Criminal laughs on radio as he recalls assaulting female garda

kub

McCrack wrote: »

You're getting warm.

To be honest I'm not getting involved educating you on the legislative process and the constitutional and European considerations for drafting and enacting Irish law.

There are courses out there and books you can read for that.

Thank you but i won't bother, I simply asked you who was it that advised the Government on various laws. You have failed to answer that.

Eitherway I have no interest whatsoever in any individual or organisation that would assist someone like the individual that rang The Pat Kenny show.

Also i detect your condesending attitude, both here with your offer to 'eduacate me' and your ignoramus remark to a previous poster, I take it so that you are indeed working in the legal trade. It makes perfect sense.

kub

McCrack wrote: »

Grand well that's the price we pay for the benefits of living in a civil and democratic society.

If you're unhappy with that move to Saudi Arabia or somewhere.

Re Irish Water again if you're unhappy with the cost of providing clean drinking water to the population move to Bangladesh perhaps. Lots of free dirty water there in holes.

Bottom line is €50 m is too much to be paying out on scum bags and solicitors with low moral standards.

I have no intention of moving anywhere.

Where i live and for all of my life my drinking water is absolutely perfect as always. Just in case you need a little lesson, it was the IMF that recommended that we pay for water, funny thing is Irish Water will not be altering where my water is supplied from.
I am glad you know so much about Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia though, I wonder do they have a FLA system in those countries?

angelfire9

McCrack wrote: »

What? Where are you getting those figures? Are you really an accountant?

I said the legal aid bill is 50 million and the social welfare bill 20 billion.

I misread your previous post..what's a couple of 0's between friends

I still maintain we spend way too much on legal aid though
Solicitors in Ireland who specialise in FLA get rich off the backs if victims of crime.. This is a fact!
Barristers too, though I grant you, a case requiring a barrister in circuit or high court carries a greater penalty if the accused is convicted, and I do understand that some barristers live on the breadline in the early days so I don't begrudge them quite as much

There should be a cut off point, I know the legal profession will never agree, but as a society we should not be continuing to enable criminality by guaranteeing FLA to habitual offenders
You have a right to a solicitor
Why should you have a right to a free one? Just because you are an unemployed scrote on your tenth/twentieth offence?
Let the proceeds of our crimes pay for it or deduct it from the JSA payment

Legal aid is necessary but what needs to be changed is the system of appearances. Cut out the bollox of appearances for the sake of it. Unnecessary mention dates etc. There seems to be some movement on this already which is good.

We should also change the system of it been given on each new charge when somebody is already before the courts. Just have it per client rather than case.

Soft Falling Rain

I got a distinct smell of BS reading the OP, wouldn't be surprised if he was a plant to illicit the kind of responses that are in this thread. It's not as if a phone in show hasn't done it before like.

kub

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

I got a distinct smell of BS reading the OP, wouldn't be surprised if he was a plant to illicit the kind of responses that are in this thread. It's not as if a phone in show hasn't done it before like.

That thought did occur to me, even if it is BS it is based on fact. This stuff really happens.

Soft Falling Rain

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

I got a distinct smell of BS reading the OP, wouldn't be surprised if he was a plant to illicit the kind of responses that are in this thread. It's not as if a phone in show hasn't done it before like.

Wasn't a phone in. It was an interview with a prolific offender about the system and the offenders.

Potential-Monke

riffmongous wrote: »

That's only a solution to the 'scummer' problem, wont it just screw over anyone who needs FLA and isn't a 'scummer'

Honestly, no. The normal Joe who gets in trouble is normally respectful of the courts and Gardais time and doesn't acting the bollix, so one appearance is normally more than enough.

As it stands, even with clear cut cases, the solicitor keeps fighting it for only 1 reason as far as i can see - money. More appearances = more money. You see the same solicitors who have paying clients only appearing once for them, because they know they won't get any more from that person.

McCrack

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Honestly, no. The normal Joe who gets in trouble is normally respectful of the courts and Gardais time and doesn't acting the bollix, so one appearance is normally more than enough.

As it stands, even with clear cut cases, the solicitor keeps fighting it for only 1 reason as far as i can see - money. More appearances = more money. You see the same solicitors who have paying clients only appearing once for them, because they know they won't get any more from that person.

Do you have an understanding or experience of the District Court prosecution process? I don't think you do with those comments.

As it stands disclosure of the prosecution file or whats known as a Gary Doyle Order is normally sought at first appearance. The legal representative then needs time to consider it and advise the defendant. A plea is then entered and depending on the plea the matter can be put back for Hearing or for probation or other reports to be prepared.

The above are fair procedures or trial in due course of law. None of the above can be done at one appearance so to suggest one appearance in the courtroom is enough to dispose of a charge or charges is nonsense.

kub

McCrack wrote: »

Do you have an understanding or experience of the District Court prosecution process? I don't think you do with those comments.

As it stands disclosure of the prosecution file or whats known as a Gary Doyle Order is normally sought at first appearance. The legal representative then needs time to consider it and advise the defendant. A plea is then entered and depending on the plea the matter can be put back for Hearing or for probation or other reports to be prepared.

The above are fair procedures or trial in due course of law. None of the above can be done at one appearance so to suggest one appearance in the courtroom is enough to dispose of a charge or charges is nonsense.

I suppose if it was properly organised then things would be different.
But why should you lot consider this when your trade has a vested interest in the current arrangement, let the tax payers money rolling.

Potential-Monke

McCrack wrote: »

Do you have an understanding or experience of the District Court prosecution process? I don't think you do with those comments.

As it stands disclosure of the prosecution file or whats known as a Gary Doyle Order is normally sought at first appearance. The legal representative then needs time to consider it and advise the defendant. A plea is then entered and depending on the plea the matter can be put back for Hearing or for probation or other reports to be prepared.

The above are fair procedures or trial in due course of law. None of the above can be done at one appearance so to suggest one appearance in the courtroom is enough to dispose of a charge or charges is nonsense.

I know too well the process. And i've been there when charge(s) have been dealt with on the for mention day. When someone is paying out of their own pocket they don't want to have to pay more than they need to.