Dlt In Court Again

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26787306

I know we have discussed this before on AB but how on earth is this man going to get a fair trial when the previous case was splashed across the media for weeks earlier this year ? Will it be possible to choose a Jury that knows nothing about what has previously go on ?

[hc4361]

It does seem to be a farce

[Peter Pedant]

Shouldn't be too bad
Jury seemed OK last time

he has been screwed by the publicity and someone coming forward ( as they do ) and saying - he did that to me as well.....

Having been an observer at a sex trial (I was an excused witness ) it is obvious Juries take their responsibilities seriously and are mostly not fools..-.

Far rather a jury than a judge who seem to be gormless foolz at times
as in ' what are the bay-attles ' and so on

[hc4361]

How is he supposed to keep finding the money to pay for his defence? DLT has already had to sell his home and move in to a smaller one - still a nice enough home, granted, but nothing like the one he sold.
It's costing him a fortune.

[Peter Pedant]

You have to pay these costs yourself.

Very very uncommon to get costs on acquittal in a sex case
and more difficult now - with the legal aid changes
[ costs only awardable if you have gone thro a listed legal aid solicitor ]
so clearly I did learn comething as an observer in the sex case


Usual view is that you should be so thankful that English Justice has worked and got the right answer that you are glad to pay your own costs ......

[mikey4444]

hc has raised a good point here. What if DLT, or anybody else for that matter doesn't have enough money to defend himself ? Does the State step in and pay for a Barrister for him ? It seems that if you are caught up in one of these high-profile cases, whether you go to prison or not depends on how wealthy you are. Doesn't seem to me like a very firm basis for justice in Britain today.

[hc4361]

Exactly, Peter. If he is found not guilty his life will never be the same as it was before the arrest.

[mikey4444]

PP...our contributions crossed in the post. What happens if he wins his case, and hasn't got the money to pay for his costs ? Also, still not entirely sure if his Barrister can be provided by the State. Is his only option in the case of poverty to defend himself ?

Doesn't seem very satisfactory to at all.

[hc4361]

mikey, this applies to legal aid in Crown Court:

If you have a disposable income above £283.17 per month, you will have to make five contributions from your income. If you are late paying, you will have to make one extra payment.

If you are found guilty and have capital over £30,000, you may be asked to pay a contribution from your capital.

However, you will not be entitled to legal aid representation if your disposable annual income is £37,500 or more and you will have to pay privately for your costs.

[mikey4444]

Thanks hc...hope I never end up in court then !

[hc4361]

In some situations you really are better off if you've lived in a rented house on benefits all your life :(

[naomi24]

If the previous case is anything to go by he has nothing to worry about - except his financial situation due to the costs incurred by these accusations - and his ruined reputation. This is a witch hunt and it’s an absolute disgrace. I really think that if these celebrities are found 'not guilty' their accusers should be publicly named. They're middle aged women now - not teenagers - and if they're intent after all these years on destroying lives and reputations they should have no objection to standing up and being counted.

[pixie373]

Naomi, they will never say he is 100% innocent. The best will be not proven guilty. Whether he is innocent, a lack of evidence, or a mistaken jury, is anyone's guess.

[askyourgran]

Disgraceful, this should have been finished with much earlier, these men accused of 'historic abuse' should not be kept on a string and brought back time and again to answer charges. Rolf Harris looked devastated the last time he appeared in court.

[naomi24]

Pixie, //they will never say he is 100% innocent//

I know that ... more's the pity if he is. Mud sticks.

[pixie373]

Yes, exactly. But that's also why it would be inadvisable to publish names of accusers (i don't think the accused should be named either).

[naomi24]

Pixie, not with you. If people make false accusations, they deserve any resulting mud that's thrown at them - don't you think?

[sandyRoe]

There's a difference between a false accusation and an unproven one.

[naomi24]

^^ You wouldn't want to be on the receiving end.

[pixie373]

As sandy says- we'll never know he's innocent. Even the law won't claim that. People get acquitted on technicalities sometimes. How would you decide which should be named and which wouldn't? Not being able to prove something, doesn't make it false.

[starone]

I didn't know, but I am too old for jury service. Also I tend to believe, although I know I shouldn't, that if they have been arrested they are guilty, so I wouldn't be much good on a jury anyway!