QC/defence Lawyers

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Jack_McHammocklashing, Nov 16, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. How do these guys sleep at night,

    Dronald Frindlay QuennsCooncil fights and gets dozens of guilty people off the charge with a technicality, Whilst we the UK tax payer pays his wages with legal aid fees (in the quarter million pound bracket)

    His curent client is in jail for multi murders, The girl went missing , stuff was found in his attic in the town, her body was found in a house he owned hundreds of miles away, he is serving time for similar crimes,
    These defence lawyers take every penny from us UK Taxpayers they can get

    "My client did not stab Mr X through the chest and into his heart", case dismissed client goes free

    Actlually my client stabbed him through the back into his heart :) and I have a big fat fee from the peasants of the UK with my legal aid fees

    His pal Beltrami, got a dick of an aquantice of mine off a drunk driving charge due to refusal of client to provide a blood test
    My client did offer to take a blood test, My client offered to let the Dr take the blood test but only from his Penis, which the Dr refused to do, that is not my clients fault, the fact that he is permanently pissed and drives a comapy car is irrelevant, he did offer to take a blood test

    (The law was changed after this case ~82)
    Case dismissed plese claim your legal aid fee from the UK tax payers NEXT

    I can see the point of a good lawyer, for the innocent, but to fight on a technicality is obscene,, Yes he did it but you submitted the paperwork two hours late Case dismissed

    Yes my client did enter the 89 Year-olds home to steal, but only inflicted body damage when he was confronted by the home owner, If the home owner had not intervened he would not have half beaten him to death

    He should have stayed in bed and claimed on his non existant insurance then my client would not be here today

    All extortionate lawyers get my goat but the High up defence lawyers take the biscuit

    Jack McH
     
  2. Yep, all a bit different to off caps isnt it?
     
  3. And the money! But can you prove it, based on the evidence you submitted earlier?

    Beltrami and the former Rangers Chairman gawd what a pair of QC's :dwarf:
     
  4. I always thought it was the juries who let criminals off? They can only judge by what evidence they hear and it is up to the prosecution and the police to make sure they've got the evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.
     
  5. Yaaaawwwnnn. I can barely stay awake during all this lawyer bashing.
     
  6. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    Everyone, even a scumbag is entitled to a defence and when someone has been fitted up, there is always the possibility of technicality to get them off. Sometimes the technicality works in favour of scumbags.

    Findlay's 'record' isn't that good. Recent high profile cases; Michael Ross and Luke Mitchell spring to mind and Tobin will be going back to jail whatever the verdict. There is a school of thought that when Findlay is defending, the bloke in the dock is as guilty as a puppy whimpering next to a pile of poo.
     
  7. What, 'wheel the guilty bastard in' On the few occasions that found myself off capping I always found the table to be very fair, mitigation was IMO always taken into consideration.
     
  8. But who choses juries. Do you know?
    Is it a team of citizens who sit with the Electoral Rolls before them and stick pins in? Who choses the citizens to do this?
    Do you know?
    I don't, so perhaps you will explain.
     
  9. If you talk to a lot of these defence Solicitor/Barristers etc. they will simply tell you they are doing there job.

    Much to a lot of peoples dislike. But it's a job. And as we know if someone has the dosh, even if it's tax dosh they will take it. Since when did Jack have morals!!!!!
     
  10. The Jury Central Summoning Bureau in London uses a computer to randomly select names from an electronic copy of the UK electoral register.
     
  11. And the rest of the country? Who controls the "randomly"Selection Bureau in London? The whole of london?
    Ask who the Central Summoning Bureau consists of as a FOIA 2000 Request. Not names --but asks how they are appointed and by whom.
    The machines are controlled by individuals. Buttons are pressed by them.
    Ask who presses them
     
  12. The Jury Central Summoning Bureau, based in London, issues summonses for jury service to all regions of England and Wales (this used to be a localised process but became centralised just a few years ago). Its computer uses software which generates names randomly from the Electoral Register in the same way that the Premium Bond computer generates Premium Bond numbers. None of the staff can control what it prints out. To the best of my knowledge, they are employed by HM Courts Service.
     
  13. Thank you for putting me right.
    I'm pleased the system has nothing sinister about it and jurors are selected randomly from Electoral Rolls.
    Thanks again
     
  14. If a person is acquitted by way of a technicality it means that either the Investigating Officer did not cover all the points, or committed a procedural error in the investigation. Or more likely the CPS or Procurator's Office failed to notice the flaw due to incompetence and ensure all was covered and correctly placed before the court in the time frames decreed.

    All the Defence Lawyer is doing is having the knowledge and doing the work to detect these flaws and use them to expose the procedural break downs by the prosecution.

    That is what he is paid for.

    Nutty ex plod.
     
  15. I see this all the time. Its very difficult for even the most cunning lawyer to deny his clients guilt when said client has been caught red handed with drugs strapped to his body or stuffed up some bodily orifice, therefore the guilty bastards lawyers' only recourse is to discredit the procedures used to bring him before the court.
     
  16. The function of a Barrister is to defend her/his client. If that client is the police (the Prosecuting Counsel) then their job is very different from the Defence Counsel whose role is to defend the interests of his/her client. This dual in our justice system is the sine qua non of the Anglo-Saxon adversarial judicial systems based upon the belief, at least in theory, that a defendent is innocent until proven otherwise to a jury's satisfaction.

    If we wish to adopt the continental (civil) model of law (which I am personally symphathetic toward) then that is something Parliament must choose. If we do so however considerable time will be consumed in changing all our laws so that they are compatible with the continental model. In particular we would have to abandon the current legal arrangement whereby Acts of Parliament prohibit specific conduct to a system whereby only conduct specifically allowed in legislation is permitted. That would be a major change in both our judicial and civil culture.
     
  17. As a retired prison officer[.before privitisation when it was the prison service]The service ran the crown courts. Iserved as dock officer in every Crown Court in the London area, and saw many mind boggling strokes pulled and dodgy verdicts, also blatent acts of purgery, often from thje boys in blue. MY advice to those wishing to take up a life of crime; THe odds are on your side! At every nick I worked at we had enough ex matelots to crew a minesweeper.
     
  18. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    From my previous post
    And Findlay fails to convince the jury that Tobin is innocent. Happy Jack? Like I said, Findlay's record in 'getting crims off' isn't that good and; as we knew but apparently the jury didn't, Tobin had form. Freedom was not going to be an outcome.
     
  19. Having given evidence in court on many occasions I formed the opinion that to Lawyers, it is a big acting game.
    Finding flaws is quite within the law and that's what they do. Like it or not.
    You only have to look at Nick Freeman, aka Mr Loophole, to see how easy it is for the Cops to screw up evidence.
    I'm not against Lawyers out of court though as one of my boozing buddies is a well know UK Lawyer and a thoroughly sound chap.
     
  20. Donald didn't do that well for Tobin this time then, and didn't really seem to give quite the spirited defence he usually does.

    In reality we all agree that any one is innocent until proven guilty, so should not any accused be entitled to the best defence. So in the end some get off on a technicality, whose fault is that, the person who was paid to defend them, or Mr Plod who got the procedure wrong, or the MPs who drafted and voted for flawed legislation.
     

Share This Page