, like the famous they target, are seen as having no birth right to being anything more than peasants.
The targeting of the teaching & caring professions bear this out – in modern Britain for those not ‘born’ with the right to wealth; teaching, nursing, social work & caring represent one of the few chances of a decent “career”. Yet they also come with a high chance of being falsely accused, bankrupted and imprisoned – and all the respect and security earned from working hard confiscated by the state. Which is why the happy-clappy irresponsible kiddults who represent the adults of a very near tomorrow make perfect fodder for compromise and bribery, and why intellect is being phased out. http://retardedkingdom.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/the-new-model-army.htmlBe seeing yew.
- Chris
- Moor Larkin
- Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 11:45 am -
I rather think that elements in the legal industry have decided the poor down-trodden criminals have been economically abused by the rich, and now is the time for retribution and redistribution. Viva la revolucion and shake your booty – the victims of society are comin’ atcha.
- Alexander Baron
April 13, 2015 at 12:32 pm -
Isn’t somebody going to challenge this? I can see what will happen. Many years ago I was talking to a small time professional criminal; I think he was a welder or something, didn’t mind hard work but had issues. He told he that he was once taken to court for burglary and much to his surprise fined. I think this was early on in his criminal career. Because he couldn’t afford the fine, he carried out another burglary to finance it.
Grayling means well as you can see with his plan to reform minor offenders but I don’t think he’s thought this one through.
- Cloudberry
April 13, 2015 at 1:29 pm -
“Because he couldn’t afford the fine, he carried out another burglary to finance it.”
Here’s hoping that recent raid in London wasn’t the work of some stray celebrity geriatrics! - Mr Ecks
April 13, 2015 at 1:31 pm -
Greyling is an arrogant callous dictatorial scumbag. He hasn’t thought about anything he has done in office because bullshit soundbites about “tough on crime” are all he cares about. That is to say his own aggrandisement. Other people are of little concern unless they can be used for his own benefit. It has been the same since 1997 and before. I know someone whose scummy ex isn’t paying what he agreed to (voluntarily accepted the court order) because of taking up with a skank who wants the money that should go to his kids. The ex-wife is having to appear herself because the full lawdog job in court would cost £5000. To enforce an already existing and agreed court order. No legal aid but £80 thousand million for a toy train set that will reduce the journey Brum to London (for that will be the result) by 20 minutes. Anybody who has been in UK politics since 97 needs to be executed.
- The Blocked Dwarf
April 13, 2015 at 6:11 pm -
Brum to London (for that will be the result)
Nobody in their right mind wanting to travel toBrum from London of course….
- Mr Ecks
April 13, 2015 at 8:36 pm -
The toy train set was promoted with the bullshit that it would make it easier for people in the Smoke to travel out–business-wise etc. The actual result will be the reverse. More business will flow into the capital and life will be made easier for commuters to work in London. Because that is all that matters to the political class. Except times such as now–when they hope to convince us they CARE.
I live a long long way from London and have no axe to grind for the place at all. As a child back in the 1960s I was fascinated by the cities history. The family had several holidays there and I still remember the thrill of visiting the Science Museum and the Planetarium.
Today I wouldn’t cross the street to visit the place.
- Mudplugger
April 13, 2015 at 9:53 pm -
The key question with the HS Train Set is, why do we need to shift ‘fleshware’ at 200mph in the 21st century ? Basically, we no longer need to – and certainly won’t do by the time this monstrous 19th century Hornby Dublo is built, if ever.
We’ve already got fibre Internet, we’ve got Skype, we’ve got 3D printing – we no longer need to move people these days for ‘business benefit’. The only businesses to benefit will be the construction firms and the lawyers while this steaming white elephant turd is being built. (But then so many MPs are lawyers and/or in the pockets of the building firms……. or is that just a tad cynical ?)
- Mudplugger
- Mr Ecks
- The Blocked Dwarf
- Cloudberry
- Ancient+Tattered Airman
April 13, 2015 at 1:21 pm -
And still we expect ‘justice’ from the law courts? Oh dear me no.
The ‘noble’ legal profession then? Certainly not.
The whole legal aid thing has become a shambles with the lawyers the only beneficiaries.After mature reflection I vote to scrap it entirely.
- Henry the Horse
April 13, 2015 at 1:42 pm -
Am I the only one who can’t understand the financial logic of imprisoning someone who can pay a £150 charge? Charges are intended to raise money but given prison cost £55,000 per person per year it would only take one in ten people to be imprisoned for, say one month, for non-payment of a fine for the new system to start costing more!
Like the welfare reforms this is back of a napkin thinking that sounds plausible at first hearing but is in reality an expensive way to make the situation worse.
- Henry the Horse
April 13, 2015 at 1:52 pm -
Having read through all the comments I would say that it seems there is a lot of rather unfair slagging off of the legal profession as a whole going on. To be equitable, even before these reforms there was a big gap between the average criminal lawyer dealing mostly with legal aid cases and the top of the professioal tree dealing with highly complex financial cases who can earn in a week what the former earns in a year. I had a neighbour a few years back who was in the first category and if the ten year old Volvo he was driving was anything to go by the legal aid cow was a very poor milker.
- The Blocked Dwarf
April 13, 2015 at 3:43 pm -
if the ten year old Volvo he was driving was anything to go by the legal aid cow was a very poor milker.
Indeed. I have written before about my own solicitor , a very very good and competent man (he managed to keep my Offspring out of prison on several occasions, no mean feat). He had to cadge a lift to court from me one day cos his wife needed the ’10 year old Volvo’ and he has a permanent whiff of , not sulphur, but acetone about him -his suit having been dry cleaned far too often.
- Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 4:18 pm -
Legal Aid is about the money, not the Briefs. Otherwise why would Nasil Nadir and some other rich folks have been availing themselves of it over the years, if it meant they had to have Dan Druff as their brief.
- Contrary view
April 14, 2015 at 12:06 am -
Maybe we Brits have the equivalent to ‘Better call Saul’ (Netflix)
- Moor Larkin
April 14, 2015 at 9:28 am -
Ah, that’s a movie? I saw an advert on a bus shelter just this last weekend as I rode my bike past, and thought, “Surely that cannot be real?”
- Moor Larkin
- Moor Larkin
- The Blocked Dwarf
- Chris
April 13, 2015 at 3:36 pm -
An interesting aside is that one of the main spokespersons for the Legal industry against the cuts is Dinah Rose QC – the self-same barrister who concoted the uber-contrived BBC report into “Respect At Work” “post-Savile” and also conveniently fed DLT to the lions for providing a mediocre stand-up with an exaggerated comedy routine and, ergo, a career.
Another of life’s “reality chess” players.- Moor Larkin
April 13, 2015 at 4:00 pm -
Noticed Rosina Cottage, the Max Clifford terminator, is busy on a very odd-sounding case:
http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/news/12877463.display/- scorpio
April 14, 2015 at 3:13 am -
Moor,
Don’t quite understand, what’s odd about that case in the link from the Sutton Guardian?
- Moor Larkin
April 14, 2015 at 9:25 am -
Immigrants from Sierra Leone coming here to join the British army was one of them I suppose, plus it seemed odd that the army had no protocol in place for the chaperoning of Scottish sergeants called Jock, when frail and innocently powerless young ladies came to call.
- Mr Ecks
April 14, 2015 at 4:13 pm -
Odd?. Such as the alleged victim who phones up her “rapist” to tell him about the ectopic pregnancy.
Since when do victims ring up the person who has raped them to complain about gynecological troubles. The idea of being a rapist is surely that your victim does not know who you are and therefore cannot call the police on you. Is this Scotsman supposed to be so thick or arrogant that he imagines that no one is going to tell on him? Or that no one would believe the women he is supposed to have victimised?. Despite contemporary lies, that bullshit wouldn’t have washed in the 1960s never mind in todays witch-hunt climate. There are therefore, good reasons to think that there is much more in this than meets the eye.
- Mr Ecks
- Moor Larkin
- scorpio
- Moor Larkin
- AdrianS
April 13, 2015 at 5:52 pm -
another reason why we need to go over to a Sharia law based legal system .
Think of the savings and swift justice.
If your caught doing something really naughty and get beheaded your not going to worry about legal bills
For lesser crimes, amputation with instant access to a full range of disability benefits and mobility car.
For petty crimes floggings , how about outside a Wheterspoons on a Friday night?
No worry about ability to pay fines, community service etc
Sex offenders- well they won’t do it again after their bits are removed.
And best of all
Harriet Harman & Cherie Blair in full burqa !
Woz not to like? - GildasTheMonk
April 13, 2015 at 6:13 pm -
It is true that Legal Aid was the subject of abuse in the past. It is also true that now if you are poor and need legal representation you may get a committed and able representative, but he or she will have very little time to prepare the case. If you pay for your own representation, you will get more (and possibly a rip off), but won’t get the money back, in almost any circumstances. The State can prosecute with no “come back”, as it it has in many cases. Pot the defendant? Great headline! Fail? OK, move on, try another. There are issues about Legal Aid fees, but the general rule should be that if you bring a case against someone and fail, then you must indemnify them against their reasonable costs of defending that claim. It is only fair. What is reasonable is another matter, but on the whole, the principle is sound.
What is happening now is that people are being crushed by costs in defending themselves. You may be a D list celeb accused by Daphne from Doncaster of having seduced her in your Ford Capri in 1972, and been found not guilty, and you may have spent the last 20 years working in a hospice, but your legal bill will just have wiped out your life savings. No come back.
Not good. Not good at all.
I recall seeing a barristers clerk agreeing a brief fee (starting) for a QC of £50,00 for a serious but 2 week trial to prosecute a rape allegation. The daily rate for the days after I can’t honestly say I heard. All over a brief phone call. As I say, abuses.
The legal profession has a case to answer, but not all of them behave like that. Having said that…most are utter shits.
G the M- Moor Larkin
April 14, 2015 at 9:27 am -
Good to hear some honest information from someone with access to it.
- Moor Larkin
- Ms Mildred
April 14, 2015 at 10:37 am -
I get it Anna that all these rules are structured towards pleading guilty . If you are innocent or ‘set up’ for a high profile prosecution by false allegation or highly contrived charges after considerable trawling; Much of your hard earned money in your calling or profession is then stripped from you . If you say you are not guilty and get good lawyer defence. Some people think anyone with a big house and a few hundred thousand quid is wealthy. Even 4 million is not sufficient to reward the lawyer and complainants. Public institutions, taxpayer funded, are raided. Therefore the accused must share their wealth with those less well endowed, who chased around after so called celebs in their mispent youth. This has probably come about from lawyers in the past going to crown court with savvy criminal clients for a jury trial. Thanks for explaining what has happened recently Anna.
- Able
April 14, 2015 at 10:37 am -
As a long-time lurker I find myself ‘unusually’ disagreeing with our esteemed landlady on this one.
It is all well and good to examine the Rooneys of the legal profession but just how representative (or common) are these ‘elites’? The real fact remains that due to the minimum payment of Legal Aid (£105 per hour last I had any contact) the newest qualified, most inexperienced and inept solicitor or barrister will simply not even consider working for less (with the knock-on effect that they won’t consider doing ‘any’ work at less than that rate). The result? Only the very rich or those ‘poor’ on benefits can actually afford ‘any’ legal representation at all without bankrupting themselves into penury.
It’s similar to the ‘unexpected effect’ (well to anyone who hasn’t half a brain ie. SJW or works for .gov) of housing benefit. The gov guarantees a minimum payment and so, predictably, landlords will not, whatever the location, situation, facilities, condition of or demand for the property, rent for less. So the rents, across the board, all go up leaving those not either rich or on benefits barely able to manage to afford accommodation. Yes the ‘single you girl who got accidentally became pregnant at school’ can now not live with her parents, gets a nice place (and probably a few more pregnancies so she doesn’t have to work), the ‘rich’ landlord gets a guaranteed high income, but ‘that nice couple, both working and just starting out’ can’t afford anywhere to start ‘their ‘ family anymore.
Saying the poor alleged criminal didn’t have legal representation in the past is, I believe false, since I believe they had access to the ‘duty solicitor’ (whilst not one of the elite, representation on a salary at least) as it is now every legal action costs astronomical amounts and the average man/woman in the street will still never have access to the professions Rooneys. No Legal Aid and a newly qualified solicitor ‘will’ have to work for minimum wage or face the poor-house, no? Do good work, develop a reputation, get to charge more, just like all the rest of us.
There has also been a thread bringing the CSA and Child Support up as a topic. I have a question.
Just how much does The State judge as the amount necessary for a woman and child to live on?
So why, when said woman, whether for real or otherwise reasons, unilaterally decides to ‘walk away’ from a marriage/relationship (assuming there was one other than a one nighter) does The State then decide that many multiples of that amount can be forcefully removed from the father?
I agree a father should support his children (I also, naively, expect him to have access and rights and involvement supported by the law) but since The State has set the amount at benefit levels that should be all, the utter maximum, he should ever have to pay . Further, since the woman, should no relationship and/or children have occurred, would still have to support herself, and since ‘it takes two to tango’ and the children are half hers, the man should only be required to pay half of the benefit assessed amounts to provide basic support for his child(ren). (and personally I believe ‘donation’ of the ‘shared’ property should be treated as his contribution) How many men would have difficulty living with that, and even ‘treating’ his children to more, rather than the ruinous amounts now imposed and apparently designed precisely to destroy him? Support does not mean daddy should be made to live in a bedsit so that junior can have designer trainers and mommy keep her active social life it means accommodation, food and clothing, anything else the used to get … well, mommy can explain why she feels her feelings warranted that loss (or of course get off her butt and earn sufficient for them rather than demanding daddy keep supporting her lavish lifestyle choices).
The current system is simply a reward system to pay women to leave, refuse access, and experience not one iota of difference in her lifestyle, whilst punishing the men for failing to give her whatever she feels she deserves and all cited as ‘for the cheeldren’ as an excuse. A woman who walks away has no right to any of ‘the benefits’ of that relationship. I wonder just how many ‘he didn’t appreciate me’, ‘I need to find myself’ divorces would still occur when the woman suddenly realise they aren’t going to keep everything they ‘have become accustomed to’ automatically?
Just a thought.
- Moor Larkin
April 14, 2015 at 10:56 am -
* due to the minimum payment of Legal Aid (£105 per hour last I had any contact) the newest qualified, most inexperienced and inept solicitor or barrister will simply not even consider working for less *
Reminds me of how car servicing became so expensive as “Company Cars” filled up the workshops with the “offset against tax” corporates not giving a toss what the prices was. Thus the Kevin Websters were being charged out at similar rates to the lawyers, although I doubt Kev ever got to see his £600 a day wages… … As soon as you break a market from the marketplace, you just have a rigged market.
- Moor Larkin
- Able
April 14, 2015 at 10:52 am -
I suppose to précis my (verbose) waffling –
If a ‘service’ is to be offered ‘for free’, much as the NHS was originally envisaged (I hope), it should be the most basic and even primitive possible. Only that way will you both cut down on the spurious, ‘fraudulent’, ‘let’s make this a lifestyle’ demands made upon it.
People are, with the rarest of exceptions, quite a selfish bunch be they the ‘downtrodden’ poor or high-flying multimillionaire professionals. Make it easy for them to feather their nests and watch them scrabble to do just that (reward a behaviour and don’t be surprised when you get more of it). As an outsider (now at least, thankfully) watching all this seems reminiscent of feeding time at the sty.
- Justice forgus
April 15, 2015 at 2:55 pm -
Many comments here are derisory and ill conceived. I defend and Judge for my living. I studied for 7 years to qualify as a professional person. I work hard to give Justice to those that want it. If I wanted to earn mega bucks I would have become a commercial lawyer, I didnt, so I earn about the same as a good plumber or sparky. I have a reputation and a good one generally. Firm but fair. The poor lawyer is often criticised for defending the guilty. It is also sad that most actually dont care about the system and what is done, until or unless it happens to you. A reality check; Prosecutors and the police are human and make mistakes too. Prosecutors are also well educated and will run rings round a defendant without a lawyer. There is a presumption of innocence to counter false allegations, far better a criminal is spared prison than 20 innocents locked up. Vulnerable people ought to be entitled to help as of right. This Government is changing the goal posts. They are removing 2/3rds of solicitors firms from the scheme. Firms will go bust, so what. The what is this: good, well trained, dedicated lawyers will be out of work and not able to represent people in need. They will be lost forever. They will be replaced by half trained ineffective lawyers who earn a pittance, the decent ones will do other areas of law. Next time you are up for a pub fight that wasnt your fault, or careless driving and you want a brief to get you off because its not fair, dont come crying to me because it will be too late and I will be confined to history. By the way I wont do private work as there is not enough to keep me going I will be in a different field of law so you really will be on your own with extra court charges to pay and guess what ITS YOUR FAULT FOR DOING NOTHING RIGHT NOW !!
- Moor Larkin
April 15, 2015 at 5:01 pm -
* Prosecutors are also well educated and will run rings round a defendant without a lawyer *
They’re the BAD lawyers and you’re the good lawyer? Gimme a break.
All we need are honest lawyers.
- Moor Larkin
- Mark Webster
April 15, 2015 at 4:17 pm -
… and if there’s forensic science evidence against you and you plead not guilty, you’re going to have to pay to see it!
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jul/17/defendants-forced-pay-forensic-evidence
- Ancient+Tattered Airman
April 15, 2015 at 6:55 pm -
There must be something wrong with me. I have never been in court but I’m damn sure I could defend myself better than many of these legal beagles. Reading their fatuous statements ‘for mitigation’ angers me, and I think that any judge worthy of the position ought to punish them – by fining or banning.
{ 92 comments… read them below or add one }