Merseyside policeman struck and killed by stolen vehicle.

[Derek Smith]

agtlaw said:

What exactly do you think the solicitor lied about, as it's far from obvious from your post? The solicitor is recounting what the SUSPECT said in interview to the POLICE. Do keep up at the back. Suspects / defendants lie all the time. Are you suggesting that solicitors should only represent honest defendants?

Should briefs put words in the mouths of their clients?

There was an appeal on offensive weapons after which, oddly enough, a number of suspects used precise and accurate phrases from the decision.

I, like everyone who posts on here, know nothing about this specific case other that the brief is one for irony;

brief said:

"Mr Williams . . . adamant that he did not drive at the officer and that he did not intend to injure, let alone kill, him.

". . . we would ask that all bear in mind Mr Williams' right to a fair trial."

Well, at least that's settled.

[agtlaw]

Scuffers said:

and you honestly believe his client came up with those words?

No, get real.

first court appearance, scrote is giving it the thumbs up like the big man, now square that with his solicitors statement.

Please, don't insult all of our intelligence and try and claim he was just relaying his clients words/thoughts.

Does integrity mean nothing these days?

The interviews with the police were before the court appearance. The statement was released after the court appearance - recounting what was said in the interviews.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do it, etc. are words capable of being spoken of by even the most inarticulate scrote.

His actions after the first court appearance tend to suggest that he is a brain dead idiot.

Again, what lie did the solicitor tell?

[Scuffers]

agtlaw said:

The interviews with the police were before the court appearance. The statement was released after the court appearance - recounting what was said in the interviews.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do it, etc. are words capable of being spoken of by even the most inarticulate scrote.

His actions after the first court appearance tend to suggest that he is a brain dead idiot.

Again, what lie did the solicitor tell?

my problem is this:

"He extended his apologies through the police to PC Phillips' young family. It is now time for the judicial process to take over, and we would ask that all bear in mind Mr Williams' right to a fair trial."

I simply do not believe in a million years he said this (or words to this effect).

since when does putting words in your clients mouths OK?

[TheBear]

Derek Smith said:

agtlaw said:

What exactly do you think the solicitor lied about, as it's far from obvious from your post? The solicitor is recounting what the SUSPECT said in interview to the POLICE. Do keep up at the back. Suspects / defendants lie all the time. Are you suggesting that solicitors should only represent honest defendants?

Should briefs put words in the mouths of their clients?

There was an appeal on offensive weapons after which, oddly enough, a number of suspects used precise and accurate phrases from the decision.

I, like everyone who posts on here, know nothing about this specific case other that the brief is one for irony;

brief said:

"Mr Williams . . . adamant that he did not drive at the officer and that he did not intend to injure, let alone kill, him.

". . . we would ask that all bear in mind Mr Williams' right to a fair trial."

Well, at least that's settled.

It is funny when a suspect comes from their consultation and comes up with technical defences in interview or uses words that they don't even know the meaning of. Even better watching the solicitor trying to intervene when their client starts getting what they've obviously been told to say, wrong.

The only part of the entire custody procedure that isn't recorded is the consultation, which is completely wrong IMO.

[agtlaw]

Scuffers said:

my problem is this:

"He extended his apologies through the police to PC Phillips' young family. It is now time for the judicial process to take over, and we would ask that all bear in mind Mr Williams' right to a fair trial."

I simply do not believe in a million years he said this (or words to this effect).

since when does putting words in your clients mouths OK?

It is extremely likely that the suspect apologised in interview for causing the officer's death. If he didn't then the solicitor (who was present) would not say that he did. Do you suggest that this is a lie?

What lie did the solicitor tell?

[Cat]

agtlaw said:

The interviews with the police were before the court appearance. The statement was released after the court appearance - recounting what was said in the interviews.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do it, etc. are words capable of being spoken of by even the most inarticulate scrote.

His actions after the first court appearance tend to suggest that he is a brain dead idiot.

Again, what lie did the solicitor tell?

I guess you could be right. It is simply an unfortunate coincidence that during the few seconds he was passing the photographers he appeared to think the whole situation was a bit of a laugh when the rest of the time since the incident he had "consistently expressed his profound remorse".

Cat

Edited by Cat on Friday 9th October 19:40

[Scuffers]

agtlaw said:

It is extremely likely that the suspect apologised in interview for causing the officer's death. If he didn't then the solicitor (who was present) would not say that he did. Do you suggest that this is a lie?

What lie did the solicitor tell?

"He extended his apologies through the police to PC Phillips' young family. It is now time for the judicial process to take over, and we would ask that all bear in mind Mr Williams' right to a fair trial."

that bit.

I simply do not believe he even considered them.

[Red 4]

Scuffers said:

"He extended his apologies through the police to PC Phillips' young family. It is now time for the judicial process to take over, and we would ask that all bear in mind Mr Williams' right to a fair trial."

that bit.

I simply do not believe he even considered them.

Or maybe Williams is a streetwise kid who knows what to say.

Either way we'll never know what discussions took place between Williams and his lawyer.

Rather a futile argument, don't you think ?

[agtlaw]

Scuffers said:

"He extended his apologies through the police to PC Phillips' young family. It is now time for the judicial process to take over, and we would ask that all bear in mind Mr Williams' right to a fair trial."

that bit.

I simply do not believe he even considered them.

"My client said X in interview."

The solicitor is lying?

or;

The suspect lied in interview and the (completely honest) solicitor is recounting what was said?

Again (4th time of asking) what lie did the solicitor tell?

I'll answer for you. Suspects lie, all the time. They are often dishonest. A solicitor is not dishonest, or lying, if he gives a press statement recounting what his dishonest client said in interview. Is that too difficult to understand?

[Scuffers]

Red 4 said:

Or maybe Williams is a streetwise kid who knows what to say.

Either way we'll never know what discussions took place between Williams and his lawyer.

Rather a futile argument, don't you think ?

you have just perfectly illustrated my frustration with the 'system'

being honest with yourself, I am sure you know this is total bullst, yet you're not prepared to say so.

with everybody in the system doing the same, you wonder why the system simply does not work for this kind of scrote.

[Derek Smith]

TheBear said:

It is funny when a suspect comes from their consultation and comes up with technical defences in interview or uses words that they don't even know the meaning of. Even better watching the solicitor trying to intervene when their client starts getting what they've obviously been told to say, wrong.

The only part of the entire custody procedure that isn't recorded is the consultation, which is completely wrong IMO.

I'm happy for the conversations between briefs and prisoners to be confidential but I do disagree with the suggestion that the solicitor has no grounds for moral judgement. The 'I've got to do my best for my client' is the classic washing of the hands.

I've posted this before, but not recently:

A rather obnoxious and conceited brief was called in as a nice little earner for one of our regulars on a case of burglary and assault. The offender acted with two others but as he ran with a gang and the description of the other two was not accurate, we had little to go on. The brief wanted to complain about something or other - I never found out what - and I turned up at the custody suite for one of her 'I am furious because . . . ' rants. As I walked into the room, she threw her clipboard onto the counter and turned to me. The PC was standing by the counter and read the two names written along the side and highlighted by a box. These were two of the prisoner's regulars.

I'd seen him looking at the clipboard. The PC excused himself and then got the shift to look out for them and stake out their homes. They were arrested together.

I refused to take the complaint on the grounds that it appeared to be about me, although as I'd only just walked into the cell block I stated that I was not too sure what the complaint was.

The PC, when questioned as to why these two had been targeted in interview - they had some of the property on them - the PC replied honestly. The briefs of the two lads were not amused, unlike my whole shift, who thought it tremendous.

A complaint was made by the original brief to me, so she got her way, and she stated, firmly, loudly and repeatedly, that it was confidential and that it could not be used in court. I was tempted to say: if it was confidential, why didn't you take more care of it? But it would have been unprofessional and one unprofessional person in the room was enough I felt.

CPS were of a different opinion to her and charged all three, who were found guilty. There was an appeal, although on what grounds I do not know but assume it was on the method of obtaining the evidence, and it was dismissed.

The source of the information was not revealed in statements - acting on information received - and the evidence from the search of the two was not dismissed despite attempts at the pre-trial hearing by the defence to get it thrown out.

A good day's work. Three down.

[Red 4]

Scuffers said:

Red 4 said:

Or maybe Williams is a streetwise kid who knows what to say.

Either way we'll never know what discussions took place between Williams and his lawyer.

Rather a futile argument, don't you think ?

you have just perfectly illustrated my frustration with the 'system'

being honest with yourself, I am sure you know this is total bullst, yet you're not prepared to say so.

with everybody in the system doing the same, you wonder why the system simply does not work for this kind of scrote.

"The system" provides everyone with the right to legal representation.

Someone is going to represent Williams.

That does not mean that the lawyer is going to lie for him and I can't see any evidence that he has.

I'm not defending lawyers per se - I have no reason to - but I think you're being a little harsh here.

It's a very emotive case. I'm just looking at the evidence.

[Scuffers]

[johnfm]

Scuffers said:

Red 4 said:

Or maybe Williams is a streetwise kid who knows what to say.

Either way we'll never know what discussions took place between Williams and his lawyer.

Rather a futile argument, don't you think ?

you have just perfectly illustrated my frustration with the 'system'

being honest with yourself, I am sure you know this is total bullst, yet you're not prepared to say so.

with everybody in the system doing the same, you wonder why the system simply does not work for this kind of scrote.

Banging on about the solicitor isn't really relevant. You can't prosecute the scrote without giving him a defence. Even without legal advice, he is unlikely to say he intended to harm or kill the policeman.

[Red 4]

Very good.

What do you suggest ?

No plea, no trial, death by hanging ?

[Scuffers]

johnfm said:

Banging on about the solicitor isn't really relevant. You can't prosecute the scrote without giving him a defence. Even without legal advice, he is unlikely to say he intended to harm or kill the policeman.

where have I even suggested he should not be represented properly?

PH is getting really frustrating these days, people seem unable to read more than 1 post ahead...

[Kinky]

Cat said:

agtlaw said:

What exactly do you think the solicitor lied about

This image



Seems at odds with someone who has...

“consistently expressed his profound remorse”

Someone at work today was talking about this and said that he guy has to be kept in cuffs whilst in court, due to his aggression, etc.

Does not strike me as someone sorry for what hes done

[Scuffers]

Kinky said:

Someone at work today was talking about this and said that he guy has to be kept in cuffs whilst in court, due to his aggression, etc.

Does not strike me as someone sorry for what hes done

ah but we have it all wrong and his solicitor was only reporting what his client said.

Seriously people, can we stop the 'just doing my job' bullst, it works no better than the old like of 'I was just following orders' we have all learned from the past.

[Red 4]

Scuffers said:

ah but we have it all wrong and his solicitor was only reporting what his client said.

Seriously people, can we stop the 'just doing my job' bullst, it works no better than the old like of 'I was just following orders' we have all learned from the past.

It's not as simple as that.

Read what tonker said.

[pork911]

Scuffers said:

ah but we have it all wrong and his solicitor was only reporting what his client said.

Seriously people, can we stop the 'just doing my job' bullst, it works no better than the old like of 'I was just following orders' we have all learned from the past.

ahh, godwin


i hope you never have to use your charm to secure legal representation in your utopian future of non-professional lawyers