http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2008/05/07/the-law-of-intended-consequences/ A barrister gossips & rants on intellectual property law, the legal system and civil liberties. Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:53:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2008/05/07/the-law-of-intended-consequences/#comment-20372 james c Thu, 08 May 2008 20:50:07 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=944#comment-20372 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. 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.

]]> http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2008/05/07/the-law-of-intended-consequences/#comment-20355 House Wed, 07 May 2008 20:17:06 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=944#comment-20355 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? 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?

]]> http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2008/05/07/the-law-of-intended-consequences/#comment-20350 simply wondered Wed, 07 May 2008 16:00:07 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=944#comment-20350 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. 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.

]]> http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2008/05/07/the-law-of-intended-consequences/#comment-20345 7th May: Daily news podcast and news « Insitelaw magazine Wed, 07 May 2008 07:52:43 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=944#comment-20345 [...] 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.” [...] […] 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.” […]

]]>