Should private defense lawyers be banned?

[jake-the-peg]

Seeing footballers walk away from assault charges that would have you or I banged up and people like George Michael get very light sentences one has to wonder if we are all equal under the law.

Having the money for expensive lawyers that have lots of time an resources to prepare defences against public prosecutors who are often stretched seems to make a big difference.

Perhaps in criminal cases defense lawyers should be publically appointed by ballot with a set time to prepare depending on the case.

Thoughts?

[jake-the-peg]

I am so going to steal that expression!

[cassa333]

There will always be inequality. It aint fair and it aint pretty, but until we reach the higher echelons of the utopian society, thats life boy.

What should be happening is that the loopholes should be shut and sentancing should be consistant throughout.

So no I don't think there should be a pool of defence lawyers.

[Davethedog]

Jake aren't you being somewhat presumtive? I wasn't a juror on the Gerrard trial, but I have been a juror, when Gerrard walked there must have been a doubt, that any decent lawyer would have come upon.

George Michael, got a normal sentence for what he did and if it wasn't for his previous he wouldn't have been sent to jail. He would of got a longer sentence if he hadn't plead guilty.

Given that some people drink and drive repeatedly and only ever get larger and larger bans I wouldn't say that he was treated any differently than anyone else.

[ludwig]

// when Gerrard walked there must have been a doubt //

I don't think there was any doubt at all Dave. From where I stood he was definately the Liverpool captain and the jury was definately made up of scousers. It was an open and shut case.

Jake, rich people will always be able to afford better stuff than the rest of us. If you can afford to appoint a specific person to represent you in court, you should be allowed to do it surely?

[jake-the-peg]

Arguments like "that's life, it aint fair" are typically English they are councils of despair

"Can't change things why try" really sad actually - can you imagine if everybody had thought that through history we'd still all be serfs working on the farms of our lords and masters!

It's true Dave I don't know all the details of the Gerrard case but I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of cases of violence in pubs brought up to court get a guilty verdict wouldn't you?

So it's a bit of a coincidence that people with expensive legal teams get off.

//If you can afford a certain person to defend you you should be able to surely?//

Why? because that's the situation now?

I might argue that surely you should be able to appeal to the entire country and have your case decided by telephone dial in

It used to be argued that the prosecution should never be allowed to challenge the sentence, that nodody could ever be tried twice for the same offence even if new evidence came up. That nobody could be tried without a jury even if past juries had been threatened and intimdated by friends of the accused.

All of these changed and IMHO justice was served the better for it.

Currently the prosecution is handicapped by having fewer resources in some of these cases - all I'm suggesting is that we level the playing field between prosecution and defence

Surely a level playing field is what we should have in the law

[R1Geezer]

Perhaps only for people you don't like jake eh?

[ludwig]

//If you can afford a certain person to defend you you should be able to surely?//
// Why? because that's the situation now? //

No, because it's a fundamental principle that you can choose someone to represent you and argue your case. Forget well-heeled lawyers for a sec. It may well be your uncle Harry, who may not even a lawyer, but because you think he's the best person to do the Job - or you may choose to represent yourself.
So, George Michael has chosen Hotblack Desiato & Richb'staad. Good luck to him.

You may also think it's not fair that wealthy people get to live in bigger houses than everyone else. It doesn't mean that the state should take control of all the housing stock and re-distribute it on a random lottery basis... actaully maybe you think it should - I don't want to give you any ideas.

Quite apart from all that, I don't think he's been treated particularly differently - justice seems to be dished out pretty randomly anyway, people receiving fairly light sentences for what I consider very nasty crimes, and the next week some poor s0d being incarcerated for nicking a packet of crisps from Tescos.

[New Judge]

Jake, you keep suggesting that people whom you do not like or who follow certain occupations are necessarily treated more leniently by the courts, either because of who they are, or because they can afford expensive advocates, or both. Every time you do so either I or others demonstrate that this is manifestly untrue.

Just recently you suggested this was so in the case of Police Sergeant Andrews who assaulted a female prisoner by throwing her to the floor and received six month’s custody for his trouble. In my answer to your question on that topic I think I demonstrated that the sentencing guidelines had been adhered to.

Now you suggest George Michael has been treated leniently. Not so. He received eight weeks after pleading guilty, which equates to a twelve week sentence following conviction after a trial. The guidelines show that such a sentence is appropriate when a high level of impairment is evident and an accident ensues (which I believe was the case here). In addition the five year ban he received is, if anything considerably in excess of the normal period and we could say he has been treated more harshly.

Footballer Stephen Gerard was acquitted by a jury. If it was because he was tried by fellow football-mad “Scousers” that is perhaps a fault of the jury system, but I have not seen it suggested that it was because he employed an expensive advocate.

You have to bear in mind that all Joe Public gets to hear about in these cases is a very much abridged version of the case. We don’t hear all the facts; we don’t hear all the mitigation and other background information that the judge or magistrates do.

You now use these examples to support a suggestion that defendants should have no choice over the advocate they choose to defend them.

Priceless!

[New Judge]

And, ludwig, I have never known anybody to be incarcerated for stealing a packet of crisps, either from Tescos or anywhere else.

One of the reasons sentencing may appear to be random is that Joe Public only gets to hear a very abridged version of events. They do not hear all the facts; they do not hear all the mitigation; they do not learn all the background information.

Judges and Magistrates do hear all this and what might be two column inches in the press often takes many hours in the courtroom.

That’s why, to those who were not there, some court decisions can sometimes seem perverse.

[sandyRoe]

Think back a few years to when Ken Dodd stood trial in Liverpool for tax dodging. He had a good defence team, but on that charge, and in Liverpool, I think I might have got him an acquital too.
The rich buy the best that money can offer. In the courts and everywhere else.

[sandyRoe]

That man who defends motorists reads the case papers first. If he thinks he doesn't have much chance of an acquittal he won't take the case.
That means he has a great record in court with such cases, and can charge a nice fee when he does take a case.

[ludwig]

//And, ludwig, I have never known anybody to be incarcerated for stealing a packet of crisps, either from Tescos or anywhere else. //

Yes, I was being slightly ironic there m'lud. How about non-payment of TV licence? I'm sure that must have happened.

[New Judge]

Non-payment of TV licence is punishable only by way of a fine of up to £1,000. It does not carry a prison sentence.

Some people (though very few to my knowledge) have been imprisoned for not paying the fine imposed for such an offence. This, of course, is the case with any fine for any offence. However, magistrates can only consider imprisonment for non-payment of fines where there has been deliberate refusal to pay (i.e. they had the funds but chose not to pay) or where there has been culpable neglect (i.e. they had the funds, but neglected to pay as directed). They cannot consider imprisonment where it can be demonstrated that there are insufficient funds to pay.

I happen personally to believe that TV licence evasion should not be a criminal offence at all, but that it should be pursued through the County Court as a civil debt.

However, we digress somewhat.

[mike11111]

Ken Dodd's defence in court to a charge of tax evasion was that it was introduced in 1799 at a rate of 2d in the £ and that he had had no further communication since to suggest that the rate had been increased.

[R1Geezer]

Jake's gone all quiet again judge, well I never!

[Berkshirelad]

@ Ludwig.

You are wrong about who can represent you.

You may appoint a qualified lawyer (who has right of audience in the particular court) or you may represent yourself.

You can't use Uncle Harry or any mate. It is possibl to have them allowed by the court as a "McKenzie Friend", but this merely allows them to sit with you, take notes and quietly offer advice - they cannot speak for you.

[ludwig]

Thanks berkshirelad - I stand corrected.