The DUP thread

[David McKeown]

Why would a direct descendent and another close relation make the accusations if they were not real?

They destroyed familial relationships in bringing the case.
They aren't going to gain monetary.
Indeed, they are more likely to lose out financially (inheritance).


I though the (at least what was reported) defence barrister's arguments yesterday were disgusting and the judge really should have pulled him on it.

Small wonder that so few rape crimes come to court if the defence are allowed to carry themselves like that.

Thought the defending barrister comments been horrible whole way through, basically said the victims were lying every time he questioned them

I would have thought a high ranking barrister would be able to come up with a better line of argument than - eh, you're a liar.

A barrister is only as good as their instructions. We don't come up with lines of argument in criminal trial.

[David McKeown]

I've always wondered how a defence solicitor/barrister can seperate their own opinion from the trial itself.
Even if they believe the defendant is guilty they still need to do everything they can to get a not guilty verdict, which I couldn't do.

Sure, isn't shedloads of money [legal aid] a wonderful thing?

If only it was.

[David McKeown]

I've always wondered how a defence solicitor/barrister can seperate their own opinion from the trial itself.
Even if they believe the defendant is guilty they still need to do everything they can to get a not guilty verdict, which I couldn't do.

Sure, isn't shedloads of money [legal aid] a wonderful thing?

Biggest gravy train about.

If the plug was pulled in this in the morning quite a few of the high profile legal practices in this country would take some hit.
[/

Thought the defending barrister comments been horrible whole way through, basically said the victims were lying every time he questioned them

Would be interesting to see how it would go with a defamation case if Donaldson is proven guilty.

It'd certainly clip the wings of fukkers like Kieran Vaughan.

Well that would need a law change so I wouldn't have thought that's likely at all.

Didn't realise you could say whatever the f you wanted in court and get away with it.

Thought it was reserved for parliament where you can do anything but (quite ironically given this case) call someone a lair.

There's good reason for why claims made in court are protected. It would have a serious detrimental impact on justice if it didn't.

[David McKeown]

I've always wondered how a defence solicitor/barrister can seperate their own opinion from the trial itself.
Even if they believe the defendant is guilty they still need to do everything they can to get a not guilty verdict, which I couldn't do.

Sure, isn't shedloads of money [legal aid] a wonderful thing?

Biggest gravy train about.

If the plug was pulled in this in the morning quite a few of the high profile legal practices in this country would take some hit.

Yes I imagine if you ended most business main stream of funding overnight they'd suffer.

What would also happen is you'd destroy the justice system. You'd have a two tier justice system and you'd increase public costs.

[DaleCooper]

CPS data. 60% of rape cases brought end up in a conviction.

https://archive.ph/8gNBN


Unfortunately the squeaky wheel gets the grease and the 2% figure bandied around by ideological activists may put people off coming forward [Baroness Stern made this point]

Nadia Whittome MP put this figure out in Parliament and was approvingly quote tweeted by Angela Eagle MP who agreed with her that "rape has essentially been decriminalised".

[playwiththewind1st]

I've always wondered how a defence solicitor/barrister can seperate their own opinion from the trial itself.
Even if they believe the defendant is guilty they still need to do everything they can to get a not guilty verdict, which I couldn't do.

Sure, isn't shedloads of money [legal aid] a wonderful thing?

Biggest gravy train about.

If the plug was pulled in this in the morning quite a few of the high profile legal practices in this country would take some hit.

Yes I imagine if you ended most business main stream of funding overnight they'd suffer.

What would also happen is you'd destroy the justice system. You'd have a two tier justice system and you'd increase public costs.

The barristers themselves have been having a right good go at destroying the justice system from within recently, with people having to appeal to their better nature & practically beg them to put aside their industrial action on a case by case basis, so as to permit a few handpicked extremely serious cases to proceed. Surely the proposed financial settlement will increase public costs, will it not?

[David McKeown]

I've always wondered how a defence solicitor/barrister can seperate their own opinion from the trial itself.
Even if they believe the defendant is guilty they still need to do everything they can to get a not guilty verdict, which I couldn't do.

Sure, isn't shedloads of money [legal aid] a wonderful thing?

Biggest gravy train about.

If the plug was pulled in this in the morning quite a few of the high profile legal practices in this country would take some hit.

Yes I imagine if you ended most business main stream of funding overnight they'd suffer.

What would also happen is you'd destroy the justice system. You'd have a two tier justice system and you'd increase public costs.

The barristers themselves have been having a right good go at destroying the justice system from within recently, with people having to appeal to their better nature & practically beg them to put aside their industrial action on a case by case basis, so as to permit a few handpicked extremely serious cases to proceed. Surely the proposed financial settlement will increase public costs, will it not?

Strange solicitors and barristers are blamed for that when fees last increased in 2005 and were lowered in 2011 and 2016. Don't think many costs have fallen since then. 

The settlement reached after 6 months is apparently well within available budget and is not only significantly below inflation but means in real terms that fees are lower than in 2015 and even 2005.

On the other hand the minister who could have paid the money 6 months ago only made an offer a week ago. It's still significantly below what lawyers who do non criminal work get paid by the state. It won't kick in until at the earliest next February. But yes it's the lawyers to blame.

I am aware that at the top end fees are eye watering but it's for extremely complex and difficult cases and it's paid to a very small number of lawyers. There is however a lot of misinformation out there.

[Tony Baloney]

I've always wondered how a defence solicitor/barrister can seperate their own opinion from the trial itself.
Even if they believe the defendant is guilty they still need to do everything they can to get a not guilty verdict, which I couldn't do.

Sure, isn't shedloads of money [legal aid] a wonderful thing?

Biggest gravy train about.

If the plug was pulled in this in the morning quite a few of the high profile legal practices in this country would take some hit.

Yes I imagine if you ended most business main stream of funding overnight they'd suffer.

What would also happen is you'd destroy the justice system. You'd have a two tier justice system and you'd increase public costs.

The barristers themselves have been having a right good go at destroying the justice system from within recently, with people having to appeal to their better nature & practically beg them to put aside their industrial action on a case by case basis, so as to permit a few handpicked extremely serious cases to proceed. Surely the proposed financial settlement will increase public costs, will it not?

Strange solicitors and barristers are blamed for that when fees last increased in 2005 and were lowered in 2011 and 2016. Don't think many costs have fallen since then. 

The settlement reached after 6 months is apparently well within available budget and is not only significantly below inflation but means in real terms that fees are lower than in 2015 and even 2005.

On the other hand the minister who could have paid the money 6 months ago only made an offer a week ago. It's still significantly below what lawyers who do non criminal work get paid by the state. It won't kick in until at the earliest next February. But yes it's the lawyers to blame.

I am aware that at the top end fees are eye watering but it's for extremely complex and difficult cases and it's paid to a very small number of lawyers. There is however a lot of misinformation out there.

Some of the lads would prefer only the richest people get legal representation.

[Main Street]

Why would a direct descendent and another close relation make the accusations if they were not real?

They destroyed familial relationships in bringing the case.
They aren't going to gain monetary.
Indeed, they are more likely to lose out financially (inheritance).


I though the (at least what was reported) defence barrister's arguments yesterday were disgusting and the judge really should have pulled him on it.

Small wonder that so few rape crimes come to court if the defence are allowed to carry themselves like that.

Thought the defending barrister comments been horrible whole way through, basically said the victims were lying every time he questioned them

I would have thought a high ranking barrister would be able to come up with a better line of argument than - eh, you're a liar.

A barrister is only as good as their instructions. We don't come up with lines of argument in criminal trial.

in a case where there's a guilty plea, can you not (in a casual conversation) ask your lawyer for their objective opinion on appropriate sounding  mitigations, before you splurt out your own grand plan.

[David McKeown]

Why would a direct descendent and another close relation make the accusations if they were not real?

They destroyed familial relationships in bringing the case.
They aren't going to gain monetary.
Indeed, they are more likely to lose out financially (inheritance).


I though the (at least what was reported) defence barrister's arguments yesterday were disgusting and the judge really should have pulled him on it.

Small wonder that so few rape crimes come to court if the defence are allowed to carry themselves like that.

Thought the defending barrister comments been horrible whole way through, basically said the victims were lying every time he questioned them

I would have thought a high ranking barrister would be able to come up with a better line of argument than - eh, you're a liar.

A barrister is only as good as their instructions. We don't come up with lines of argument in criminal trial.

in a case where there's a guilty plea, can you not (in a casual conversation) ask your lawyer for their objective opinion on appropriate sounding  mitigations, before you splurt out your own grand plan.

The lawyer will take your instructions on appropriate mitigations but they come from the client not the lawyer.

[Killala]

Does the wife have any bearing on the deliberations ?. I thought I saw where she can only be found not guilty. Don't really understand that to be honest.

[DaleCooper]

Does the wife have any bearing on the deliberations ?. I thought I saw where she can only be found not guilty. Don't really understand that to be honest.

The circumstances are analyzed without her present due to mental health reasons. 4 psychiatrists reviewed her and judge ruled accordingly.

[David McKeown]

Does the wife have any bearing on the deliberations ?. I thought I saw where she can only be found not guilty. Don't really understand that to be honest.

The Jury will be deliberating on whether or not she committed the acts alleged. That is different to if she is guilty or not. It's somewhat artificial mind as they won't be able to consider an alternative version of events to the evidence put forward by the prosecution

[johnnycool]

Does the wife have any bearing on the deliberations ?. I thought I saw where she can only be found not guilty. Don't really understand that to be honest.

The circumstances are analyzed without her present due to mental health reasons. 4 psychiatrists reviewed her and judge ruled accordingly.

The video evidence she provided via the police interviews didn't do Jeffrey any favours but wasn't a knock out blow.

Her not being put in the witness stand will have undoubtedly worked in their favour.

[quit yo jibbajabba]

This isn't looking good is it? Longer it goes on etc.....