RE: 'Not Guilty' Motorists Face Court Costs

[anonymous-user]

GMS lawyer said:

I sincerely hope that you are never asked to provide a breath sample on a faulty machine (of which there are many) or that a laser device is not pointed at your vehicle but reads off the porsche to your left.

i'll be the guy undertaking you in the porsche

[fluffnik]

odyssey2200 said:

If the BiB and CPS did their jobs properly and brought properly prepared cases there would be far less to pay out when their case fall apart like a cheap Woolworths watch.

That's why it would be best if their current incarnations went the way of Woolworths...

[Manolo]

If the CPS, and thereby the government, is losing too many motoring prosecutions and therefore incurring heavy costs in defendant's reclaiming legal fees & costs,the answer is blindingly elementary.
The CPS should, indeeed must, ensure it has a very strong case before embarking on prosecution adventures. On the other hand, if one was a cynic, one may assume the CPS goes after half-baked cases on the basis of a good pay day; this will be even more embedded in the public's mind should this proposal became law.
This proposal flies in the face of natural justice - we are going to be forced to 'cough up'on any motoring case that takes the police and CPS's fancy, justified or trumped up.
Just one more reason to add to all the others introduced by this 'nanny knows best' government, like global warming taxation opportunities, swine flu scare, speed cameras etc., that encourages the electorate into believing our so called political 'elite' are just not worth the candle.
All the government is interested in is raising and screwing ever more money out of us, with no thought for justice or democracy.

[iamed]

vonhosen said:

I've already said,

I'm sorry for not reading through all of your previous posts

vonhosen said:

I don't think the tax payer should pay exorbitant rates for people's defence solicitors. We don't pay them to prosecution solicitors.
We should provide a minimum standard & if people want more then they can pay for more.

There is a simple way around not having the CPS pay for defence costs, you know?

[vonhosen]

iamed said:

vonhosen said:

I've already said,

I'm sorry for not reading through all of your previous posts

vonhosen said:

I don't think the tax payer should pay exorbitant rates for people's defence solicitors. We don't pay them to prosecution solicitors.
We should provide a minimum standard & if people want more then they can pay for more.

There is a simple way around not having the CPS pay for defence costs, you know?

The CPS don't pay them.

[iamed]

vonhosen said:

iamed said:

vonhosen said:

I've already said,

I'm sorry for not reading through all of your previous posts

vonhosen said:

I don't think the tax payer should pay exorbitant rates for people's defence solicitors. We don't pay them to prosecution solicitors.
We should provide a minimum standard & if people want more then they can pay for more.

There is a simple way around not having the CPS pay for defence costs, you know?

The CPS don't pay them.

There is a simple way around not having the CPS make the taxpayer pay for defence costs, you know?

And it doesn't include undermining our legal system.

[vonhosen]

iamed said:

vonhosen said:

iamed said:

vonhosen said:

I've already said,

I'm sorry for not reading through all of your previous posts

vonhosen said:

I don't think the tax payer should pay exorbitant rates for people's defence solicitors. We don't pay them to prosecution solicitors.
We should provide a minimum standard & if people want more then they can pay for more.

There is a simple way around not having the CPS pay for defence costs, you know?

The CPS don't pay them.

There is a simple way around not having the CPS make the taxpayer pay for defence costs, you know?

And it doesn't include undermining our legal system.

I don't believe it is undermining the legal system.
The state will only provide legal aid rates to the poor in far more serious cases for their defence, whether found guilty or not.
If people want to top up on what the state provides in any field, then let them do so.
We already provide one of the most comprehensive & generous legal aid systems in the world.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 23 October 22:28

[iamed]

vonhosen said:

iamed said:

vonhosen said:

iamed said:

vonhosen said:

I've already said,

I'm sorry for not reading through all of your previous posts

vonhosen said:

I don't think the tax payer should pay exorbitant rates for people's defence solicitors. We don't pay them to prosecution solicitors.
We should provide a minimum standard & if people want more then they can pay for more.

There is a simple way around not having the CPS pay for defence costs, you know?

The CPS don't pay them.

There is a simple way around not having the CPS make the taxpayer pay for defence costs, you know?

And it doesn't include undermining our legal system.

I don't believe it is undermining the legal system.

I had no doubt you'd say that. You'll believe whatever your employer believes.

vonhosen said:

The state will only provide legal aid rates to the poor in far more serious cases for their defence, whether found guilty or not.
If people want to top up on what the state provides in any field, then let them do so.

And it so happens that legal aid rates are crap. Win-win for the state.

Are you really so short sighted not to see this? It benefits the state to provide cheap and crap legal-aid, so no one can afford to defend themselves regardless of guilt?

Anyway, Vonhosen, as always I'll read your replies with interest but I'm signing off from this topic now. I'm glad to have drawn your attention but I've seen enough of your thousands of posts to know not to get dragged into your police-state-droid arguments.

[vonhosen]

iamed said:

vonhosen said:

iamed said:

vonhosen said:

iamed said:

vonhosen said:

I've already said,

I'm sorry for not reading through all of your previous posts

vonhosen said:

I don't think the tax payer should pay exorbitant rates for people's defence solicitors. We don't pay them to prosecution solicitors.
We should provide a minimum standard & if people want more then they can pay for more.

There is a simple way around not having the CPS pay for defence costs, you know?

The CPS don't pay them.

There is a simple way around not having the CPS make the taxpayer pay for defence costs, you know?

And it doesn't include undermining our legal system.

I don't believe it is undermining the legal system.

I had no doubt you'd say that. You'll believe whatever your employer believes.

I don't believe whatever my employer believes, I don't even know what my employer's position is on everything.

iamed said:

vonhosen said:

The state will only provide legal aid rates to the poor in far more serious cases for their defence, whether found guilty or not.
If people want to top up on what the state provides in any field, then let them do so.

And it so happens that legal aid rates are crap. Win-win for the state.

Are you really so short sighted not to see this? It benefits the state to provide cheap and crap legal-aid, so no one can afford to defend themselves regardless of guilt?

Anyway, Vonhosen, as always I'll read your replies with interest but I'm signing off from this topic now. I'm glad to have drawn your attention but I've seen enough of your thousands of posts to know not to get dragged into your police-state-droid arguments.

We haven't always had legal aid, it was government that introduced it as a minimum for people where there was none.
If people want ever larger slices of the budget placed into it they can petition their MPs for it.
I myself would rather see it as a minimum for people (to keep tax burden down) & for them to top up themselves as required.

As it is I've been paying insurance premiums for years & not had to use them in defence of myself. Long may that continue.

[recycled]

son of clarkson said:

Signed.


I do feel sorry for the police as there the ones who get the grief for all of this instead on the politicians who live the life of rielly at our expense and seem to get away with it all. Let's just hope those that are being investigated .

.

I don't. If they refuse to use their hairdryers, they can always complain to the government that they are tied down catching burglars and muggers.

Police bring grief on themselves and lame red tape. I wonder if they refuse to fill in all the stupid forms and get on with the act of crime solving, will they all br sacked? I think not.

Oops i forgot, that is hard work and does not bring in revenue.

[odyssey2200]

recycled said:

son of clarkson said:

Signed.


I do feel sorry for the police as there the ones who get the grief for all of this instead on the politicians who live the life of rielly at our expense and seem to get away with it all. Let's just hope those that are being investigated .

.

I don't. If they refuse to use their hairdryers, they can always complain to the government that they are tied down catching burglars and muggers.

Police bring grief on themselves and lame red tape. I wonder if they refuse to fill in all the stupid forms and get on with the act of crime solving, will they all br sacked? I think not.

Oops i forgot, that is hard work and does not bring in revenue.

OMG!!

Von is gonna set Mr Annie on you!!

[vonhosen]

recycled said:

son of clarkson said:

Signed.


I do feel sorry for the police as there the ones who get the grief for all of this instead on the politicians who live the life of rielly at our expense and seem to get away with it all. Let's just hope those that are being investigated .

.

I don't. If they refuse to use their hairdryers, they can always complain to the government that they are tied down catching burglars and muggers.

Police bring grief on themselves and lame red tape. I wonder if they refuse to fill in all the stupid forms and get on with the act of crime solving, will they all br sacked? I think not.

Oops i forgot, that is hard work and does not bring in revenue.

How many use hair dryers & how often ?

[GMS lawyer]

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-n...

another example of a motorist who will most likely lose his job or a significant amount of money under the new regime. legal aid/non specialist lawyers would have had him plead guilty (as is very commonly the case.)

[taylorguk]

Hold on a minute - there's more to this than first seems!

If you go to the No10 website and look at the exact wording of the petition, it gives the game away. What the Government appear to be proposing is to refund innocent defendants "at the legal aid rate" and no more. Now usually, lawyers are keen to take on legal aid work, because the rates are reasonable and they know they'll get paid. Hence surely it's reasonable to be refunded at those same rates by the court when an innocent person is acquitted in a non-legal aid case?
What the lawyers have realised here is they'll no longer be able to charge motorists and other innocent parties at excessive rates for relatively straightforward work!
It seems to me to be a very sensible proposal, but of course the legal profession are up in arms about it because they'll no longer be able to line their pockets at the taxpayers' expense.

Any lawyers care to argue?

[DickyC]

taylorguk said:

Hold on a minute - there's more to this than first seems!

If you go to the No10 website and look at the exact wording of the petition, it gives the game away. What the Government appear to be proposing is to refund innocent defendants "at the legal aid rate" and no more. Now usually, lawyers are keen to take on legal aid work, because the rates are reasonable and they know they'll get paid. Hence surely it's reasonable to be refunded at those same rates by the court when an innocent person is acquitted in a non-legal aid case?
What the lawyers have realised here is they'll no longer be able to charge motorists and other innocent parties at excessive rates for relatively straightforward work!
It seems to me to be a very sensible proposal, but of course the legal profession are up in arms about it because they'll no longer be able to line their pockets at the taxpayers' expense.

Any lawyers care to argue?

A strong contender for The Scariest First Post of the Year Award.

[odyssey2200]

taylorguk said:

Hold on a minute - there's more to this than first seems!

If you go to the No10 website and look at the exact wording of the petition, it gives the game away. What the Government appear to be proposing is to refund innocent defendants "at the legal aid rate" and no more. Now usually, lawyers are keen to take on legal aid work, because the rates are reasonable and they know they'll get paid. Hence surely it's reasonable to be refunded at those same rates by the court when an innocent person is acquitted in a non-legal aid case?
What the lawyers have realised here is they'll no longer be able to charge motorists and other innocent parties at excessive rates for relatively straightforward work!
It seems to me to be a very sensible proposal, but of course the legal profession are up in arms about it because they'll no longer be able to line their pockets at the taxpayers' expense.

Any lawyers care to argue?

I quite agree!

just so long as the prosecution are only paid at legal aid rates too!

the fact that you might need a specialist solicitor or expert witness seems to have passed you by.

The fact that the CPS are only loosing so many cases because they are lazy, sloppy and unaccountable also seems to have evaded you.

The answer is simple.

Proper policing, Proper cases, properly prepared and those who exploit loopholes and take the piss would be reduced to nil.

Present sloppy cases, assume that the judge is always going to side with the CPS apply the usual Civil Service standard of care and conscientiousness and this is the result.

[vonhosen]

odyssey2200 said:

taylorguk said:

Hold on a minute - there's more to this than first seems!

If you go to the No10 website and look at the exact wording of the petition, it gives the game away. What the Government appear to be proposing is to refund innocent defendants "at the legal aid rate" and no more. Now usually, lawyers are keen to take on legal aid work, because the rates are reasonable and they know they'll get paid. Hence surely it's reasonable to be refunded at those same rates by the court when an innocent person is acquitted in a non-legal aid case?
What the lawyers have realised here is they'll no longer be able to charge motorists and other innocent parties at excessive rates for relatively straightforward work!
It seems to me to be a very sensible proposal, but of course the legal profession are up in arms about it because they'll no longer be able to line their pockets at the taxpayers' expense.

Any lawyers care to argue?

I quite agree!

just so long as the prosecution are only paid at legal aid rates too!

You think the CPS lawyer prosecuting minor traffic matters at Magistrates Court is highly paid now ?

As far as I'm aware the proposal doesn't affect the fees that could be recovered to reimburse your expert witness either.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 27th October 19:57

[10 Pence Short]

People who are made to defend themselves in court against false allegations should not be made to incur any loss in doing so.

The way to avoid the problem is to stop trying to prosecute people when there isn't a good case to do so.

[anonymous-user]

taylorguk said:

Now usually, lawyers are keen to take on legal aid work, because the rates are reasonable

nice theory, except its bo11ocks. legal aid rates are pathetic and defendants costs are subject to the test of reasonableness anyway, so mr freemans costs wouldnt be covered even today. you get what you pay for.

if you are falsey accused of a crime by the state and succesfully defend yourself, you should be entitiled to reasonable costs. pretty simple. to burden the innocent with costs of a reasonable defence is disgusting.

Edited by fbrs on Tuesday 27th October 20:49

[Jasandjules]

vonhosen said:

I've already said, I don't think the tax payer should pay exorbitant rates for people's defence solicitors. We don't pay them to prosecution solicitors.
We should provide a minimum standard & if people want more then they can pay for more.

The state doesn't pay exorbitant rates for people's defence solicitors. You ought to know that only "reasonably" incurred costs can be awarded. However, I would like to point out that it is counsel who prosecute and defend in the main, not solicitors. Solicitors do not have the same rights of audience as counsel, though of course this matter is changing slightly.

Therefore, in essence, we do pay a minimum standard.

What rates do prosecution counsel get then Von (I happen to know the answer to this BTW, well, I know what a daily rate has been for one, and I know the amount of effort which goes into a simple prosecution). You are aware (I assume), that criminal barristers were, at the time of my training course anyway, considering not bothering to prosecute anymore for the rates that the state was imposing. Any idea what that would do to the legal system? Any idea how much a junior criminal barrister may make in a year? I bet you'd be f***ng shocked.