Geeklawyer was a trifle amused by the story of an accused being able to retain £14million following a botched civil seizure action by the government. As outlined here the government lost a case because it wouldn’t pay barristers a proper rate. No barrister would accept the defendants brief so he had to defend himself while the state had an army of lawyers. The judge said this was an abuse of process. No fucking shit Sherlock: reverse the burden of proof deprive the accused of the means of defending himself.
The governments robbery scheme seems to have been undermined by the own parsimony. Idiots.
- Stupid bot! - I try to...
[…] Well known blogger Geeklawyer opens the batting on the controversy over the government’s decision on fees to barristers in criminal cases: “The government lost a case because it wouldn’t pay barristers a proper rate. No barrister would accept the defendants brief so he had to defend himself while the state had an army of lawyers. The judge said this was an abuse of process. No ….. s**t Sherlock : reverse the burden of proof deprive the accused of the means of defending himself. The governments robbery scheme seems to have been undermined by the own parsimony. Idiots.” […]
so is that £14 million to not get counsel involved. how much would it have cost if they did? tooks will have to start wiping their arses with £50s again.
Could all but say £20k (am not sure on the capital limits in criminal cases) be frozen so that he wouldn’t be entitled to legal aid?
Surely the barristers accept the legal aid rate, charge for totally needless conferences, research etc, get kick-backs from the fake expert witnesses and then claim the standard uplift for the difficult nature of the work.