Interesting...

Post Reply

User avatar
Andy
Moderator
Posts: 1492
Joined: 28 May 2014 17:34

#2 Re: Interesting...

Post by Andy » 27 Nov 2015 16:34

The refusal of legal aid amounts to a breach of Article 6.1 - Right to a fair trial.

This was set in stone in the case of Steel and Morris v United Kingdom (Application No 6841/01) - (2005)
In conclusion, the Court held unanimously that the denial of legal aid to the applicants had deprived them of the opportunity to present their case effectively before the court and contributed to an unacceptable inequality of arms with McDonald's. There had, therefore, been a violation of article 6.1
There is precedent the High Court is compelled to follow.
2nd Year University Law Student.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6285
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#3 Re: Interesting...

Post by Pote Snitkin » 27 Nov 2015 17:34

These cuts were so unnecessary and have proven to be political poison. The amount that the Gov expected to save, up to £300m a year is, relatively, a piss in the ocean. All it has done is deny justice to the poor.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Hopeless
Posts: 205
Joined: 23 Sep 2015 05:21

#4 Re: Interesting...

Post by Hopeless » 28 Nov 2015 00:02

Andy wrote:The refusal of legal aid amounts to a breach of Article 6.1 - Right to a fair trial.

This was set in stone in the case of Steel and Morris v United Kingdom (Application No 6841/01) - (2005)
In conclusion, the Court held unanimously that the denial of legal aid to the applicants had deprived them of the opportunity to present their case effectively before the court and contributed to an unacceptable inequality of arms with McDonald's. There had, therefore, been a violation of article 6.1
There is precedent the High Court is compelled to follow.
Using your logic, anyone without means can get legal aid. As such, why was the Guardian bailiff bloke not getting legal aid to take action?

User avatar
Andy
Moderator
Posts: 1492
Joined: 28 May 2014 17:34

#5 Re: Interesting...

Post by Andy » 28 Nov 2015 00:12

No idea, I'm just telling you what the law says.
2nd Year University Law Student.

User avatar
Hopeless
Posts: 205
Joined: 23 Sep 2015 05:21

#6 Re: Interesting...

Post by Hopeless » 28 Nov 2015 14:10

I agree for defence, but not so clear cut re. taking action, as per the article.

The 'law' can 'say', but in the UK (especially England), no one follows the 'law'.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#7 Re: Interesting...

Post by Mark1960 » 28 Nov 2015 20:14

Hopeless wrote:I agree for defence, but not so clear cut re. taking action, as per the article.

The 'law' can 'say', but in the UK (especially England), no one follows the 'law'.
Are you saying people follow the law in all these third world shit holes?

Why don't those people stay there then, instead of overcrowding this small island?

You haven't followed the law-You have lied and abused it to your own means. You have openly admitted to doing so on this very message board. I'd sooner have UK law than any other countries.

Why don't you try some of these muslim countries for law?

User avatar
Hopeless
Posts: 205
Joined: 23 Sep 2015 05:21

#8 Re: Interesting...

Post by Hopeless » 29 Nov 2015 09:44

LOL, as expected, Mark immediately alludes to "Muslim" and whatnot. So very 'typical'.

I'm just happy to get my well-deserved benefits. Will go to JCP tomorrow. I just hope I don't get sanctioned before I get secure a new role.


P.S.

Lies? What lies? Clearly point this out.

The things that have been proven? Lies and/or nonsense by the council/bailiff+company, police, CPS, court. Oh, and you don't bother to read things, then spout shyte.

More to be revealed really soon. Coming soon... to a magistrates' court near you :-)

theronstar
Posts: 35
Joined: 28 Jun 2015 05:03

#9 Re: Interesting...

Post by theronstar » 02 Dec 2015 05:56

Hopeless wrote:
Andy wrote:The refusal of legal aid amounts to a breach of Article 6.1 - Right to a fair trial.

This was set in stone in the case of Steel and Morris v United Kingdom (Application No 6841/01) - (2005)
In conclusion, the Court held unanimously that the denial of legal aid to the applicants had deprived them of the opportunity to present their case effectively before the court and contributed to an unacceptable inequality of arms with McDonald's. There had, therefore, been a violation of article 6.1
There is precedent the High Court is compelled to follow.
Using your logic, anyone without means can get legal aid. As such, why was the Guardian bailiff bloke not getting legal aid to take action?
Lawyers can choose the ways in which they get paid. Being privately instructed is the ideal. The client has to put down a tab ahead of instructing the lawyer.

Legal Aid informs filling out a bunch of forms and waiting for a response from the Legal Aid Authorities. Thus the lawyer has to feel the case is worth it.

No win no fee will only be pursued if a lawyer can clearly see their way through the case.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12712
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#10 Re: Interesting...

Post by Schedule 12 » 02 Dec 2015 09:49

I can confirm that is all true.

Asking for a big tab means they don't want the work.

Legal Aid and duty solicitor is being restricted to custodial offences only, which means non-custodial offences have no right of advocacy at all.

My website is receiving a lot of enquiries from people charged with paragraph 68 because solicitors don't want it, and afforded by magistrates (moreso recently) conducting trials on the basis the client is guilty and he has to prove otherwise. There is no client on the planet who even knows of Schedule 12 or its compliance. It means, without DWB, they are guaranteed to be convicted summarily, until the case reaches me and it goes to Crown Court.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Hopeless
Posts: 205
Joined: 23 Sep 2015 05:21

#11 Re: Interesting...

Post by Hopeless » 02 Dec 2015 10:07

Jason,

It's a good thing then that Para 68 carries a 6-month custodial sentence. In contrast, Section 89(2) of Police Act is only a month. Makes perfect sense. EAs are waaaaayyyyy more important than the police.

Post Reply