Latest Crap From Our Blubberment (1 Viewer)

American Dream

Free Member
Aug 20, 2007
0
156
Lincoln
Funster No
125
MH
?
Exp
?
How long is it to the next general election?

Why?

Will that change anything...?:RollEyes:They are all as bad as one-another.

Judged guilty unless challenged and proven innocent...The country has gone crazy.Is there a law against that as well?:Doh:
 

GJH

LIFE MEMBER
Aug 20, 2007
29,450
38,828
Acklam, Teesside, originally Glossop
Funster No
127
MH
None, now sold
Exp
2006 to 2022
This subject was raised on another forum a few days ago. I had a look at the petition then and found that its wording is rather different from that in the press release:
The Ministry of Justice plan to implement a new costs recovery system from October 2009. Under new rules any defendant acquitted of an offence in the Magistrates' Court will only be reimbursed at prevailing legal aid rates regardless of the level of costs they paid to their lawyers.

This proposed rule change will undoubtedly mean that many defendants will accept wrongful prosecutions for commercial reasons. The Association of Motor Offence Lawyers (of which I am President) see thousands of convictions each year in the Magistrates' Court that should never occur due to misunderstanding of technical points concerning motoring legislation. If a defendant wishes to clear their name, they often have to take their case to the Crown Court. This can be an expensive process for which legal aid is unavailable which many will not embark upon with the knowledge that even when they win their appeal, they will lose the majority of the legal fees they spend in the process.

The costs savings the government are seeing to make could be made by examining and improving other ineffective processes within the court system. It is not fair to pass yet another expense onto the public.

So, the proposal is actually to place a limit on costs which can be recovered (the level of legal aid), not to refuse to reimburse costs at all. There have often been criticisms that the entitlement to legal aid is set at the wrong level but, whilst it definitely bears scutiny, that is a different matter.

It is also worth noting that the government consultation paper - Link Removed - was published on 6 November last year with a closing date of 29 January this year - and yet it is only now, with the changes imminent, that this petition is being publicised.

The petition and press release (whether they mean to or not) imply that this measure is an attack on "innocent motorists" when that isn't anywhere near the truth. This is a measure which will apply to all cases in the magistrates courts, not just those involving motorists. That bias in implication makes me suspicious of the reason(s) for the petition.

It would appear that the real driver is that some lawyers are becoming upset because the limit is to be set at the legal aid level rather than the exorbitant fees which some lawyers charge.

Oh dear, some high-charging lawyers might be out of pocket, shame :Smile:

Graham
 
OP
OP
Biggles

Biggles

Free Member
Sep 2, 2009
151
33
Essex
Funster No
8,280
MH
Autotrail
Exp
Since 2009
Regardless of the amount of charges you can recover it is still fundamentally the thin end of the wedge.

And why when it costs you more than than legal aid to mount a proper defence should you not be able to recover this. I am not even sure if you could get legal aid to cover a speeding or parking dispute.

It had added yet another barrier to justice as many that could reasonably fight anything will only do so it the penalty is disproportionate to the costs of defence. Certainly I would think twice over paying a £60 unjust fixed penalty against mounting a costly legal challenge, and I am sure this is as I say just the thin end of the wedge. Basically try it out on the already screwed easy target the motorist, then work it in elsewhere.

Biggles

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

GJH

LIFE MEMBER
Aug 20, 2007
29,450
38,828
Acklam, Teesside, originally Glossop
Funster No
127
MH
None, now sold
Exp
2006 to 2022
Basically try it out on the already screwed easy target the motorist, then work it in elsewhere.

One of the points I made is that it isn't trying it out on the already screwed easy target the motorist. The change doesn't just apply to motorists.

It's the fact that the petition and press release give that impression that makes me very suspicious of the motives behind the petition.

Graham
 
OP
OP
Biggles

Biggles

Free Member
Sep 2, 2009
151
33
Essex
Funster No
8,280
MH
Autotrail
Exp
Since 2009
One of the points I made is that it isn't trying it out on the already screwed easy target the motorist. The change doesn't just apply to motorists.

It's the fact that the petition and press release give that impression that makes me very suspicious of the motives behind the petition.

Graham


I agree, but isn't it better that a few lawyers get overpaid rather than our basic premise of innocent until proven guilty is eroded unless you can afford to defend the action and risk it costing you more than the original and possibly unjust fine / sentence. Be it motoring or any other defence you care to mount.

And besides if they do get overpaid they will give back 40% of it in income tax anyway so the state is on a win win as usual.

Biggles
 

GJH

LIFE MEMBER
Aug 20, 2007
29,450
38,828
Acklam, Teesside, originally Glossop
Funster No
127
MH
None, now sold
Exp
2006 to 2022
I agree, but isn't it better that a few lawyers get overpaid rather than our basic premise of innocent until proven guilty is eroded unless you can afford to defend the action and risk it costing you more than the original and possibly unjust fine / sentence. Be it motoring or any other defence you care to mount.

And besides if they do get overpaid they will give back 40% of it in income tax anyway so the state is on a win win as usual.

Biggles

Looking at the consultation document a few days ago it appears that the problem is more than just a few lawyers being overpaid a bit - it is a lot of people being overpaid and causing a drain on government finances (i.e. our finances because it is we, as tax payers, who provide all the funds).

I agree wholeheartedly that innocent people should be able to afford to fund actions. As I said in my initial post:
There have often been criticisms that the entitlement to legal aid is set at the wrong level but, whilst it definitely bears scutiny, that is a different matter.

Graham

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Douglas

Free Member
Aug 22, 2008
2,835
400
South Wales,
Funster No
3,779
Exp
6 years + 5 years in boat before that
How long is it to the next general election?

The next election will make absolutly no difference. It is not possible to vote away endemic corruption.

We will get the same again with a different name and a different face.

When corruption rules, democrocy dies and in this case it is dead!

Doug...
 

Jaws

LIFE MEMBER
Sep 26, 2008
23,821
71,966
Thetford Norfolk
Funster No
4,189
MH
C class, Chieftain
Exp
since 2006 ( I think ! )
It is also worth noting that the government consultation paper - Award of costs from Central Funds in criminal cases - Ministry of Justice - was published on 6 November last year with a closing date of 29 January this year - and yet it is only now, with the changes imminent, that this petition is being publicised.
That would be because it was kept a tad quiet and away from us, the unwashed and unworthy until such time as it HAD to be brought to the fore.
Yes, of course the information is readily available blah blah blah, but exactly how long does the average person spend going through green papers every week ?
Given the average UK resident is now said to have to work 185 days ( spookily two more days than you have to be resident outside the UK to avoid UK taxation rules completely ) just to pay the tax burden imposed on them, I personally do not have the time to troll through all the squit that is spewed forth from HMSO..
Perhaps I could employ a researcher to do that for me and claim the money back as expenses ? LOL !!

I do whole heartedly agree that, sadly, it will matter not who 'gets in' at the next popularity contest. I personally know a few MP's both past and present and while they ( in general ) start off with the best intentions, they are soon corrupted by the extremely corrupt system they operate in. Often without even relaising it :Angry:
 

pappajohn

LIFE MEMBER
Aug 26, 2007
43,202
48,794
Dark side of the moon
Funster No
172
Exp
Since 2005
According to the Ministry of Justice, the age old principle of 'the loser pays' has been costing the government too much money.

just goes to show, the CPS are 'pushing' some cases they dont have much chance of winning.

is this an excersize on their part just to keep prosocution figures up?

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

robrobc

Free Member
Oct 16, 2008
243
1
Cotswolds
Funster No
4,473
MH
None Now
Exp
5+
According to the Ministry of Justice, the age old principle of 'the loser pays' has been costing the government too much money.

just goes to show, the CPS are 'pushing' some cases they dont have much chance of winning.

is this an excersize on their part just to keep prosocution figures up?

You old cynic :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Rob
 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Funsters who are viewing this thread

Back
Top