Did you miss the part about criminal defence lawyers earning significantly less than their colleagues in other areas of law?

Someone earning £190K is not going to be practising criminal law. Unless they are a QC at the very top of the profession.

Your attitude to criminal lawyers may change somewhat the day you are sat in a police station going 5p/50p because someone has made a spurious accusation against you. Particularly if it is a serious allegation and you have a lot to lose (job / career etc...) You may think this unlikely, but it is amazing how often drunken sex with a girl you met in a nightclub becomes alleged rape, the morning after, and when her significant other finds out.

We can all hope this doesn't happen, but if it does, you want an experienced criminal solicitor on your side, not just a spotty 21 year old who has no formal legal qualifications other than a few quick courses in police station attendance.

Why do they need decent graduates, though? They'll only be representing poor people, so it doesn't matter if they're utterly incompetent.

This situation reminds me of a scene from (I think) one of the Rush Hour films where Chris Rock is reading a suspect his rights:

"You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, we will provide you with the dumbest fxcking lawyer on Earth."

Does that actually mean anything? No? thought not.

Who would they be, then?


As your apocryphal tale has NOTHING to do with the criminal legal aid debate, why did you bother?


And so give me one good reason why those who are proved to have done so, should not be the ones being screwed over? Again, this has NOTHING to do with this debate.


I'm a very long way from your chum, you arrogant airhead.


Are you accusing me of making fake comments?


Again - IF there is a problem with some small number of big earning firms (and if they do a lot of work then why should they not be paid for it) then why not address THAT SPECIFIC problem?

And if mega-firms churning through mass produced cases are the problem - why is Failing Grayling's masterplan to get all existing firms to merge into a small number of regional or national giants? Wouldn't that be creating potentially just more cash guzzling monsters?


What breathtaking snobbery? Aldi do some good stuff, but that aside, as I have not done criminal law, nor legal aid, for many years, you are talking absolutely out of your ignorant and rude arrse. I have NO financial stake in this debate, and am therefore in a fine place to debate it as I know what I am talking about from personal experience. But I do recognise that it is beyond the limited brainpower of Wail readers to comprehend simple facts. Not that you would want to. Never let facts nor reasoned arguments stand in the way of your blind prejudice and rash assumptions, eh?

Here's a tissue - see if you can wipe some of that spittle off your screen and keyboard.

Er, I'm not sure that's spittle...

Mind you alot of experienced lawyers in other fields, where they charge significant amounts, are not the most practical of people. Recently Mrs D and I were forced by our expereienced barrister to have a conference the day before a scheduled hearing even though we said we did not want one. Not only that we were required to stump up a couple of grand for the privilege of attending for an hour when in our view it was pointless given the volume of papers Mrs D had provided. Anyway, the main purpose of the conference seemed to be that the barrister thought the case was very complicated and to effectively tell us we'd probably lose; and in view of the complexity it was hard to know how to approach it - in fact barrister seemed to have no idea. Just what you want to hear after months of paying professional fees costing tens of thousands! I just said, rather forcefully, it's very simple we just argue "......" Barrister ran with that argument. We got a favourable judgement. Judgement ran to many pages (longest the team had ever seen in such a case), seemingly to close off every possible avenue of appeal to the other side. SI have since learned the solicitor and barrister have run my line successfully in other cases (and won). Why could I see the crux of the matter in 30 seconds of getting ed off when the lawyers had spent months and couldn't. Mrs D had prepared the case from our end so I had little prior knowledge. Makes you laugh (or cry when you're paying) the level of expertise! Years of experience in dealing with London solicitors via work haven't overwhelmed me with confidence either!

Yes, Mrs D visits Aldi for certain products. Mind you, that could be because of her propensity to give our cash to the legal profession!

How much did it cost you, and did you challenge the bill on these grounds? Another thing most people don't know is that you can challenge any legal bill in various ways, including ultimately having a judge pore over every single piece of paper in the file if you want, and deciding whether the charge should have been made, or is fair or reasonable.

We paid our solicitor for his and the barristers fees (which is quite normal). Our first hearing was actually adjourned due to inadequate preparation - really by the other side, but in their absence our solicitors should have dealt with it all. Sadly, despite Mrs D emailing them 2 months beforehand asking about liaison with the other side they didn't - a junior rather than our main man seemingly being the issue. Consequently, we had to pay all the experts witnesses for a second day and the barrister for a second day notwithstanding the first time lasting minutes. I told Mrs D NOT to pay for the second hearing (or certainly not in full) but as she likes the solicitors and she went ahead without me knowing! I was prepared to query the charges / formally complain in the circumstances.

I know that talking crap is your usual MO, but this post surpasses your normal standards by some distance.

I mean, you're seriously expecting us to believe that both your experienced solicitor and your equally (if not more) experienced barrister were at a loss as to how to argue your case, and you got to the heart of it in a single statement? Not only that, but your previously unconsidered argument was so compelling that they employed it successfully for subsequent cases as well? Deary me!

It's also surprising that if you won, you still paid your own costs. The normal rule is "loser pays".

I believe it was from that classic, Lethal Weapon 4. The worst, least funny and least Lethal of all the Weapons. It's release was the day I began to hate Mel Gibson.

In that case it would have been Chris Tucker, and not Chris Rock. Is this what the kids refer to as an 'epic fail'?

Not at Tribunals.

The new face of criminal defence work: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... etent.html Notwithstanding the skeletons in his closet, this chap seems to have no formal legal qualifications. Worried?

The new face of criminal defence work: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... etent.html Notwithstanding the skeletons in his closet, this chap seems to have no formal legal qualifications. Worried?

Quote ="The Video Ref"The new face of criminal defence work: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... etent.html Notwithstanding the skeletons in his closet, this chap seems to have no formal legal qualifications. Worried?'" Dear God what the hell are they doing ? And again the political propaganda machine is rolling out inflamatory "facts" to try and justify their cost cutting exercises which don't stand up to even the mildest scrutiny by a newspaper reporter, and all the time, and because we've seen it all before, we all know that its being done in order to reward those who support the party, as many have said before, they don't even try and disguise it now, its all noses to the trough and get stuck in now for the last two years before its too late.

Quote ="The Video Ref"The new face of criminal defence work: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... etent.html Notwithstanding the skeletons in his closet, this chap seems to have no formal legal qualifications. Worried?'" Dear God what the hell are they doing ? And again the political propaganda machine is rolling out inflamatory "facts" to try and justify their cost cutting exercises which don't stand up to even the mildest scrutiny by a newspaper reporter, and all the time, and because we've seen it all before, we all know that its being done in order to reward those who support the party, as many have said before, they don't even try and disguise it now, its all noses to the trough and get stuck in now for the last two years before its too late.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Consultation closes today (though doubtless it's a sham, and decisions have as per already been made) on the shameful plans to continue driving a coach and horses through ordinary people's access to justice. Foremost amongst the plans is that no longer will a person arrested be able to call his or her own solicitor, instead they will get whatever muppet is covering those cells that day. Unless they pay, of course. As ever, the rich can get the lawyer they want. Added to a plan to impose yet more swingeing cuts to criminal legal aid across the board, in addition to 30% in the past 5 years, and a stated desire to close down 75% of the solicitors offices doing criminal law across the country, this is a recipe for miscarriages of justice. In future, you will get effectively Tesco criminal law, like value beans, and if you want justice but can't pay, well, tough. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22762984 The most evil government in UK history? Well, a good candidate.'" I hate to break it to you but the justice system in this country is already f*cked. Are you aware of 'joint enterprise law'? Alot of innocent people are serving LENGTHY sentences because of this. I'm aware of one lad who is serving 27 years in a maximum security prison because a gang in liverpool comitted a drive by shooting and the car that was used in the shooting had been insured by him a week earlier for a test drive. Because of this prosecutors were able to twist things and infer he was part of the gang, and under 'joint enterprise law' that means he can be done for the crime as well as them even though he was nowhere near it, did nothing and knew nothing about it. Look up the case his name is Wesley Porter. Another one is serving 18 years because when there was the rioting in 2011, a birmingham pub was attacked with police shot at. Some randomer was there having a drink and when it kicked off he ran off like everyone else. Unfortunatly he was an acqaintance with one of the people who was rioting and again, even though he did nothing is now serving nearly 2 dimes behind bars. Look up the case his name is Wayne Collins. The point is you don't have to actuyally commit a crime to be sent to jail anymore, you just have to know someone that does. The guidlines on this law are very grey and prosecutors are using it to rack up easy convictions, ata the expense of innocent lives. That's british justice for you.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Consultation closes today (though doubtless it's a sham, and decisions have as per already been made) on the shameful plans to continue driving a coach and horses through ordinary people's access to justice. Foremost amongst the plans is that no longer will a person arrested be able to call his or her own solicitor, instead they will get whatever muppet is covering those cells that day. Unless they pay, of course. As ever, the rich can get the lawyer they want. Added to a plan to impose yet more swingeing cuts to criminal legal aid across the board, in addition to 30% in the past 5 years, and a stated desire to close down 75% of the solicitors offices doing criminal law across the country, this is a recipe for miscarriages of justice. In future, you will get effectively Tesco criminal law, like value beans, and if you want justice but can't pay, well, tough. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22762984 The most evil government in UK history? Well, a good candidate.'" I hate to break it to you but the justice system in this country is already f*cked. Are you aware of 'joint enterprise law'? Alot of innocent people are serving LENGTHY sentences because of this. I'm aware of one lad who is serving 27 years in a maximum security prison because a gang in liverpool comitted a drive by shooting and the car that was used in the shooting had been insured by him a week earlier for a test drive. Because of this prosecutors were able to twist things and infer he was part of the gang, and under 'joint enterprise law' that means he can be done for the crime as well as them even though he was nowhere near it, did nothing and knew nothing about it. Look up the case his name is Wesley Porter. Another one is serving 18 years because when there was the rioting in 2011, a birmingham pub was attacked with police shot at. Some randomer was there having a drink and when it kicked off he ran off like everyone else. Unfortunatly he was an acqaintance with one of the people who was rioting and again, even though he did nothing is now serving nearly 2 dimes behind bars. Look up the case his name is Wayne Collins. The point is you don't have to actuyally commit a crime to be sent to jail anymore, you just have to know someone that does. The guidlines on this law are very grey and prosecutors are using it to rack up easy convictions, ata the expense of innocent lives. That's british justice for you.

Joint Enterprise.

This covers situations in which a secondary party has lent himself to the enterprise and, by doing so, he has given assistance and encouragement to the principal in carrying out an offence.

So in other words, all you really have to do is lend a helping hand or encourage the offender in order to be liable for the main offence. Shouting encouragement to someone who is attacking someone else on a night out would suffice.

Each case turns on its own facts. The jury obviously thought your mates were somehow involved, and I suspect there is quite a lot more to it than meets the eye in a local press newspaper report. That said, there are miscarriages of justice,and it would seem Wesley Porter is appealing.

In actual fact the papers report pretty much nothing. Most of the information on this case has been found from various innocence projects and miscarriage of justice websites. When you scratch beneath the surface it's eye opening how many unsafe convictions there are.

The wesley porter one was actually a 4 month trial involving 3 other defendants who actually testified at trial that Wesley had nothing to do with it.

He's appealing but that'll be rejected. The justice system is so set in stone, once you are convicted of something it is tremendously hard to overturn.

Watch "Ragged" on Sky Arts. It's the story of how Ricky Tomlinson was fitted up during the Shrewsbury 24 case

Absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical assertion. It deals passably well with thousnads of cases day in day out.


Well, it would normally be referred to asthe law of joint enterprise, but yes.


No, they really aren't.


There is no report that I can find. Do you have alink? If so i'll be interested to read it.

Without reading it, it's YOU who is twisting the facts:

1. You do not KNOW whether he was involved, unless you were there or involved and I presume you weren't.

2. If the jury were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he was involved in a joint enterprise then you must admit that is fair enough. He had a defence team, and they were unable to put a reasonable doubt into the mind of at least 3 jury members. I find that enough to say the justice system worked well enough in his case.
He could then have appealed, if he had grounds, all the way up to the Supreme Court. That is not a system which is fooked.

Noody would argue that there are not miscarriages of justice, but that is a seven day camel ride from saying that the whole system is fooked.

If you disagree that people should be prosecuted under joint enterprise, i suggest you enlist your MP and see about getting the law changed. If there is enough support amongst the population, it will be. Good luck with that. I think it is a reasonable principle myself.

I have found a brief newspaper reference:

This is only the briefest precis, but indicates far more connection with the incident than your biased summary. For example, you left the DNA link out. But the joint enterprise bit would appear to be having supplied a murder weapon. Not hiring a car.


I see Collins was found guilty of rioting, possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, and reckless arson by a jury’s majority verdict of ten to one. He is appealing. that is his right. Again, a jury majority was convinced beyond reasonable doubt and that is just how the law works. If the appeal courts agree the conviction is unsafe then he will either be released or re-tried. What is the problem with that? You surely can't demand a system where no jury ever gets a decision wrong? You must concede such a thing would be humanly impossible?

I also see from one report that:

The key phrase I see is "took part". Nothing about joint enterprise.


No, that's nonsense. No person has ever been convicted of "knowing someone who does". There is no such offence, and I think you know it. The guidelines are not grey, but clear, and like ANY criminal offence it is not an "easy conviction", it requires a jury (not a judge, not a prosecutor and not the police) to be persuaded beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote ="The Video Ref"The new face of criminal defence work: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... etent.html Notwithstanding the skeletons in his closet, this chap seems to have no formal legal qualifications. Worried?'" Wow. Just wow. Not the story, which is disgusting enough, but the paper. If the Daily Mail, of all people reports how shameful and wrong the proposed reforms are, then that must be significant. Normally they would be cheering and clapping.

Quote ="The Video Ref"The new face of criminal defence work: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... etent.html Notwithstanding the skeletons in his closet, this chap seems to have no formal legal qualifications. Worried?'" Wow. Just wow. Not the story, which is disgusting enough, but the paper. If the Daily Mail, of all people reports how shameful and wrong the proposed reforms are, then that must be significant. Normally they would be cheering and clapping.

[url=http://charonqc.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/this-is-what-is-happening-to-honest-hard-working-legal-aid-lawyers-and-why/A criminal aid lawyer's blog[/url