|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 3, 2023 16:53:16 GMT
I CAN fully understand the anger and resentment .... but The law states that every person charged with an offence who is committed either for trial, or to the magistrates court is entitled to legal representation and / or defence. If this murderer had no defence or representation, the proceedings would have been deemed as unfair, plus it could set a precedent for instances where people are charged with an offence, but are actually innocent, and we would not want such cases to be without legal defence. If Legal Aid was to be withdrawn, the consequence would be that the defendent would face court with no legal representation, which is fine if the man is actually a murderer / terrorist, but again, what about cases where an innocent person is wrongly charged with a crime. Its a bit of a conundrem Good luck if you break the law in Dubai, there will be none of this namby-pamby stuff we do here. .... oops of course they never head to Dubai ... LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Aug 3, 2023 17:35:46 GMT
Ali Harbi Ali repeatedly stabbed Sir David Amess in October 2021 at a constituency surgery in Essex. He admitted killing but denied murder, claiming he was protecting fellow Muslims. Figures from the Legal Aid Agency - shared from a freedom of information request by the Sun - revealed that £44,373 was spent on solicitors who worked at court and a police station. A further £55,655 was spent on two barristers who represented him at his seven-day trial in April 2022. www.lbc.co.uk/news/fury-man-murdered-tory-mp-sir-david-amess-100-000-legal-aid/The vast majority of hard working Brits don't qualify for legal aid, they pay for it, but they don't qualify for it. Awarding this peice of shit £100,000 is an absolute travesty and a slap in the face for every tax payer in this country. Yes we taxpayers get stuck with the bill every time |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 3, 2023 17:43:43 GMT
I CAN fully understand the anger and resentment .... but The law states that every person charged with an offence who is committed either for trial, or to the magistrates court is entitled to legal representation and / or defence. If this murderer had no defence or representation, the proceedings would have been deemed as unfair, plus it could set a precedent for instances where people are charged with an offence, but are actually innocent, and we would not want such cases to be without legal defence. If Legal Aid was to be withdrawn, the consequence would be that the defendent would face court with no legal representation, which is fine if the man is actually a murderer / terrorist, but again, what about cases where an innocent person is wrongly charged with a crime. Its a bit of a conundrem Laws are made and amended all the time. The government could stop terrorists claiming legal aid if they chose to, admittedly Labour would fight it, but it could be done. Perhaps a cap, rather than £100,000 which is ridiculous, scumbag terrorists could be granted legal aid of a maximum of £10,000 and I have to say, I think that's more than generous. (And I'm being perfectly serious) |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Aug 3, 2023 17:52:26 GMT
Criminal cases are generally those in which somebody has been arrested by police, and then a decision has been taken by the Crown Prosecution Service to take them to court.
Anybody who has been arrested is entitled to legal advice at the police station, which is paid for by legal aid.
If the case moves on to a court, any defendant under 18 or who is receiving certain benefits such as universal credit or income support, is automatically entitled to legal aid.
Other people need to go through a means test, which will take into account the applicant's income and savings as well as their household's - for example, whether they have a partner who is earning anything and whether they have children under 18.
It will also depend on which court is hearing their case - less serious offences tend to be decided by a Magistrates' Court, while more serious ones go to the Crown Court.
To qualify for legal aid there is also an Interests of Justice (IoJ) test, which depends on the seriousness of the crime involved. Cases going to Crown Court automatically pass the IoJ test.
You're more likely to get legal aid if there is a chance you could lose your livelihood or liberty, if you lose the case.
People with more than a certain level of income or savings may have to pay some or all of their legal costs.
Civil cases involve other matters that could end up in a court or tribunal, such as family matters, debt or housing problems.
To get legal aid for a civil case you have to demonstrate that the problem you are dealing with is serious - not all civil cases are eligible for legal aid - and that you can't afford to pay for it yourself.
Again, the decision will be based on your income and savings and your household's. If you are under 18, it will also consider the income of your parents.
Even if you do get legal aid, you may have to repay your legal costs if you win money or property from the case.
Legal aid is not means-tested for cases involving a mental health tribunal, children in care or child abduction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 8, 2023 0:07:28 GMT
Oh I would give this murderer legal aid, I'd have a solicitor paid the going rate to advise the bastard to plead guilty and accept a full life sentence.
This bastard was caught red handed and he's lucky he's not going to dangle through a trapdoor. In such a clear cut case, there really is no defence. It's simple. Accept punishment.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Aug 8, 2023 5:58:25 GMT
I don't think that legal aid should only be available to people who aren't British citizens. I know that this wouldn't help in the case of the murderer of Davis Amess, but I'm thinking of the thousands of illegal immigrants who get legal aid to appeal repeatedly against asylum claims being rejected. Any representation must be provided pro bono by solicitors. It's crazy that these people are eligible for legal aid in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Aug 9, 2023 20:37:01 GMT
So you are saying people accused of murder should not get legal aid assistance to defend themselves at all or are you suggesting that people accused of murder via terrorism should not get legal aid assistance to defend themselves? That does appear to be Red's take on the matter. Plus, he has stated that legal aid should not be available for terrorists, which in turn means that there is no need for a trail because Red knows a terrorist when he reads about one in the Daily Hysteric.
Sometimes you have to wonder why the barons bothered to ride down to Runnymede  |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Aug 10, 2023 13:26:18 GMT
I CAN fully understand the anger and resentment .... but The law states that every person charged with an offence who is committed either for trial, or to the magistrates court is entitled to legal representation and / or defence. If this murderer had no defence or representation, the proceedings would have been deemed as unfair, plus it could set a precedent for instances where people are charged with an offence, but are actually innocent, and we would not want such cases to be without legal defence. If Legal Aid was to be withdrawn, the consequence would be that the defendent would face court with no legal representation, which is fine if the man is actually a murderer / terrorist, but again, what about cases where an innocent person is wrongly charged with a crime. Its a bit of a conundrem if you care to google ‘who gets criminal legal aid’ you will quickly see that almost anyone whose kids are over 18 and has a 40 hour a week job cannot be paid less than the amount above which there is no legal aid. So your pontification on what ‘the law’ says is a bit erroneous given actually unless working people pay for it themselves they cant have it. And i did check this was CRIMINAL legal aid not CIVIL legal aid which is even less availablr |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Aug 10, 2023 13:28:05 GMT
So you are saying people accused of murder should not get legal aid assistance to defend themselves at all or are you suggesting that people accused of murder via terrorism should not get legal aid assistance to defend themselves? That does appear to be Red's take on the matter. Plus, he has stated that legal aid should not be available for terrorists, which in turn means that there is no need for a trail because Red knows a terrorist when he reads about one in the Daily Hysteric.
Sometimes you have to wonder why the barons bothered to ride down to Runnymede tbe barons went to runnymede to feather their own nests, as anyone who studies tbe history of the time knows. At no point was the Magna Carta remotely interested in the serfs and villeins |
|
