Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY
Discussion
It is next to impossible to sue for damages following a failed prosecution and win. You would have to prove that the prosecution was malicious. This is very hard to do. Satellite litigation is generally discouraged.
A litigant in person can claim costs on a set scale if he or she wins a civil claim. I am not sure what the litigant in person costs rules are for criminal cases.
I would say that these days I do about four times more pro bono work than I did ten years ago. Whether this is because I am feeling more like doing it or because there are more deserving claims for free representation I do not know, but go, as they say, figure.
A litigant in person can claim costs on a set scale if he or she wins a civil claim. I am not sure what the litigant in person costs rules are for criminal cases.
I would say that these days I do about four times more pro bono work than I did ten years ago. Whether this is because I am feeling more like doing it or because there are more deserving claims for free representation I do not know, but go, as they say, figure.
Fear not: you can get an untrained, unregulated, uninsured person who is subject to no code of conduct and no peer group pressure to practise ethically, and that person will help you for, er, a fee. Cameron's Britain: love it!
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/culture-chang...
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/culture-chang...
Perhaps the real question is: why is the legal system so expensive? In my experience, it's far more wasteful than the NHS or local authorities, incompetence is rife, lots of little, insular empires where back-biting is more important than providing a service for those who pay for the whole thing.
V8 Fettler said:
Perhaps the real question is: why is the legal system so expensive? In my experience, it's far more wasteful than the NHS or local authorities, incompetence is rife, lots of little, insular empires where back-biting is more important than providing a service for those who pay for the whole thing.
It's certainly one of the questions. Good luck getting an answer. REALIST123 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Perhaps the real question is: why is the legal system so expensive? In my experience, it's far more wasteful than the NHS or local authorities, incompetence is rife, lots of little, insular empires where back-biting is more important than providing a service for those who pay for the whole thing.
It's certainly one of the questions. Good luck getting an answer. The simple answer is that we live in a regulated free market system and the market sets the prices of goods and services, legal services being no exception to this. NPE seems generally in favour of free markets, but maybe not for lawyers, for some reason. People may also mistake gross charge out rates for income. A lawyer who bills, say, 300 quid an hour does not actually earn 300 quid an hour. That ought to go without saying, but people seem to forget this.
Markets are not infallible, and my own view is that market rates have become too high. One of the problems is that commercial clients, themselves used to charging a lot for what they do, agree to pay high market rates to commercial lawyers. Also, Americanised approaches to the practice of law (big teams, lots of documents, overkill) add to costs. I do a lot of work with medium sized commercial law firms and often find them to be more efficient and better value for money (smaller teams, less mucking about), but for large corporates the safe option is to hire the large firms (it's like buying Ford for your fleet and IBM or whoever is now IBM for your network). This all has a knock on effect lower down the market.
There is a lot of bad (by which I mean over egged) lawyering about, often born of of defensiveness, as clients are much more ready to complain and sue than they used to be. There is also plenty of good lawyering - the UK is still a World leader in legal services, and the legal market generates very large invisible exports, provides a lot of employment and related business activity, and pays a shedload of tax.
None of this market stuff applies to legal aid or government lawyering, as there are no markets at work there. The Government just sets the rates at an arbitrary and usually very low level. The Government rates for civil barristers,for example, have not changed in almost two decades.
Back in the market: it's competitive. There are probably too many lawyers overall, but maybe not enough good lawyers. Even within the top end of the market, however, we cannot rely on clients to come back, and they negotiate firmly on price.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 18th April 20:19
Breadvan72 said:
One of the problems is that commercial clients, themselves used to charging a lot for what they do, agree to pay high market rates to commercial lawyers. Also, Americanised approaches to the practice of law (big teams, lots of documents, overkill) add to costs. I do a lot of work with medium sized commercial law firms and often find them to be more efficient and better value for money (smaller teams, less mucking about), but for large corporates the safe option is to hire the large forms (it's like buying Ford for your fleet and IBM or whoever is now IBM for your network).
That's the crunch. Lawyers are essentially for big business, not for private individuals, except for a tiny handful of very wealthy people. It was always the same. If you look at who's been involved in famous cases over the years you see a clear pattern which evolves with industrial history,- The church
- Wealthy landowners
- The tax man (of course)
- Shipping companies
- Mining companies
- Banks
- Insurance companies
- Newspapers
- Car companies
- Pop music artists
- Computer companies
- Pharmaceutical companies
- Internet/mobile phone companies
Welshbeef said:
How much extra risk to a guilty verdict does representing yourself? Might be an idea to do so - it will waste so much time too so cost the CPS more money and if your found guilty you can appeal and then do it with a good QC
You appear to assume that winning an appeal against conviction is a breeze. It isn't. Most appeals fail. As for aiming to cost the CPS more money, maybe have a think for a sec about where the CPS gets its money from in the first place.Ozzie Osmond said:
That's the crunch. Lawyers are essentially for big business, not for private individuals, except for a tiny handful of very wealthy people. It was always the same. If you look at who's been involved in famous cases over the years you see a clear pattern which evolves with industrial history,
There is much in what you say, Ozzie, but there have also been a fair number of grannies etc. The cuts to legal aid and the attack on judicial review by the current Government may mean that we see fewer leading cases involving Granny. There are still some community lawyers out there, but the Government seems determined to drive them out of business. - The church
- Wealthy landowners
- The tax man (of course)
- Shipping companies
- Mining companies
- Banks
- Insurance companies
- Newspapers
- Car companies
- Pop music artists
- Computer companies
- Pharmaceutical companies
- Internet/mobile phone companies
so, back in court today for round 2...
reading the BBC's report, they really do seem to be clutching at straws?
worse case I can see is he groped a womans boobs for 4-5 seconds (not suggesting that this is a good thing and should not go unpunished, but in the scope of what they hauled him into court for, and the timeframes involved, looks a tad vindictive to me...)
reading the BBC's report, they really do seem to be clutching at straws?
worse case I can see is he groped a womans boobs for 4-5 seconds (not suggesting that this is a good thing and should not go unpunished, but in the scope of what they hauled him into court for, and the timeframes involved, looks a tad vindictive to me...)
Scuffers said:
so, back in court today for round 2...
reading the BBC's report, they really do seem to be clutching at straws?
worse case I can see is he groped a womans boobs for 4-5 seconds (not suggesting that this is a good thing and should not go unpunished, but in the scope of what they hauled him into court for, and the timeframes involved, looks a tad vindictive to me...)
Especially when compared to the crimes with plenty of witnesses and evidence in Rotherham for instance.reading the BBC's report, they really do seem to be clutching at straws?
worse case I can see is he groped a womans boobs for 4-5 seconds (not suggesting that this is a good thing and should not go unpunished, but in the scope of what they hauled him into court for, and the timeframes involved, looks a tad vindictive to me...)
What we've discovered in the last couple of years has made me pretty depressed about some of the people in this country, human nature and the law and order professions.
Farce indeed..
so they throw a dozen+ charges at the guy, and this is the best they can get with a 10/2 majority?
I'm guessing he will appeal this? (if he can afford to?)...
really feel for him, just how much time and money has this cost so far for what? let alone the personal cost to him.
so they throw a dozen+ charges at the guy, and this is the best they can get with a 10/2 majority?
I'm guessing he will appeal this? (if he can afford to?)...
really feel for him, just how much time and money has this cost so far for what? let alone the personal cost to him.
Sometimes the language is scary. I saw a screen grab of an early Top of the Pops recently with an image of Saville in the crowd. He (apparently) brushed past a teenage girl's chest with the back of his hand. The girl is now being 'represented' by a lawyer and is one of 179 cases that lawyer is handling. The lawyer is using words (in the above case) such as 'carrying major trauma following this attack and will for the rest of her life'. Disgusting individual but a sense of proportion needed surely? Ever been on the Tube any day of the week?
He has been found guilty on a 10 to 2 jury of groping a womans boobs through clothing 19 years ago.
Is his behaviour acceptable, absolutely not, should she have slapped his face and made a scene, perhaps, should it have gone to court, NO NO NO. What a mad world.
If he had been just a member of the boring public this would have gone nowhere, the CPS and police are covering their weakness in the past with different weakness now.
He has my pity for being a dirty old man but more so for having been hung out to dry.
Is his behaviour acceptable, absolutely not, should she have slapped his face and made a scene, perhaps, should it have gone to court, NO NO NO. What a mad world.
If he had been just a member of the boring public this would have gone nowhere, the CPS and police are covering their weakness in the past with different weakness now.
He has my pity for being a dirty old man but more so for having been hung out to dry.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff