Case law is important to lawyers because, substantially, the laws themselves are unclear and need an interpretation. That doesn't mean the interpretation is applicable for eternity. You musn't run away with the idea that because lawyers are trained in analysis, they're the only ones capable of carrying it out. Perhaps just a few weeks in a commercial or manufacturing environment may allow budding lawyers to see some of the light out there. I've been on discussion boards which have lawyers posting and they're no better equipped than many other posters and some aren't equipped at all.
Some Lawyers do specialise in commercial law you know. They draft contracts for businesses and when those contracts haywire they help resolve the problems.
So, you by implication believe that humans should be ruled by machines? That is not freedom, that's tyranny.
If I, as somebody not trained in the law, wanted to do some legal research on an issue, it is a lot easier nowadays with the internet. That is freedom, isn't it? And not the tyranny of being tied to barristers for legal info. Tyranny was the Bible only being allowed to be printed in Latin, where few people could read it. Freedom was when a version in English was printed allowing more people to read it for themselves.
If somebody was not eligible for legal aid and could not afford the £100,000, wouldn't they also be denied the "right to fair representation"? Why should expensive legal representation be the sole preserve of the poor and the very rich? If the cheaper representation is good enough for those not eligible for legal aid, then it's good enough for those on legal aid.
Are the expensive barristers the only ones expected(or allowed) to spot that anomaly in their own argument?
If I, as somebody not trained in the law, wanted to do some legal research on an issue, it is a lot easier nowadays with the internet. That is freedom, isn't it? And not the tyranny of being tied to barristers for legal info. Tyranny was the Bible only being allowed to be printed in Latin, where few people could read it. Freedom was when a version in English was printed allowing more people to read it for themselves.
An example of actual analysis is my earlier post.
Are the expensive barristers the only ones expected(or allowed) to spot that anomaly in their own argument?
But take academic journal articles, a lot of them are only realistically available in Law Libraries in Universities and in Specialist Legal Databases, which only really Universities and Law Firms have signed up to. Which is not accessible as you would like to believe.
But take academic journal articles, a lot of them are only realistically available in Law Libraries in Universities and in Specialist Legal Databases, which only really Universities and Law Firms have signed up to. Which is not accessible as you would like to believe.
There will be online info where people use any print only sources. There are online source of different areas of Law. Even the CPS website could be used.
Has the situation never occurred before where somebody wasn't eligible for legal aid and couldn't afford the "appropriate" expensive lawyers? Was the case dropped? What about 2 defendants on the same case, one with legal aid under whatever system and can get the "appropriate" barristers, and the other not on legal aid and can't afford the same level? Does the case against the non-legal aid one get dismissed but the other continues? What about non-cost related issues, such as all "suitable" barristers are busy or nobody wants the case for whatever reason?
Does nowhere else in Europe have fair trials? The UK spends 5 times the European average on Legal Aid, we spend twice as much as Sweden, 3 time what Denmark spends and almost 10 times what Germany spend!. The average spend per head in Europe is 8 Euro - the UK spends 45.
Funnily enough we have the best paid Barristers and Judges in Europe as well
Does nowhere else in Europe have fair trials? The UK spends 5 times the European average on Legal Aid, we spend twice as much as Sweden, 3 time what Denmark spends and almost 10 times what Germany spend!. The average spend per head in Europe is 8 Euro - the UK spends 45.
Funnily enough we have the best paid Barristers and Judges in Europe as well
Has the The Crown Prosecution Service been given a fix sum on who much they can spend on this case, well the answer to that is no, so the state only limits how much it is willing to spend on a defendant for defence cost, but the state has a no limit set to get a conviction, yet when it comes to the money side of things, it all comes out of the same pot.
Has the The Crown Prosecution Service been given a fix sum on who much they can spend on this case, well the answer to that is no, so the state only limits how much it is willing to spend on a defendant for defence cost, but the state has a no limit set to get a conviction, yet when it comes to the money side of things, it all comes out of the same pot.
Absolutely I mean let's just let the lawyers decide how much money they spend on defending and prosecuting a case and the state just pays them, we could call it 'lawyer welfare'.
Case law is important to lawyers because, substantially, the laws themselves are unclear and need an interpretation. That doesn't mean the interpretation is applicable for eternity. You musn't run away with the idea that because lawyers are trained in analysis, they're the only ones capable of carrying it out. Perhaps just a few weeks in a commercial or manufacturing environment may allow budding lawyers to see some of the light out there. I've been on discussion boards which have lawyers posting and they're no better equipped than many other posters and some aren't equipped at all.
Some Lawyers do specialise in commercial law you know. They draft contracts for businesses and when those contracts haywire they help resolve the problems.
I've reproduced my post to illustrate how you didn't actually answer it. Drawing up business contracts has nothing to do with working in a manufacturing or commercial enterprise, unless you think working in a law office qualifies as commercial experience. The big question is, why should a lawyer drawn up contract go haywire?
Do yourself a favour, Iqbal, take a year off, work six months in a junior management position in a manufacturing environment and six months in a commercial environment, in both cases where you have to make decisions away from the academic environment you inhabit.
Absolutely I mean let's just let the lawyers decide how much money they spend on defending and prosecuting a case and the state just pays them, we could call it 'lawyer welfare'.
Nope, that's the whole point of capping legal aid. According to the MoJ the defence barrister could expect to make £100k on this case and the defendants are afaik not what you would call the poor. If you reckon lawyers haven't been milking the legal aid system you're naive.
I love how the supporters of the downtrodden and poor are suddenly coming to the defence of rich barristers. Hypocrisy is in the air!
Has the The Crown Prosecution Service been given a fix sum on who much they can spend on this case, well the answer to that is no, so the state only limits how much it is willing to spend on a defendant for defence cost, but the state has a no limit set to get a conviction, yet when it comes to the money side of things, it all comes out of the same pot.
This is my concern too.
To get a fair trial, the CPS can't have virtually unlimited funds (from the public purse) while the individual has limited funds (from the public purse). If there was more accountability on the CPS's spending, I'd be less worried about cuts in legal aid.
I see that you avoided my point about the spending comparison with the rest of Europe. Even with the proposed cuts to Legal Aid we will still have the most generous system in Europe so claims about the end of access to justice for all are simply scare stories to keep the gravy train rolling.
I see that you avoided my point about the spending comparison with the rest of Europe. Even with the proposed cuts to Legal Aid we will still have the most generous system in Europe so claims about the end of access to justice for all are simply scare stories to keep the gravy train rolling.
Difficult to make comparisons as laws and legal systems work in differant ways in differant counties.
To get a fair trial, the CPS can't have virtually unlimited funds (from the public purse) while the individual has limited funds (from the public purse). If there was more accountability on the CPS's spending, I'd be less worried about cuts in legal aid.
This is a number of things, not least of which is the legal profession making a backdoor protest about legal aid. Many of them have virtually run their practices based on legal aid cases to the extent that one of the most famous, Michael Mansfield, is closing down, hopefully, Cherie Blair will be next.
The purpose of the CPS is to bring prosecutions in the hope the public will be protected from crime. Then there are lawyers who attempt to circumvent the delivery of full justice.
This is a number of things, not least of which is the legal profession making a backdoor protest about legal aid. Many of them have virtually run their practices based on legal aid cases to the extent that one of the most famous, Michael Mansfield, is closing down, hopefully, Cherie Blair will be next.
The purpose of the CPS is to bring prosecutions in the hope the public will be protected from crime. Then there are lawyers who attempt to circumvent the delivery of full justice.
The idea of a fair legal system has to be based on fair for all, not only fair if you can afford it.
And i bet they earn every penny, these kind of cases can go on for months before they even get to the trail and even then the court cases could go on for weeks or months, alot of work is being done well before the trial date and in cases like this that can take a long time how much other work will a barrister have to turn down, and they have staff to pay and chamber cost.
The idea of a fair legal system has to be based on fair for all, not only fair if you can afford it.
If these accused are innocent and think they have a good case, I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers they could approach who are willing to work on a pro bono basis.
Looks like this could have a knock on effect to some very big cases coming before the courts, this case was about 4.5 million land bank fraud Formally closing the case against five men accused of a £4.5m land bank fraud. The ruling will also affect more than a dozen VHCC (very high cost) cases scheduled to be heard at crown courts in Southhwark, Birmingham and Nottingham in the coming year, involving at least one defendant who has no legal representation because of legal aid difficulties.
Other cases that may be affected include the Serious Fraud Office's Libor rate-fixing cases, involving defendants who used to work at Barclays, and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) cases arising from Operation Tabernula, one of the largest investigations into insider dealing in the City.
Trials relating to an alleged £35m fraud involving business loans made by HBOS bank have also been put in jeopardy.
If that were the case, why then do Universities that have Law Schools have in their campuses a dedicated Law Library building or a whole floor in their main Library dedicated to Law?
Because they need to house masses of law reports, that are only really of use to law students? The vast majority of which won't be relevant to your average law student doing an undergraduate degree.
I'm not saying a law degree is easy, but you're getting a bit carried away here.
Comments
So, you by implication believe that humans should be ruled by machines? That is not freedom, that's tyranny.
Some Lawyers do specialise in commercial law you know. They draft contracts for businesses and when those contracts haywire they help resolve the problems.
If I, as somebody not trained in the law, wanted to do some legal research on an issue, it is a lot easier nowadays with the internet. That is freedom, isn't it? And not the tyranny of being tied to barristers for legal info. Tyranny was the Bible only being allowed to be printed in Latin, where few people could read it. Freedom was when a version in English was printed allowing more people to read it for themselves.
An example of actual analysis is my earlier post. Are the expensive barristers the only ones expected(or allowed) to spot that anomaly in their own argument?
But take academic journal articles, a lot of them are only realistically available in Law Libraries in Universities and in Specialist Legal Databases, which only really Universities and Law Firms have signed up to. Which is not accessible as you would like to believe.
Has the situation never occurred before where somebody wasn't eligible for legal aid and couldn't afford the "appropriate" expensive lawyers? Was the case dropped? What about 2 defendants on the same case, one with legal aid under whatever system and can get the "appropriate" barristers, and the other not on legal aid and can't afford the same level? Does the case against the non-legal aid one get dismissed but the other continues? What about non-cost related issues, such as all "suitable" barristers are busy or nobody wants the case for whatever reason?
Does nowhere else in Europe have fair trials? The UK spends 5 times the European average on Legal Aid, we spend twice as much as Sweden, 3 time what Denmark spends and almost 10 times what Germany spend!. The average spend per head in Europe is 8 Euro - the UK spends 45.
Funnily enough we have the best paid Barristers and Judges in Europe as well
Has the The Crown Prosecution Service been given a fix sum on who much they can spend on this case, well the answer to that is no, so the state only limits how much it is willing to spend on a defendant for defence cost, but the state has a no limit set to get a conviction, yet when it comes to the money side of things, it all comes out of the same pot.
Absolutely I mean let's just let the lawyers decide how much money they spend on defending and prosecuting a case and the state just pays them, we could call it 'lawyer welfare'.
Because that is cruel and produces severe hardship. The solution is going to be gradual and long-term.
Welfare cuts lead to severe hardship and legal aid cuts lead to injustice, both to a relatively small number of people of course...
I have to say that such behaviour is monstrous. Like something out of the 18th century.
----
As other have mentioned the surprising thing about Conservative support is how they support policy that directly harms themselves.
I've reproduced my post to illustrate how you didn't actually answer it. Drawing up business contracts has nothing to do with working in a manufacturing or commercial enterprise, unless you think working in a law office qualifies as commercial experience. The big question is, why should a lawyer drawn up contract go haywire?
Do yourself a favour, Iqbal, take a year off, work six months in a junior management position in a manufacturing environment and six months in a commercial environment, in both cases where you have to make decisions away from the academic environment you inhabit.
Or even 'daylight robbery'.
I love how the supporters of the downtrodden and poor are suddenly coming to the defence of rich barristers. Hypocrisy is in the air!
More about being able to get a fair trial because of legal aid cuts, these are the people who defend the downtrodden poor, or should the whole legal system be based on money, if so then the legal no longer a fair system and no longer about justice for all, but justice if you can afford justice. Top judges speak out against legal aid cuts http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEsQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.42br.com%2Flegal-aid-reform-prompts-further-protest-from-top-judges%2F&ei=VltjU6vPAYfjO-2fgJAF&usg=AFQjCNGfs9fVI4iM7W97JRRxOGx7FiT6bQ&bvm=bv.65788261,d.ZWU&cad=rja
This is my concern too.
To get a fair trial, the CPS can't have virtually unlimited funds (from the public purse) while the individual has limited funds (from the public purse). If there was more accountability on the CPS's spending, I'd be less worried about cuts in legal aid.
I see that you avoided my point about the spending comparison with the rest of Europe. Even with the proposed cuts to Legal Aid we will still have the most generous system in Europe so claims about the end of access to justice for all are simply scare stories to keep the gravy train rolling.
Difficult to make comparisons as laws and legal systems work in differant ways in differant counties.
This is a number of things, not least of which is the legal profession making a backdoor protest about legal aid. Many of them have virtually run their practices based on legal aid cases to the extent that one of the most famous, Michael Mansfield, is closing down, hopefully, Cherie Blair will be next.
The purpose of the CPS is to bring prosecutions in the hope the public will be protected from crime. Then there are lawyers who attempt to circumvent the delivery of full justice.
The idea of a fair legal system has to be based on fair for all, not only fair if you can afford it.
So - pay them more?
If these accused are innocent and think they have a good case, I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers they could approach who are willing to work on a pro bono basis.
Other cases that may be affected include the Serious Fraud Office's Libor rate-fixing cases, involving defendants who used to work at Barclays, and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) cases arising from Operation Tabernula, one of the largest investigations into insider dealing in the City.
Trials relating to an alleged £35m fraud involving business loans made by HBOS bank have also been put in jeopardy.
Complete cop-out.
Have you any idea how much a barrister doing legal aid work actually earns
No cop out you can only compare if the legal aid systems work the same, which they dont.
Because they need to house masses of law reports, that are only really of use to law students? The vast majority of which won't be relevant to your average law student doing an undergraduate degree.
I'm not saying a law degree is easy, but you're getting a bit carried away here.