Mr Loophole gets off
Discussion
But never piss off a lawyer. You wait. He'll be back and they won't like it. thinfourth2 said:
i'm surprised he hasn't been hanged under treason charges
The death penalty was abolished as the ultimate penalty for treason by The Criminal Justice Bill 1998 (except in the CI and IoM). William Joyce - "Lord Haw Haw" - was the last person hanged in England for High Treason (3rd of January 1946). One day later Theodore Schurch became the last person to be executed for offences committed under the Treachery Act 1940.
The Treason Act - "A Declaration which Offences shall be adjudged Treason" - was passed in 1351 and is the oldest current statute in English law, albeit substantially amended over the years. Aside from the CJB 1998, the Treason Felony Act 1848 made some offences that were previously High Treason into felonies and the sentence for these was reduced to exile to the penal colonies in Australia (today, life imprisonment).
Streaky
speedyguy said:
Not nice to say it
But
roll on when a close friend/family member of his is killed/maimed by someone he got off on a technicality for being p***ed/ speeding or drugged up,see if his attitude changes
End of comment
But
roll on when a close friend/family member of his is killed/maimed by someone he got off on a technicality for being p***ed/ speeding or drugged up,see if his attitude changes
End of comment
Here here
He might get his clients off the hook on a "technicality" but they still broke the law.
speedyguy said:
Not nice to say it
But
roll on when a close friend/family member of his is killed/maimed by someone he got off on a technicality for being p***ed/ speeding or drugged up,see if his attitude changes
End of comment
But
roll on when a close friend/family member of his is killed/maimed by someone he got off on a technicality for being p***ed/ speeding or drugged up,see if his attitude changes
End of comment
Not nice to say it
But
roll on when you get convicted for speeding whether guilty or not because the police/scameras didn't do their job properly.
speedyguy said:
Not nice to say it
But
roll on when a close friend/family member of his is killed/maimed by someone he got off on a technicality for being p***ed/ speeding or drugged up,see if his attitude changes
End of comment
But
roll on when a close friend/family member of his is killed/maimed by someone he got off on a technicality for being p***ed/ speeding or drugged up,see if his attitude changes
End of comment
Yep I'd be pretty p**ed at either the police or CPS that were so incompetent that they couldn't follow the law that clearly defines the steps necessary to produce evidence of sufficient quality to secure a conviction
speedyguy said:
Not nice to say it
But
roll on when a close friend/family member of his is killed/maimed by someone he got off on a technicality for being p***ed/ speeding or drugged up,see if his attitude changes
End of comment
But
roll on when a close friend/family member of his is killed/maimed by someone he got off on a technicality for being p***ed/ speeding or drugged up,see if his attitude changes
End of comment
Your absolutely right. Lawyers shouldn't defend their clients properly if they think they're probably guilty. After all, it isn't for courts to decide guilt; that's clearly the role of the defence.
When the prosecution tell the press they failed to get a conviction because of "a technicality", it means they
ed up and didn't do their job properly. The failure is theirs and theirs alone. It is dishonest of them to blame a technicality, and it is daft for anyone else to repeat and perpetuate their excuse.
Absolute offences require absolute application.
You can't complain when you are just 5 mph over to make an overtake safe. You also can't complain when there is no offence because the signs arn't quite right, because the scamarati don't form prior opinion or when the CPS fluff it up.
We can have reasonable application of law or absolute application of law, not whicheve suits us at a particular moment.
You can't complain when you are just 5 mph over to make an overtake safe. You also can't complain when there is no offence because the signs arn't quite right, because the scamarati don't form prior opinion or when the CPS fluff it up.
We can have reasonable application of law or absolute application of law, not whicheve suits us at a particular moment.
chrispy porker said:
Is it the case that if a defendant tells his lawyer he is guilty, the lawyer is not allowed to tell the court he is innocent?
His lawyer should excuse himself in these circumstances to maintain professional standards. Of course, the defendant isn't the expert on whether he is guilty or not -- that requires legal training...
s2art said:
Eliminator said:
Absolute offences require absolute application.
Then why do (did) the Trafpol use discretion?
I think Eliminator was referring to the way things are done now. If the CPS wants to insist that speeding is an absolute offence then it has to accept that it too must obey every aspect of the law in relation to bringing the prosecution. they can't have it both ways, and the recent government intimations that they will permit courts to convict despite "technicalities" in error is a damning idictment of the state of the CPS.
"In the old days", a Trafpol could determine how to handle a speeding offence and, because a driver felt they'd applied some common sense, he/she was more willing to accept what they said. In addition, it was highly unlikely that they would take any action for speed without other aggravating factors, and so any Trafpol intervention was probably well justified.
Peter Ward said:
s2art said:
Eliminator said:
Absolute offences require absolute application.
Then why do (did) the Trafpol use discretion?
I think Eliminator was referring to the way things are done now. If the CPS wants to insist that speeding is an absolute offence then it has to accept that it too must obey every aspect of the law in relation to bringing the prosecution. they can't have it both ways, and the recent government intimations that they will permit courts to convict despite "technicalities" in error is a damning idictment of the state of the CPS.
"In the old days", a Trafpol could determine how to handle a speeding offence and, because a driver felt they'd applied some common sense, he/she was more willing to accept what they said. In addition, it was highly unlikely that they would take any action for speed without other aggravating factors, and so any Trafpol intervention was probably well justified.
That's not true. Plenty of people prosecuted for 'safe' speeding by Police officers, the only difference was the prosecution threshold.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff