Arts & Literature2 mins ago
Paedophiles And Rapists Will Go Free If Legal Aid Is Cut,
24 Answers
So the Lawyers are on strike because their legal fees have been cut, is there anyone amongst us who can feel a little sympathy towards them?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It seems to me that a better method of reprisal by the barristers, would be to refuse to take on any legal aid cases.
Yes, i have sympathy with the barristers........big job.....large salaries....seems pretty fair to me.
Many barristers are paid less than £30,000 a year and have to wait for their money.
Yes, i have sympathy with the barristers........big job.....large salaries....seems pretty fair to me.
Many barristers are paid less than £30,000 a year and have to wait for their money.
Yes. To give you an idea, I went from London to King's Lynn to do a trial. The prosecution couldn't proceed so the case was stood out of the list (adjourned). My fee? £35. This was the 'case no non-effective' fee on legal aid. I had , of course, spent some hours the day before, preparing for trial. Inevitably, I could not do the trial when it was effective; it rarely happens that counsel can.
Now, the fees for ordinary trials have gone down considerably , in real, sometimes monetary, terms, since then. The costs to counsel, in travel, in rent to chambers, and everything else, have gone up. Only a fool, or a rich person, would undertake criminal legal aid work now, as counsel, and solicitors who did it have deserted in droves.
The government, of course, and the press, highlight what seem high fees in lengthy and complex trials. That is like saying that all actors get paid like George Clooney or Meryl Streep.
Now, the fees for ordinary trials have gone down considerably , in real, sometimes monetary, terms, since then. The costs to counsel, in travel, in rent to chambers, and everything else, have gone up. Only a fool, or a rich person, would undertake criminal legal aid work now, as counsel, and solicitors who did it have deserted in droves.
The government, of course, and the press, highlight what seem high fees in lengthy and complex trials. That is like saying that all actors get paid like George Clooney or Meryl Streep.
The point about paedos/rapists going free were the cuts to go ahead was the danger of cases collapsing and hence the defendant going free was being posited as a possible consequence of these cuts, due to a corresponding decline in the quality of the prosecutors and hence inexpert prosecution.
I am not at all sure that would be an outcome of cuts to legal aid however, - it sounds like a hyperbolic claim to support their position to me -but I still remain concerned that the cuts will affect the quality of legal representation for the poor and disadvantaged in our society.
I am not at all sure that would be an outcome of cuts to legal aid however, - it sounds like a hyperbolic claim to support their position to me -but I still remain concerned that the cuts will affect the quality of legal representation for the poor and disadvantaged in our society.
Tora, I am glad you have such confidence in the intelligence, understanding, and wisdom of the defendants in this country that they are able adequately able to, for example, distinguish hearsay from admissible evidence or know when hearsay is admissible, and do so before the damage is done. No doubt you trust members of the general public to diagnose and treat you when you are ill.
Have you any concrete examples of the lawyers making the law so complex as to be incomprehensible to outsiders such as members of a jury? I chose an example from the law of evidence because the law of evidence, above all, is founded upon common sense and human experience. As such it should be plain to anyone, and is, if you have the time to think about it and are possessed of the essential qualities to do so properly. It's also the most important subject in law.
Have you any concrete examples of the lawyers making the law so complex as to be incomprehensible to outsiders such as members of a jury? I chose an example from the law of evidence because the law of evidence, above all, is founded upon common sense and human experience. As such it should be plain to anyone, and is, if you have the time to think about it and are possessed of the essential qualities to do so properly. It's also the most important subject in law.
For me personally, most lawyers are at the bottom of the pile, well below insurance salesmen and estate agents, in particular the ambulance chasing scum and those that use huge amounts of legal aid to defend people that should not even be in this country.
Many of these people pray on other peoples misfortunes, pretending to be for them but really to cream off the insutrance companies. ie you and I
Many of these people pray on other peoples misfortunes, pretending to be for them but really to cream off the insutrance companies. ie you and I
Ah the old "they pray on people's misfortune" argument. So Doctors, plumbers, electricians, locksmiths etc dont also make money on people's misfortune?
As an example, a locksmith on 20 November cost me £120 + VAT and he was here for half an hour. The same day, a Criminal Bar colleague of mine was sent from Norwich to Chelmsford to do a mention in the Crown Court. The train fare cost her circa £50, she was there all day waiting for her case to be called on and when she eventually gets paid she'll earn the princely sum of £46.50 plus VAT - minus Chambers' rent and recurring charges (professional indemnity, books, membership of legal resources). You do the maths.
As for people chasing ambulances, there is something at the Bar called the Cab Rank rule where they are unable to return a brief except in certain circumstances. They therefore have no choice as to the cases they take or for whom they act.
I dont do criminal law (except a few specialist cases which demand specialist knowledge). I do have really serious concerns for the future of our legal system. If people do not believe they will earn a decent wage for what are extremely long hours (ie you often only receive a brief the day before and must work into the early hours to be fully prepped) after having the expense of putting themselves through Bar School (minimum course fees £9k) they will not go to the Criminal Bar. The CPS only maintains a small number of in-house prosecutors and the rest of cases are briefed out to Chambers. If people are not doing Criminal Defence work, they will not have the sort of experience to prosecute to the level to which we are entitled to expect. Justice will suffer and only those with big fat wallets will be able to afford any sort of legal representation in the future.
As an example, a locksmith on 20 November cost me £120 + VAT and he was here for half an hour. The same day, a Criminal Bar colleague of mine was sent from Norwich to Chelmsford to do a mention in the Crown Court. The train fare cost her circa £50, she was there all day waiting for her case to be called on and when she eventually gets paid she'll earn the princely sum of £46.50 plus VAT - minus Chambers' rent and recurring charges (professional indemnity, books, membership of legal resources). You do the maths.
As for people chasing ambulances, there is something at the Bar called the Cab Rank rule where they are unable to return a brief except in certain circumstances. They therefore have no choice as to the cases they take or for whom they act.
I dont do criminal law (except a few specialist cases which demand specialist knowledge). I do have really serious concerns for the future of our legal system. If people do not believe they will earn a decent wage for what are extremely long hours (ie you often only receive a brief the day before and must work into the early hours to be fully prepped) after having the expense of putting themselves through Bar School (minimum course fees £9k) they will not go to the Criminal Bar. The CPS only maintains a small number of in-house prosecutors and the rest of cases are briefed out to Chambers. If people are not doing Criminal Defence work, they will not have the sort of experience to prosecute to the level to which we are entitled to expect. Justice will suffer and only those with big fat wallets will be able to afford any sort of legal representation in the future.
Latest Posts
Crosswords12 mins ago
Shopping & Style12 mins ago
Crosswords17 mins ago
Film, Media & TV18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.