[Closed] Legal aid, "defending the indefensible"

Evryone deserves a fair trial and that requires adequate legal representation.

'Reported by the Daily Mail' is probably the key phrase in that piece. They have an ongoing agenda to undermine the legal system and she's just a pawn in that.

I'm more worried about the concept of:

Harper's Law to ensure those who kill emergency workers are jailed for life."

There's a world of difference between kill and murder.

I dont understand why the press always look to those must ill placed to be impartial to comment on such things.

Because it sells newspapers to gammons.

Next question?

I am relieved its not just me, it seems exploitative getting this poor women on the news to me as she demands what any spouse of someone killed in this way would want. It being understandable doesnt make it right.

Naturally she has my every sympathy, but that legislation won’t happen, nor should it.

as usual Mitchell and Webb have done a pertinent sketch on this scenario...

I would be curious about how accurate those reported figures are since all the legal bloggers tend to suggest taking the daily wail and co figures with caution.

Whilst it is distasteful in some cases I am not sure there is any real alternative. Would anyone without any savings be pretty much automatically screwed since they wouldnt be able to get a lawyer at all and those with savings be screwed since they spent them all?

Would anyone without any savings be pretty much automatically screwed since they wouldnt be able to get a lawyer at all and those with savings be screwed since they spent them all?

And if you spent your life savings defending yourself and are found not guilty, you only get re-imbursed a derisory amount, so just end up innocent but broke!

Who was the Tory MP who voted through the changes to legal aid, then got accused of something, lost all of his money defending himself, then complained about how unfair the legal aid situation was?

Nigel Evans

Wow... everyone in agreement? I'm all for increasing maximum sentences for crimes such as the one she is suffering from... but harsh minimum sentences that judges can not overrule can result in terrible injustices. And the right to a legal defence is not just for the "winners" in a case, or for these deemed worthy of it by national newspapers.

Hmm thing is people don’t think about this stuff until they’re in the position of having to fork out £200-300hr to prove their innocence.

How much justice can you afford.

That Mitchell and Webb sketch sums it up beautifully.

Lissie Harper was on R4 the other day. Whilst I sympathise with her and don't pretend that I might not be saying exactly the same stuff if it was me in that position, she was starting to sound like she is being led by RW 'this country has gone to the dogs' advisors.

She is a RW tabloid's wet dream. White, blonde, physically attractive, speaks well, beyond reproach because of a situation she has been thrust into.

None of these things are her fault, but the cynical sharks trying to push a certain agenda will be doing their best to manoeuvre her into position as a cheerleader.

Secret Barrister

Nails it in this twitter thread.

The irony is, that her public campaign and Daily Wail hysteria has almost certainly influenced the government to appeal the sentence for being unduly lenient. Inevitably that just added another 100 grand to the legal aid bill (and probably the same to the prosecution's costs which never get published!)... However she'd be delighted if they had 10 years added to each of their sentences which would cost the public purse something like £1.2M to keep them in jail.

She is a RW tabloid’s wet dream. White, blonde, physically attractive, speaks well, beyond reproach because of a situation she has been thrust into.

None of these things are her fault, but the cynical sharks trying to push a certain agenda will be doing their best to manoeuvre her into position as a cheerleader.

I was going to say pretty much the same thing.

If you are interested in this stuff then you should read the Secret Barrister book.

harsh minimum sentences that judges can not overrule can result in terrible injustices

not only that, but in the event that someone kills an emergency worker, be that through intent or accident, that puts them in a spot with very few ways out which may result in some even poorer choices being made, making an already terrible situation worse. the law should be there to deter not punish to the point of being vindictive.

as others have expressed, i have every sympathy for the lady in question but this is not the solution.

She is a RW tabloid’s wet dream. White, blonde, physically attractive, speaks well, beyond reproach because of a situation she has been thrust into.

I said something similar in the original final thread following the verdict. Whilst I was criticised by some in here I take little pleasure in being vindicated. All too predictable I’m afraid.

Secret Barrister

Nails it in this twitter thread.

I agree.

With one major fact check which is still not clear and as an industry seems opaque - that the average criminal barrister takes home £27 after tax (so around £36k gross?). There seems to be so much debate around how much is actually paid and earned.

His book breaks down payments. A lot of them are working for less than minimum wage when worked out as hourly rate

I recommend the Secret Barristers book, it's a real eye opener - to the point that I wasn't totally sure it could possibly be as bad as he was making out. Not just their income, but the whole system.

Increasingly realised it really is that bad. People have gone bankrupt proving their innocence.

As for this particular case, my heart goes out to her for losing her husband in such horrific circumstances, especially as the whole thing kept being relived in the press. But I'm not convinced such a harsh blanket sentencing policy is the right solution to individual cases or the wider societal crime issues.

I hope that the poor woman isn't being manipulated into being the figurehead for other people's agenda, but I suspect she is.

Daily Mail have ran parallel parallel stories regarding benefits for instance over the years.

"Man claiming diability benefit for 10 years whilst working on a building site and fathering 7 children."

The inference being that all benefits are bad and that all people claiming them are work shy, stealing scumbags.

Different topic, same agenda.

I said something similar in the original final thread following the verdict. Whilst I was criticised by some in here I take little pleasure in being vindicated. All too predictable I’m afraid.

Nah, there was a slightly bitter, misogynist tone to your comments on the previous thread, IIRC you were basically of the opinion that the case was only considered news worthy because the widow was attractive...
You might feel 'vindicated' but it wasn't the same point being made here. Feel free to paste in your previous posts if you feel I'm wrong though...

A woman's grief and anger is being appropriated in an attempt to subvert the very justice system her husband played a part in. We shouldn't really be surprised, the rags have certainly sunk lower before....

I recommend the Secret Barristers book, it’s a real eye opener – to the point that I wasn’t totally sure it could possibly be as bad as he was making out. Not just their income, but the whole system.

It is a good read - and I think is a reasonably fair representation of the problems across the system in England and Wales. I did find it frustrating that despite having a virtually identical demographic with different systems in place (s)he doesn't use that as a reference point to highlight the alternatives, for better or worse.

I can't recall if (s)he points out the subtle irony in the chaotic management of both the CPS and the Courts Service which means cases drag on and legal aid fees accrue. A little better funding of the two government departments would make it more efficient and reduce the income of those pesky defence lawyers.

Also really uncomfortable about this story. Also feel every time I see the widow / family it does feel they're being exploited.

Naturally she has my every sympathy, but that legislation won’t happen, nor should it.

This stuff is mana from heaven for the reactionary mob we have as a government at the moment. Even if it didn't get through in the end they would want to be seen trying - the ideal distraction and fuel for he culture wars bonfire.

The story has it all. A grieving widow and family. A crime perpetrated by people ticking at least 3 boxes on the daily mail hate list (travellers, criminals, young people). Thus anyone who would oppose this law must be for those thing and is dreadful.

I can’t recall if (s)he points out the subtle irony in the chaotic management of both the CPS and the Courts Service which means cases drag on and legal aid fees accrue. A little better funding of the two government departments would make it more efficient and reduce the income of those pesky defence lawyers.

Posted 3 hours ago

Just to correct this. Us criminal legal aid lawyers get paid fixed fees for cases as a rule.

So when cases drag on, our fees don't increase. We just get paid the same but it takes longer for us to receive that payment!

I had a look on the Scottish Legal Aid Board website which has info on how much each firm earned from them. For the couple of single man firms that I know of the figures did not strike me as even remotely excessive.

As OP says Innocent until Proven Guilty is the bedrock of our justice system. It doesn't matter if they are advised of shop lifting or mass murderer. Until the sentence is passed they are innocent and deserve a fair trial with help to defend themselves.

It's a very dark path to a system where an innocent person has to prove themselves innocent. Plenty of countries do.
If a person is then proved guilty then they deserve the appropriate sentence.

Are we not embedded into a legal justice system of those with the biggest bank balance wins?

Civil - possibly.

Criminal - prosecutors aren't exactly well funded as I understand it.

I'm concerned about classing the police service as 'Emergency Workers'

Last time I checked, emergency workers don't carry guns.
Don't like the precedent it leans towards.

I’m concerned about classing the police service as ‘Emergency Workers’
Last time I checked, emergency workers don’t carry guns.

Seriously? Police at firearms incidents are not dealing with an emergency?

Yes they are, but is EVERY situation now to be classed as an emergency ?. Again look more toward the powers it gives the police. You dont see a civil liberty issue in this 😕

I can’t recall if (s)he points out the subtle irony in the chaotic management of both the CPS and the Courts Service which means cases drag on and legal aid fees accrue.

His/her main point is that crippling funding cuts are the issue, causing the Police and CPS to be unable to do all they should, pushing more onto underfunded/staffed lawyers so the accused gets less and less suitable advice and representation.

Ok not convinced about the pay for barristers certainly the couple I know, not in London, are way into 6 figures a year. Don’t forget what they take as salary and what they take as tax efficient dividends can be very different

Are they barristers doing solely criminal law funded by legal aid or are they doing private / commercial / corporate stuff? There is a massive difference in pay between them.

Ok not convinced about the pay for barristers certainly the couple I know, not in London, are way into 6 figures a year.

They won't be doing criminal work then!

I’m more worried about the concept of:

Harper’s Law to ensure those who kill emergency workers are jailed for life.”

There’s a world of difference between kill and murder.

Yep. seems to fit the adage "Hard cases make bad law " perfectly

Yes they are, but is EVERY situation now to be classed as an emergency ?. Again look more toward the powers it gives the police. You dont see a civil liberty issue in this 😕

Whit??? Do you think every incident a paramedic attends is an emergency? Same for fire brigade?

What exactly is the issue you're seeing here? How is classing the police as emergency workers giving them extra powers?

I've seen some wacky nonsense on here regarding the police but this takes the prize.

So you see law and a fire or having a broken leg set as being part of the same thing 😕

Their job has little to do with the law.

Fine if you want an untouchable police force.
Currently, they can stop you, for whatever reason they feel like, to which you may disagree, but thats the sum of your input. They can at the same time place you in chains(OK Handcuffs) and place you inside their vehicle that is locked from the outside(Imprisoned) and you have no say in the proceedings and must do whatever you are told.
The result as we have seen to fight back against what you feel to be wrong or unjust can be you being severely injured or worse.
Now the end result may be that no crime has been committed, but that doesnt help you, and there is no legal case to answer.
Incredible the number of people today who die on the floor of a police station.

You see that the same as a paramedics work.

You really are soft in the head bud.

The **** are you on about? How did we even get here?

Nope, I'm out, can't be ****ed with this nonsense.

The * are you on about? How did we even get here?

Nope, I’m out, can’t be * with this nonsense.

Agreed. Classic example of a post it's not worth getting drawn in by.

Whilst I do have a lot of sympathy with a lot of the comments being posted here, I do feel the punishment in this case was far too lenient, and I think that is the general perception which has opened this case up to the Daily Mail brigade. I suspect this is also at the heart of the legal aid argument. I also think emergency workers do seem to be subject to unwarranted abuse and attacks. I’m sure there’s a lot more to it than simply tougher punishments for offenders, as there always is, but I do think it would be a start.

No problem at all with them receiving legal aid.

The right to legal representation should be similar to the right to healthcare and education, ie not means tested, just free at point of access.

Whilst I do have a lot of sympathy with a lot of the comments being posted here, I do feel the punishment in this case was far too lenient,

I agree, hence the appeal to have the sentence reviewed. Will be interesting how the two appeals play out

Will be interesting how the two appeals play out

Indeed
A case of one guilty, all guilty.
Which I suppose then makes the Derek Bentley sentence perfectly just.
But he was posthumously pardoned, because in that joint venture it was ruled he didn't actually cause the policeman's death, but was party to the burglary.

Would the same not then apply here.

The defence got the three accused of murder off and found guilty of manslaughter which seems like the correct decision to me . I thought that the sentencing was certainly not excessively lenient . With regard to the court costs I think that it is time that we followed the American example and bring in plea bargaining which I know is some way less than perfect but the same could be said of the current system . Plea bargaining can save a massive amount of court time and money and I think that it is quite a pragmatic rout to take with many trials becoming massively complex , time consuming and costly . Awaits flaming .

I haven’t followed the case closely but the question is whether those in the car were aware of the policeman being dragged by their car. Surely there must have been shouting and they still continued driving on.

I can sympathise with his family, went to work one day and didn’t come home. 13 years is nothing for a life, they will be back out when around 30 years old, possibly even sooner.

Surely there must have been shouting and they still continued driving on.

Already driving fast, in the dark, panicking about getting caught. What do you expect they would hear?

Somebody screaming and pleading for his life. They had a choice. To stop or to continue driving.

Not that I'm in any way defending their actions, but there's a school of thought which suggests that he was knocked unconscious pretty rapidly.

I'd like to hope that were true, on a number of levels.

With regard to the court costs I think that it is time that we followed the American example and bring in plea bargaining which I know is some way less than perfect but the same could be said of the current system . Plea bargaining can save a massive amount of court time and money and I think that it is quite a pragmatic rout to take with many trials becoming massively complex , time consuming and costly . Awaits flaming .

Effectively we do (at least in Scotland - I assume it is similar in England). The defence can approach the prosecutor to offer a plea of guilty to a lesser charge, or to a charge with some modification to the wording, or perhaps to an "agreed narration of facts". If the plea is at an early enough stage they might expect a "discount" on their sentence of upto 1/3rd. The difference to the US approach is you don't negotiate the sentence (and indeed the Judge is not party to the negotiations at all). Less likely to be accepted in very high profile cases (the media would love to have made a meal of a deal in this case), and some types of case may just have a policy of not accepting pleas for pseudo-political reasons, or because its difficult for victims or their families to stomach.

Just to correct this. Us criminal legal aid lawyers get paid fixed fees for cases as a rule.

So when cases drag on, our fees don’t increase. We just get paid the same but it takes longer for us to receive that payment!

You don't get to six figure sums on a fixed fee case. I haven't seen the breakdown of what the bills were for, but I'll be amazed if there's no cost in there which a proactive prosecution could have saved the state. I'd also suggest that if there were no court service delays, hold ups or extra work, then its because this was such a high profile case. Of course there are cases at the other end of the scale where you are getting shafted by the system doubly, because the churn dilutes your fees even more - but thats still an indirect cost to the state: it means fewer legal aid solicitors, and more people representing themselves which means less effective case management, longer trials, and probably more appeals, and it even mean that some defence solicitors are poorly prepared at court making it more likely they ask for delay - all false economy, but "its not my budget".

I do feel the punishment in this case was far too lenient,

Leniency of sentence is not the same as correctness of conviction. I think some people are conflating the two. They must be convicted of murder because they should serve a longer sentence. Without access to all of the evidence and only a cursory glance at the details, I do believe that the conviction for manslaughter not murder is correct.

Leniency of sentence is not the same as correctness of conviction. I think some people are conflating the two. They must be convicted of murder because they should serve a longer sentence. Without access to all of the evidence and only a cursory glance at the details, I do believe that the conviction for manslaughter not murder is correct.

Manslaughter is the result of 100 years of the automotive industry convincing us that it's impossible to use a car as a murder weapon. An idea that, ironically enough, the Daily Mail promotes whenever it can.

If the men had been preparing dinner when PC Harper tried to arrest them and they 'accidentally' ran into him whilst still holding their cooking knives then I'm pretty sure the result would not have been manslaughter.

, I do believe that the conviction for manslaughter not murder is correct.

While I'm not happy with it, I agree manslaughter was probably the correct verdict.

But that carries a maximum life sentence. I'd have liked to have seen life sentences with minimum tariffs similar to what they were given, but I don't know if sentencing guidelines preclude that.

Plea bargaining can save a massive amount of court time and money and I think that it is quite a pragmatic rout to take with many trials becoming massively complex , time consuming and costly . Awaits flaming .

English courts do an auto discount if you plead guilty before trial (I think once it starts its tough but could be wrong).
For plea bargaining on a larger scale I am dubious about it after reading about how it has been abused in the US. People are threatened with insanely long sentences and then offered a fairly light plea bargain and have to decide on the gamble of going to court.

I don’t disagree. The conviction is correct. I can’t see how they could have established mens rea from the published details.

Deliberately driving a car at someone is not the same. And that was my original though from the original reports, but subsequent details showed this was far from the case.

The verdict sounded correct, the sentencing wasn't overly lenient. An objective person would come to that conclusion, the wife of the person who was killed may not and the Daily Mail couldn't even spell objective.