Barrister with, er, "interesting" opinions to stand trial

Barrister with, er, "interesting" opinions to stand trial

Author
Discussion

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

216 months

Thursday 1st May 2014
quotequote all
If my experience of the CPS is anything to go by, they will stand in the corner, fingers in ears, singing "la, la, la, la" until the poor sod who has to prosecute the thing ends up with the file and a confused face.

IanA2

2,762 posts

161 months

Thursday 1st May 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Stupid plan is stupid!

Shrimpton is evidently bonkers, but he presents no danger to himself or others, so he's not sectionable under the MHA. Leave him alone. His delusional warblings perhaps add something to the gaiety of life.
Completely agree. Waste of time and money. Just trying to make sense of their stupidity. Two of my best friends are bi-polar, colourful types.

ETA: You might be surprised at who is considered sectionable. Do you remember the IoW lady sectioned for refusing to make her husbands supper? That aside, I think some kind of ASBO could be applied. Nothing surprised me any more.


Edited by IanA2 on Thursday 1st May 12:34

carinaman

21,214 posts

171 months

Thursday 1st May 2014
quotequote all
ECT by taser could work.

Mk3Spitfire

2,921 posts

127 months

Thursday 1st May 2014
quotequote all
IanA2 said:
ETA: You might be surprised at who is considered sectionable.

Edited by IanA2 on Thursday 1st May 12:34
On the flip side, it's also surprising who is deemed "fit and well" and not sectionable. I know it's a tough call, but some decisions iv seen recently are nothing short of disgusting IMO.
And then to flip it back, it's a difficult call to make.Not everyone who wants to commit suicide is suffering from mental health, again IMO.It's a horrible situation for those suffering from MH, and an eg of the real victims/patients suffering at the hands of politics and red tape idiocy.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

agtlaw

6,680 posts

205 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
It is outrageous that the Bar Standards Board did not at the least suspend Shrimpton when he was convicted of the child porn offence several months ago.

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
It is outrageous that the Bar Standards Board did not at the least suspend Shrimpton when he was convicted of the child porn offence several months ago.
I agree.

The more interesting question, though, is how in the name of Blod the other conviction was reached?! He absolutely did believe that the threat was real. He's not sound. There is no other rational explanation. Proven to the criminal standard that he didnt hold that belief? Bah! I find it harder and harder to justify the use of jury trials on any basis other than 'It's constitutional and that' and/or something about jury nullification and/or the Nazis and/or Henry VIII.

Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
Anybody know the reason it has taken so long to bring this case to trial?
The 'intelligence' was passed on months before the Olympics. The Games ended over 2 years ago.
Why is the pace so glacial? The waste in the MoJ must be costing the Treasury a fortune.

When our public finances are is such a mess we can't afford this.
The government's response seems to be to cut Legal Aid.
Penalising access to justice for the less well off instead of making the system more efficient.





IanA2

2,762 posts

161 months

Tuesday 25th November 2014
quotequote all
So now that this expensive process has been gone through a psychiatric opinion is being sought.

Pity it was not sought at the outset, might have saved a lot of time and money.

Surely he's not now going to be a further burden and the public purse by being sent to prison.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
The Court had no power to compel the man to be examined until he was convicted. The CPS suggested a psychiatric review much earlier on, but Shrimpton does not accept that he is mentally ill, although it seems fairly plain that he is.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
Absurd to prosecute on this, and would be absurd to jail him for the hoax, but he ought to be jail for the child porn, and should be disbarred for that.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
Who actively monitors the performance of barristers and judges?

ivanhoew

974 posts

240 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
just found this topic ...and after due consideration all i can come up with is ..golly!

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
The full loonabatics are here:-

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/22/secret-soc...

Cap'n, the tinfoil shields are failing! We cannae handle this level of Woo!
I just read that. He makes more sense than most/all of our politicians !!!

Truffles

577 posts

183 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
He has posted his defence statement online:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/219272953/Michael-Shrimp...


IanA2

2,762 posts

161 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
The Court had no power to compel the man to be examined until he was convicted. The CPS suggested a psychiatric review much earlier on, but Shrimpton does not accept that he is mentally ill, although it seems fairly plain that he is.
I'm not entirely sure that's correct. How about sections 35 or 36 of MHA 1983? S35 allows for assessment and S36 for treatment, neither require conviction. Moreover, if the court has a diversion scheme, a MHA assessment can be requested by the diversion officer.

Anyway you slice it, the man is clearly bonkers.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
Bonkers, yes, but I do a lot of work under the MHA and this guy lacks the element of danger to justify coercive action thereunder. He is a sad delusional Mitty type, but also a nasty perv.

Vaud

50,289 posts

154 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
Truffles said:
He has posted his defence statement online:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/219272953/Michael-Shrimp...
Wow. Nothing about aliens though, I was disapointed. Or JFK.