Paddy Jackson apology

[sid waddell]

Jackson finally doing the Perp walk.

[Milltown Row2]

Might even line out for France 

[Lar Naparka]

I see

Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding have failed to recoup their legal costs.
Now, I am not a legal eagle by any stretch of the imagination but I fail to see how the pair of them, having been cleared of the charges brought against them, were liable for the costs they incurred in proving their innocence.
(I know many legal experts in this and the main thread, that has now been locked, think they didn't deserve to be acquitted but that a separate issue entirely. In the eyes of the law they are innocent of the charges brought against them so why do they have to pay to establish their innocence?

[Tony Baloney]

I agree. Not guilty but left with a ruinous bill at the end of it whereas no doubt yet woman has the taxpayer footing her bill.

[Minder]

***Syferus phone beeps***

[gallsman]

I agree. Not guilty but left with a ruinous bill at the end of it whereas no doubt yet woman has the taxpayer footing her bill.

What bill of hers would that be?

[manfromdelmonte]

I agree. Not guilty but left with a ruinous bill at the end of it whereas no doubt yet woman has the taxpayer footing her bill.

What bill of hers would that be?

Legal representation

[gallsman]

She didn't bring the case, the PPS did.

[Owen Brannigan]

I know many legal experts in this and the main thread, that has now been locked, think they didn't deserve to be acquitted but that a separate issue entirely. In the eyes of the law they are innocent of the charges brought against them so why do they have to pay to establish their innocence?

The judge explained that while the jury made their decision to say their guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt the case was so complex that the PPS had been correct to bring the case and so the defendants were not entitled to have their costs returned.

Hence, the crux of the argument regarding having your defence costs repaid by the state is whether the PPS was justified in bringing the case against you regardless of your innocence.  In this case, the judge believed that the PPS was justified.

At the end of the day, Jackson had the money to pay for his defence from his family and with his contract being bought out by IRFU his family will have been paid back in full.  The state paid for most of Olding's bill and he also had his contract bought out by IRFU.

So, few will be worried on whether Jackson and Olding have been repaid by the state other than this case shows how much an individual can spend on defending themselves against charges brought by the PPS. The cost of going to or being in court is now colossal and in many instances legal aid is not available.

[David McKeown]

I know many legal experts in this and the main thread, that has now been locked, think they didn't deserve to be acquitted but that a separate issue entirely. In the eyes of the law they are innocent of the charges brought against them so why do they have to pay to establish their innocence?

The judge explained that while the jury made their decision to say their guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt the case was so complex that the PPS had been correct to bring the case and so the defendants were not entitled to have their costs returned.

Hence, the crux of the argument regarding having your defence costs repaid by the state is whether the PPS was justified in bringing the case against you regardless of your innocence.  In this case, the judge believed that the PPS was justified.

At the end of the day, Jackson had the money to pay for his defence from his family and with his contract being bought out by IRFU his family will have been paid back in full.  The state paid for most of Olding's bill and he also had his contract bought out by IRFU.

So, few will be worried on whether Jackson and Olding have been repaid by the state other than this case shows how much an individual can spend on defending themselves against charges brought by the PPS. The cost of going to or being in court is now colossal and in many instances legal aid is not available.

Unlike civil proceedings, in criminal proceedings in the North costs do not follow the result that is to say you don't simply get costs if you win and that applies to both prosecution and defence. There is provision for costs to be awarded in unusual circumstances but as was shown in this case that rarely happens. The rationale being that there is a public interest in prosecuting people and that the PPS shouldn't be dissuaded from doing that by fear of large costs implications if they are only just incorrect.

Given that in order for a Crown Court prosecution to be brought a directing officer, magistrates court prosecutor, district judge and at least one if not more barristers/advocates will have to have considered the file and all come to the conclusion that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and then the person has to be innocent and not in receipt of legal aid you can see how the issue of costs will rarely arise.

On a personal level and as usual this is caveated by not being there but I find it very strange that once the case got to the jury and wasn't dismissed by half time direction that costs were even applied for.  That again makes me think there was plenty that went on in this case that wasn't reported.

[Owen Brannigan]

I know many legal experts in this and the main thread, that has now been locked, think they didn't deserve to be acquitted but that a separate issue entirely. In the eyes of the law they are innocent of the charges brought against them so why do they have to pay to establish their innocence?

The judge explained that while the jury made their decision to say their guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt the case was so complex that the PPS had been correct to bring the case and so the defendants were not entitled to have their costs returned.

Hence, the crux of the argument regarding having your defence costs repaid by the state is whether the PPS was justified in bringing the case against you regardless of your innocence.  In this case, the judge believed that the PPS was justified.

At the end of the day, Jackson had the money to pay for his defence from his family and with his contract being bought out by IRFU his family will have been paid back in full.  The state paid for most of Olding's bill and he also had his contract bought out by IRFU.

So, few will be worried on whether Jackson and Olding have been repaid by the state other than this case shows how much an individual can spend on defending themselves against charges brought by the PPS. The cost of going to or being in court is now colossal and in many instances legal aid is not available.

Unlike civil proceedings, in criminal proceedings in the North costs do not follow the result that is to say you don't simply get costs if you win and that applies to both prosecution and defence. There is provision for costs to be awarded in unusual circumstances but as was shown in this case that rarely happens. The rationale being that there is a public interest in prosecuting people and that the PPS shouldn't be dissuaded from doing that by fear of large costs implications if they are only just incorrect.

Given that in order for a Crown Court prosecution to be brought a directing officer, magistrates court prosecutor, district judge and at least one if not more barristers/advocates will have to have considered the file and all come to the conclusion that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and then the person has to be innocent and not in receipt of legal aid you can see how the issue of costs will rarely arise.

On a personal level and as usual this is caveated by not being there but I find it very strange that once the case got to the jury and wasn't dismissed by half time direction that costs were even applied for.  That again makes me think there was plenty that went on in this case that wasn't reported.

They took it back to reclaim costs because they had the money to pay the additional legal costs involved in giving it a go.  Anyone else would have been so ruined by the initial costs that they wouldn't be able to try it.

[Milltown Row2]

The lads are making good money I'd say now, but the ones that aren't with professional teams will be well out of pocket

[David McKeown]

I know many legal experts in this and the main thread, that has now been locked, think they didn't deserve to be acquitted but that a separate issue entirely. In the eyes of the law they are innocent of the charges brought against them so why do they have to pay to establish their innocence?

The judge explained that while the jury made their decision to say their guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt the case was so complex that the PPS had been correct to bring the case and so the defendants were not entitled to have their costs returned.

Hence, the crux of the argument regarding having your defence costs repaid by the state is whether the PPS was justified in bringing the case against you regardless of your innocence.  In this case, the judge believed that the PPS was justified.

At the end of the day, Jackson had the money to pay for his defence from his family and with his contract being bought out by IRFU his family will have been paid back in full.  The state paid for most of Olding's bill and he also had his contract bought out by IRFU.

So, few will be worried on whether Jackson and Olding have been repaid by the state other than this case shows how much an individual can spend on defending themselves against charges brought by the PPS. The cost of going to or being in court is now colossal and in many instances legal aid is not available.

Unlike civil proceedings, in criminal proceedings in the North costs do not follow the result that is to say you don't simply get costs if you win and that applies to both prosecution and defence. There is provision for costs to be awarded in unusual circumstances but as was shown in this case that rarely happens. The rationale being that there is a public interest in prosecuting people and that the PPS shouldn't be dissuaded from doing that by fear of large costs implications if they are only just incorrect.

Given that in order for a Crown Court prosecution to be brought a directing officer, magistrates court prosecutor, district judge and at least one if not more barristers/advocates will have to have considered the file and all come to the conclusion that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and then the person has to be innocent and not in receipt of legal aid you can see how the issue of costs will rarely arise.

On a personal level and as usual this is caveated by not being there but I find it very strange that once the case got to the jury and wasn't dismissed by half time direction that costs were even applied for.  That again makes me think there was plenty that went on in this case that wasn't reported.

They took it back to reclaim costs because they had the money to pay the additional legal costs involved in giving it a go.  Anyone else would have been so ruined by the initial costs that they wouldn't be able to try it.

Comparatively speaking the costs of that would have been quite low. Wouldn't be surprised if Legal Aid actually required Olding to take it back.  It's not unheard of in recent years for Legal Aid to bring guilty defendants back to court to try and recoup costs if the defendant subsequently comes in to money or it's discovered they mislead the court originally when Legal Aid was granted.

[Main Street]

Is it the case that if the accused had applied for legal aid then they would have nothing to pay towards their legal costs in the event of a not proven verdict?

[seafoid]

The lads are making good money I'd say now, but the ones that aren't with professional teams will be well out of pocket

PJ is playing with Perpignan who are on a long losing run