|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 10:30:58 GMT
The jury decided it was. End of discussion. You can't weigh up a niceity when dealing with a situation. Whether it was an assault or an affray the defence and outcome would have been the same. Not sure what being rich has to do with it. For a poor person it would have been sorted on one day by a magistrate, the option of taking it to crown court with an expensive barrister would not have been there. Nor would the "Media Show" have been there. I would have expected a charge of common assault with a six month suspended jail sentence if it was a first offence. However if he was threatened with a bottle then the other person should also have been found guilty of threatening behaviour. To find both parties not guilty is just stupid as in any disagreement one party at least has to be the aggressor. He was charged with an either way offence. Whether he had 1p or 1 billion pounds he would have the option to elect Crown Court trial IF jurisdiction was accepted by the Magistrates Court which it probably wouldn't be. A poor legally aided person would then have access to barristers |
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Aug 15, 2018 10:40:04 GMT
His lawyer 'bailed' him out, he was on a 'sticky wicket' and he had no 'boundaries' that night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Aug 15, 2018 11:52:34 GMT
The jury decided it was. End of discussion. You can't weigh up a niceity when dealing with a situation. Whether it was an assault or an affray the defence and outcome would have been the same. Not sure what being rich has to do with it. For a poor person it would have been sorted on one day by a magistrate, the option of taking it to crown court with an expensive barrister would not have been there. Nor would the "Media Show" have been there. I would have expected a charge of common assault with a six month suspended jail sentence if it was a first offence. However if he was threatened with a bottle then the other person should also have been found guilty of threatening behaviour. To find both parties not guilty is just stupid as in any disagreement one party at least has to be the aggressor. No he doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 15, 2018 12:00:31 GMT
As an ex Policeman I can verify that many people have ' got off with offences' that they have actually committed. Some have told me so. Some have said " I have done it, but you'll never prove it". Some have got off through a technicality of the law/ being charged with the slightly wrong offence eg Sec 18 instead of Sec 20 of the ( old?)Offences Against the Person Act. That’s disappointing to hear but also not at all surprising. If it were easier to convict criminals then far more innocent people would also be found guilty and you would have far more politically motivated arrests. The threashold in criminal law is very high on purpose because the impact on the accused and their family can be so high if found guilty and so there has to be beyond any reasonable doubt that they are guilty. The threshold is basically" beyond reasonable doubt" unlike civil courts where ' the balance of probability' is the measure. Much could depend upon the " skill" of the prosecution to plant the element of doubt in the jury / judges mind ... No need to disprove guilt, the onus is on the prosecution to prove it. This is why the ' rich and famous' pay for the best barristers etc.Therd " reasonable" is very important. Civil cases are decided on a different basis. And indeed some people have been wrongly convicted, the concept of " taking into consideration" has helped to clear up many offences, not necessarily carried out by the person " owning up" to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 13:01:53 GMT
For a poor person it would have been sorted on one day by a magistrate, the option of taking it to crown court with an expensive barrister would not have been there. Nor would the "Media Show" have been there. I would have expected a charge of common assault with a six month suspended jail sentence if it was a first offence. However if he was threatened with a bottle then the other person should also have been found guilty of threatening behaviour. To find both parties not guilty is just stupid as in any disagreement one party at least has to be the aggressor. No he doesn't. Oh yes he does^ |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 13:04:32 GMT
For a poor person it would have been sorted on one day by a magistrate, the option of taking it to crown court with an expensive barrister would not have been there. Nor would the "Media Show" have been there. I would have expected a charge of common assault with a six month suspended jail sentence if it was a first offence. However if he was threatened with a bottle then the other person should also have been found guilty of threatening behaviour. To find both parties not guilty is just stupid as in any disagreement one party at least has to be the aggressor. He was charged with an either way offence. Whether he had 1p or 1 billion pounds he would have the option to elect Crown Court trial IF jurisdiction was accepted by the Magistrates Court which it probably wouldn't be. A poor legally aided person would then have access to barristers You wouldn't get legal aid for that petty misdemeanour and you could still be left paying the court costs even if you won the case. You have to ask the judge to award costs as a separate issue now, winning the case does not guarantee them. This alone would put most poor people off going to Crown court. |
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Aug 15, 2018 13:51:47 GMT
I'll smash your face in if you say that again. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 16:15:58 GMT
He is a very lucky young man to get away with it in my opinion .
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 15, 2018 16:35:26 GMT
Lawyers are not the arbiters of doing things for the right reasons. Their job is to represent their client to the best of their ability within the constraints of the law and the regulations. A lawyer’s overriding duty is to the court and not their client. I work for a firm that represent the SRA against solicitors who are in breach of the regulations. I know first hand how corrupt and dishonest a very small minority are. But they are not in any way representative of the profession. Sorry to hear you have had bad personal experiences with lawyers but we aren’t all as you think we are. If their overriding duty is to the court and not the client how does this best represent the client....surely there is a conflict. I just think there is this notion promoted by the legal profession that better the legal system is served rather than the client. If I was a customer or client, I would expect the person providing that service to me to be serving my interests and my interests alone. PS....I’m sure you are a very nice chap and there are some decent lawyers with a set of morals to do the right thing; I’ve just yet to encounter any. If your duty to the court and to your client are in conflict you have to immediately cease acting. The main circumstances when this may happen is if your client is asking you to lie, misrepresent or withhold information you are duty bound to provide. If my clients ask me to do this, I persuade them otherwise or cease acting immediately. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 15, 2018 16:39:11 GMT
That’s disappointing to hear but also not at all surprising. If it were easier to convict criminals then far more innocent people would also be found guilty and you would have far more politically motivated arrests. The threashold in criminal law is very high on purpose because the impact on the accused and their family can be so high if found guilty and so there has to be beyond any reasonable doubt that they are guilty. The threshold is basically" beyond reasonable doubt" unlike civil courts where ' the balance of probability' is the measure. Much could depend upon the " skill" of the prosecution to plant the element of doubt in the jury / judges mind ... No need to disprove guilt, the onus is on the prosecution to prove it. This is why the ' rich and famous' pay for the best barristers etc.Therd " reasonable" is very important. Civil cases are decided on a different basis. And indeed some people have been wrongly convicted, the concept of " taking into consideration" has helped to clear up many offences, not necessarily carried out by the person " owning up" to them. And there is no way criminal cases should have the lower civil threshold. Many people don’t understand it and I frequently have clients who say “I never hit my wife, the police took no action when she reported me” who then don’t understand how they can possibly have a finding against them in a family court for hitting their wife. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 15, 2018 17:28:58 GMT
The threshold is basically" beyond reasonable doubt" unlike civil courts where ' the balance of probability' is the measure. Much could depend upon the " skill" of the prosecution to plant the element of doubt in the jury / judges mind ... No need to disprove guilt, the onus is on the prosecution to prove it. This is why the ' rich and famous' pay for the best barristers etc.Therd " reasonable" is very important. Civil cases are decided on a different basis. And indeed some people have been wrongly convicted, the concept of " taking into consideration" has helped to clear up many offences, not necessarily carried out by the person " owning up" to them. And there is no way criminal cases should have the lower civil threshold. Many people don’t understand it and I frequently have clients who say “I never hit my wife, the police took no action when she reported me” who then don’t understand how they can possibly have a finding against them in a family court for hitting their wife. I agree with you entirely Oggy, lad 😎🤯🤓🙃😲 |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Aug 15, 2018 19:19:14 GMT
Reasonable force is not knocking someone out though, is it? Should have been charged with assault and the evidence was clear as is the now FACT that rich people get away with murder. The jury decided it was. End of discussion. Just like Bexit |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 15, 2018 20:04:04 GMT
The threshold is basically" beyond reasonable doubt" unlike civil courts where ' the balance of probability' is the measure. Much could depend upon the " skill" of the prosecution to plant the element of doubt in the jury / judges mind ... No need to disprove guilt, the onus is on the prosecution to prove it. This is why the ' rich and famous' pay for the best barristers etc.Therd " reasonable" is very important. Civil cases are decided on a different basis. And indeed some people have been wrongly convicted, the concept of " taking into consideration" has helped to clear up many offences, not necessarily carried out by the person " owning up" to them. And there is no way criminal cases should have the lower civil threshold. Many people don’t understand it and I frequently have clients who say “I never hit my wife, the police took no action when she reported me” who then don’t understand how they can possibly have a finding against them in a family court for hitting their wife. What happened to me , many many times was that a wife complained about her husband's behaviour, we'd make arrests , take statements but the next day the wife would come to the station to withdraw charges , her statement which in the ' olden days' was why the police were reluctant to get invited in " domestics". I would say it happened in the VAST majority of cases |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 20:41:56 GMT
He was charged with an either way offence. Whether he had 1p or 1 billion pounds he would have the option to elect Crown Court trial IF jurisdiction was accepted by the Magistrates Court which it probably wouldn't be. A poor legally aided person would then have access to barristers You wouldn't get legal aid for that petty misdemeanour and you could still be left paying the court costs even if you won the case. You have to ask the judge to award costs as a separate issue now, winning the case does not guarantee them. This alone would put most poor people off going to Crown court. I love how you have absolutely no shame in just making things up and stating them like some Legal Aid guru |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 20:46:11 GMT
The threshold is basically" beyond reasonable doubt" unlike civil courts where ' the balance of probability' is the measure. Much could depend upon the " skill" of the prosecution to plant the element of doubt in the jury / judges mind ... No need to disprove guilt, the onus is on the prosecution to prove it. This is why the ' rich and famous' pay for the best barristers etc.Therd " reasonable" is very important. Civil cases are decided on a different basis. And indeed some people have been wrongly convicted, the concept of " taking into consideration" has helped to clear up many offences, not necessarily carried out by the person " owning up" to them. And there is no way criminal cases should have the lower civil threshold. Many people don’t understand it and I frequently have clients who say “I never hit my wife, the police took no action when she reported me” who then don’t understand how they can possibly have a finding against them in a family court for hitting their wife. To be fair I kind of see their point. If the 'police took no action' a decision was made that there wasnt a realistic prospect of conviction. That test is 'more likely than not'....which is effectively the civil standard. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 22:39:04 GMT
You wouldn't get legal aid for that petty misdemeanour and you could still be left paying the court costs even if you won the case. You have to ask the judge to award costs as a separate issue now, winning the case does not guarantee them. This alone would put most poor people off going to Crown court. I love how you have absolutely no shame in just making things up and stating them like some Legal Aid guru I might be talking from experience though^ but hell no I have no shame in telling it like I see it and what my experience in these matters are. Perhaps you are right about getting legal aid it's not a guarantee either way, each case on merritt maybe, but the costs is spot on from what I know. Perhaps a lawyer could enlighten us as to the facts, I may be out of date. Until then. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/20/poorest-priced-out-of-justice-by-legal-aid-rules-says-law-societywww.masonbullock.co.uk/solicitors-fees/Maybe it's the country that should be ashamed eh! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 23:36:05 GMT
Okay I will. Both your links relate to Civil Legal Aid not Criminal Legal Aid. As we are talking about a criminal offence we should probably stick to Criminal Legal Aid. I would say that 95% of defendants in the Crown Court are subject to a Legal Aid order either with or without a contribution. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 12:28:02 GMT
Okay I will. Both your links relate to Civil Legal Aid not Criminal Legal Aid. As we are talking about a criminal offence we should probably stick to Criminal Legal Aid. I would say that 95% of defendants in the Crown Court are subject to a Legal Aid order either with or without a contribution. Was I right about having to ask for costs to be awarded? Therefore putting most people off going to crown court. Also what point in time did Civil law become separate from Criminal law? Are poor people not entitled to civil law? Or was it the case that it was all getting a bit too expensive? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 12:35:05 GMT
Okay I will. Both your links relate to Civil Legal Aid not Criminal Legal Aid. As we are talking about a criminal offence we should probably stick to Criminal Legal Aid. I would say that 95% of defendants in the Crown Court are subject to a Legal Aid order either with or without a contribution. Was I right about having to ask for costs to be awarded? Therefore putting most people off going to crown court. Also what point in time did Civil law become separate from Criminal law? Are poor people not entitled to civil law? Or was it the case that it was all getting a bit too expensive? As an example we were ripped off by a legal company who conveniently went bankrupt. We had no chance of ever taking them to court to recover an initial outlay of £500 which to some would seem a trivial amount but to us was quite a large sum and not least a matter of principal. You would call that a civil matter no doubt. I would call it deception, operating a business where you know it is not financially stable and deliberately ripping people off. I'm certain we were not the only people affected but the CRIMINAL got away with it due to lack of funds and governmental will to deal with these often serial offenders. Now this is just a highlight case of how legal aid needs to be there AT ALL TIMES to stop criminals. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 22:09:35 GMT
Okay I will. Both your links relate to Civil Legal Aid not Criminal Legal Aid. As we are talking about a criminal offence we should probably stick to Criminal Legal Aid. I would say that 95% of defendants in the Crown Court are subject to a Legal Aid order either with or without a contribution. Was I right about having to ask for costs to be awarded? Therefore putting most people off going to crown court. Also what point in time did Civil law become separate from Criminal law? Are poor people not entitled to civil law? Or was it the case that it was all getting a bit too expensive? "Civil Law" is a generic term that can cover a wide range of different areas of law but basically governs disputes between private individuals or companies. "Criminal Law" basically covers all matters that offend statues and laws created by the government in attempt to stop and punish situationzs that threaten public harm and safety. Can the lines between the two become blurred, yes of course but they are very different. It is unfortunately very difficult to get Civil Legal Aid but much easier to get Criminal Legal Aid. Rightly so in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 17, 2018 12:28:52 GMT
And there is no way criminal cases should have the lower civil threshold. Many people don’t understand it and I frequently have clients who say “I never hit my wife, the police took no action when she reported me” who then don’t understand how they can possibly have a finding against them in a family court for hitting their wife. I agree with you entirely Oggy, lad 😎🤯🤓🙃😲 A fair example of what you were saying Oggy, (with which I agree remember). dailym.ai/2vSjRb3 |
|
