Coulson & Brooks hacking trial starts today

[Zod]

carinaman said:

Someone made a comment in the Jimmy Savile thread about how the establishment are all in it together urinating in the same pot.

Yes, Jimmy Savile - he was at the heart of the establishment!

[carinaman]

Zod said:

Yes, Jimmy Savile - he was at the heart of the establishment!

I wonder if he ever met Cyril Smith? Earlier in the week Radio 4 did a dramatisation based on the idea of Moon the Loon meeting Oliver Reed. They could do one about what may have happened if Cyril Smith met Jimmy Savile.

[Adrian W]

Zod said:

Nothing did. You've got the burden of proof the wrong way round. The defendant doesn't have to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt. It's the prosecution that must prove guilt to that standard.

However if the defendant has unlimited finds and can mount a defense so complex that there will always be doubt the system is flawed. One law for the rich etc!

[anonymous-user]

If that were true how come Nadir (Polly Peck), Aitken, Archer, Huhne etc all got potted? Brooks' defence (spelled thus) was not all that complex. Her defence was basically the Macavity defence*. The prosecution failed to prove that she knew of and/or directed the wicked deeds.




* Macavity is one of T S Eliot's cats. The thing about Macavity is that he is never there.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 26th June 15:47

[Zod]

Adrian W said:

Zod said:

Nothing did. You've got the burden of proof the wrong way round. The defendant doesn't have to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt. It's the prosecution that must prove guilt to that standard.

However if the defendant has unlimited finds and can mount a defense so complex that there will always be doubt the system is flawed. One law for the rich etc!

There's this chap who sits at the front of the court. He's called a judge. He's there to deal with that kind of thing.

I know it's somehow comforting for some people to think that the rich can stitch up the justice system (and they can to an extent on the civil side, particularly with defamation actions), but the criminal justice sytem is well-proofed against that.

[carinaman]

Breadvan72 said:

If that were true how come Nadir (Polly Peck), Aitken, Archer, Clegg etc all got potted?

And Huhne, Pryce and Briscoe.

But they were sacrificed to the great GATSO gods and to prove that Speed Kills.

[anonymous-user]

No, nothing to do with that, but lots to do with telling fibs and fking with the integrity of the system, just as with Archer and Aitken.

[anonymous-user]

PS: whoops, said Clegg, meant Huhne. Hard to yell one libdem suit from another.

[carinaman]

Breadvan72 said:

No, nothing to do with that, but lots to do with telling fibs and fking with the integrity of the system

Do Judges not like that then?

[carinaman]

Guam said:

Waits to see if Zod and BV will argue this point and lower their fees

I've had some free advice from BV72 that I found beneficial.

[anonymous-user]

carinaman said:

Breadvan72 said:

No, nothing to do with that, but lots to do with telling fibs and fking with the integrity of the system

Do Judges not like that then?

PCOJ almost always attracts a prison sentence because it is seen as an attack on the whole shebang. Despite what the mockers say, the system, flawed and shaky as it can be, and subject as it is to scammery and spoofery by unscrupulous litigants and the less ethical type of lawyer, tries its wobbly and imperfect best to run straight and honest, and if you get caught monkeying about with it you tend to get slammed.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 26th June 16:29

[anonymous-user]

Guam, like many lawyers (not all) I do a lot of advisory work for free and a bit of advocacy work for free, but only for clients that seem to me to deserve freebies. The Government gets me at a fixed cheapo rate less than one third of the market rate. For private sector clients, I am just a commodity with a market price. You are right, however, to observe that cheapo lawyers (funded privately or by the public) are often not very good, although some able people do legal aid work as a sort of vocation. Even those are now getting fed up as the pay is not much for a difficult job.

I posted this on the legal aid thread but it may be apposite here also.


http://alisongurden.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/effic...

[gpo746]

Breadvan72 said:

carinaman said:

Breadvan72 said:

No, nothing to do with that, but lots to do with telling fibs and fking with the integrity of the system

Do Judges not like that then?

PCOJ almost always attracts a prison sentence because it is seen as an attack on the whole shebang. Despite what the mockers say, the system, flawed and shaky as it can be, and subject as it is to scammery and spoofery by unscrupulous litigants and the less ethical type of lawyer, tries its wobbly and imperfect best to run straight and honest, and if you get caught monkeying about with it you tend to get slammed.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Thursday 26th June 16:29

I think what he means is
Perverting the course of justice is usually dealt with severely. The justice system whilst flawed is the best we have and people messing with it get caught

Is that a reasonable summing up me honor van ?

[anonymous-user]

Yes, although a fair few mess with it and don't get caught, but those that do get caught get a bit of a kicking. See also civil contempt - get done for that and expect a bit of a battering from the Judge.

[Zod]

Guam said:

Zod said:

There's this chap who sits at the front of the court. He's called a judge. He's there to deal with that kind of thing.

I know it's somehow comforting for some people to think that the rich can stitch up the justice system (and they can to an extent on the civil side, particularly with defamation actions), but the criminal justice sytem is well-proofed against that.

That's not wholly true now is it, having sat on several Juries, even I can tell the difference between the expensive A* Barristers and the el cheapo one that the folk from the sink estates get.

The difference is remarkable.

So the rich can get a better shake in court by virtue of having extremely competent counsel can they not?


Waits to see if Zod and BV will argue this point and lower their fees

You'd be surprised by how many expensive lawyers are not very good.

[anonymous-user]

That is true. Markets are odd, and often far from rational. I can think of a couple of bazzers who are famously crap but who are in fashion with the market, so they get lots of work and high fees, perhaps on some sort of Emperor's new clothes basis. Having said that, the best people really are super ace, and when the st is really going down they can be worth every penny.

[kev1974]

For such well-off people you'd think they could both afford better fitting clothes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2671081/I-...
Unless it's all they could find after the mad partying.

[Steffan]

Breadvan72 said:

That is true. Markets are odd, and often far from rational. I can think of a couple of bazzers who are famously crap but who are in fashion with the market, so they get lots of work and high fees, perhaps on some sort of Emperor's new clothes basis. Having said that, the best people really are super ace, and when the st is really going down they can be worth every penny.

Breavan is absolutely correct in reminding us how much better the British Courts are than most, in resisting attempts to pervert justice in trials. Our system is not perfect but is a lot less imperfect than many others. There are the occasional serious attempts as in the recent Hume/Pryce trials where subsequently a Part time judge was jailed for her dishonest testimony. Very sad case all round really because all Pryce managed was to ruin her own position, and thst of her friend. However as we must all remeber Congreve was absolutely spot on with his "hell knows no fury like a woman scorned, " muse and it would serve us all well to remeber that fact. Imperfect the British justice system may be but it's probably one of the best in the world.

Edited by Steffan on Thursday 26th June 19:25

[Mermaid]

kev1974 said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2671081/I-...
.

This comment from a DM reader sums it up really.

"She says she is innocent. I would say she was found not guilty!"

[tenpenceshort]

It's also worth pointing out that good lawyers font always charge the earth, either. Some senior junior barristers do an excellent job with vigour and for the right reasons. In recent times I was represented by a well known one in northern criminal circles who charged no more than my solicitor to attend court. The senior clerk at a prominent Leeds chambers was amazed he wasn't charging me five times the price.