Legal aid, Going to Lanzerote

Timberrrrrrrr

Hopefully this will start some other judges clamping down on scrotes receiving FLA all of the time.

'There is bit of a contradiction here - you are on legal aid and going on sun holiday in January' - Judge tells man in court

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/there-is-bit-of-a-contradiction-here-you-are-on-legal-aid-and-going-on-sun-holiday-in-january-judge-tells-man-in-court-30882302.html

Clayton Cahill (23) insisted the planned January break in Lanzarote was a Christmas surprise from his father, who he has "not seen in years".

Judge Walsh said he wanted to "see the ticket" and for the accused's father to come to court to back up his explanation.

When asked why by the judge, the accused said it was because he would be on holiday in Lanzarote, which was a surprise from his father.

"I haven't seen him in years," the accused said. "He lives on the northside somewhere."

The judge asked Mr Cahill if his father could come to court to tell him about "this proposed holiday".

hfallada

I think the best example of a judge cracking down on FLA. Was when the Gardai had a string operation pretending to be hookers. They caught and were charging like 22 men. Something like 9 applied for FLA. But the judge denied it to all of them because if you can buy for sex, then you can pay for legal aid.

The Peanut

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Hopefully this will start some other judges clamping down on scrotes receiving FLA all of the time.



It doesn't appear that this judge is going to be the one to start.:rolleyes:

"I am not going to cancel his legal aid, I just want a bit more insight into how he is financing all this," the judge said

The Backwards Man

In fairness, a week in Lanzarote would only constitute about an hour of legal fees.

kneemos

His father is paying for it.Fill me in so I know what to whine about.

floggg

hfallada wrote: »

I think the best example of a judge cracking down on FLA. Was when the Gardai had a string operation pretending to be hookers. They caught and were charging like 22 men. Something like 9 applied for FLA. But the judge denied it to all of them because if you can buy for sex, then you can pay for legal aid.

Pretty dumb of tbe judge. They were only accused by that stage, and so the judge shouldnt and couldn't have rightly determined they paid for anything.

Sounds like they would have good grounds for a mistrial if convicted

snubbleste

Clayton?
Was his ma a fan of Dallas?

The Backwards Man

floggg wrote: »

Pretty dumb of tbe judge. They were only accused by that stage, and so the judge shouldnt and couldn't have rightly determined they paid for anything.

Sounds like they would have good grounds for a mistrial if convicted

Sounds a bit like an urban myth. Like the one where you can crap in Guard's hat if you're pregnant. And a woman.

somuj

hfallada wrote: »

I think the best example of a judge cracking down on FLA. Was when the Gardai had a string operation pretending to be hookers. They caught and were charging like 22 men. Something like 9 applied for FLA. But the judge denied it to all of them because if you can buy for sex, then you can pay for legal aid.

Paying for sex in Ireland wasnt a crime untill recently. Still might not have finalised in the Dail. So that is a load of crap.

Collie D

hfallada wrote: »

I think the best example of a judge cracking down on FLA. Was when the Gardai had a string operation pretending to be hookers. They caught and were charging like 22 men. Something like 9 applied for FLA. But the judge denied it to all of them because if you can buy for sex, then you can pay for legal aid.

Sounds a bit far fetched to me. I don't think the Guards have resources or inclination to set up fake brothel stings. Also I'm not actually sure if paying for sex is illegal although I'm open to correction.

Beano

Collie D wrote: »

Sounds a bit far fetched to me. I don't think the Guards have resources or inclination to set up fake brothel stings. Also I'm not actually sure if paying for sex is illegal although I'm open to correction.

it wasnt the paying for it that was illegal. it was procuring it on the streets that was illegal as i recall.

lakesider

The judge has no right to ask the mans father to do anything..its not him that has been summoned to court!

bear1

The funniest part of the story is the fact that he hasn't seen his father in years due to him living somewhere in North Dublin (he says it like it was NZ) and then out of the blue the father gives him a holiday to Lanzarote and is going to give money with it as well.... Doesn't sound dodgy at all.

snubbleste

Maybe he doesn't know who his father is?

bjork

Wasn't a girl last year who couldn't turn up in court because she also was on a sun holiday. Recking my brain to remember more details but IIRC they were serious enough charges

The_Captain

hfallada wrote: »

I think the best example of a judge cracking down on FLA. Was when the Gardai had a string operation pretending to be hookers. They caught and were charging like 22 men. Something like 9 applied for FLA. But the judge denied it to all of them because if you can buy for sex, then you can pay for legal aid.

They'll both f**k you, but a solicitor charges far more for it

Strong Life in Dublin

somuj wrote: »

Paying for sex in Ireland wasnt a crime untill recently. Still might not have finalised in the Dail. So that is a load of crap.

Actually paying sex have always been illegal! Escorts are legal because you are 'paying for their time'

anncoates

A cheapo holiday to the canaries doesn't automatically mean you can afford a huge legal bill.

Strong Life in Dublin

anncoates wrote: »

A cheapo holiday to the canaries doesn't automatically mean you can afford a huge legal bill.

Yeah pretty much, flights and accommodation would be extremely cheap this time of the year

Beano

Strong Life in Dublin wrote: »

Actually paying sex have always been illegal! Escorts are legal because you are 'paying for their time'

not true. They are proposing to make it illegal but so far they have not done so. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30242641

It is procuring it on the street that is illegal http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0020/sec0007.html#sec7

anncoates

Strong Life in Dublin wrote: »

Yeah pretty much, flights and accommodation would be extremely cheap this time of the year

Here, don't let common sense derail the Outrage Express before it leaves the station.

kneemos

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. People are actually defending the criminal in this scenario? Have I missed something?

Yeah,he hasn't been convicted so is not a criminal and his father is paying for it.

Timberrrrrrrr

kneemos wrote: »

Yeah,he hasn't been convicted so is not a criminal and his father is paying for it.

Allegedly

Collie D

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. People are actually defending the criminal in this scenario? Have I missed something?

Wow. People are actually ignoring the presumption of innocence?

Seems you've missed a fair bit. Or maybe it's just me and my naïve, bleeding heart ways.

Beano

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. People are actually defending the criminal in this scenario? Have I missed something?

is he a criminal? i thought he was the defendant.

Little CuChulainn

I was in court a few years ago and a young lad was up for burglary. He applied for legal aid and someone went over and whispered something to the Garda in the box. The Garda then advised the court that he believed the accused had recently received a quarter million from a childhood injury. The judge was not impressed with the solicitor at all for trying to claim legal aid. I think they changed their plea to guilty on the spot.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. People are actually defending the criminal in this scenario? Have I missed something?

Yea, you possibly have.

"Surely if you own a 15 bedroom castle, you have the money to heat all the rooms"

"Surely if you could afford a 3.5L Landrover you can afford to fill the fuel tank weekly"

"Surely if you can pay for one thing then you must have money to pay for another thing"...

It's flawed logic. The costs of a solicitor can be quite high, especially when you don't have the money for it. From the article, it seems like the accused (not criminal btw), was given the holiday by his father.

FLA is based on a means test. He might have some savings and still get FLA.

Wait, what am I saying "BURN THE WITCH!!! RAWR!!!"

bjork

Beano wrote: »

is he a criminal? i thought he was the defendant.

Mr Cahill, of Crumlin Park is charged with possession of cannabis at South Circular Road on November 28, 2013. He is also charged with being a passenger in a stolen vehicle at Ballymun Road on November 3, 2014.

Little CuChulainn

anncoates wrote: »

A cheapo holiday to the canaries doesn't automatically mean you can afford a huge legal bill.

An appearance in court does not automatically mean a huge legal bill. Both his offences are relatively minor.

Collie D

bjork wrote: »

Mr Cahill, of Crumlin Park is charged with possession of cannabis at South Circular Road on November 28, 2013. He is also charged with being a passenger in a stolen vehicle at Ballymun Road on November 3, 2014.

You do know the difference between a charge and a conviction, right?

Beano

bjork wrote: »

Mr Cahill, of Crumlin Park is charged with possession of cannabis at South Circular Road on November 28, 2013. He is also charged with being a passenger in a stolen vehicle at Ballymun Road on November 3, 2014.

charged being the operative word. One is not a criminal until one has been found guilty.

bjork

Beano wrote: »

charged being the operative word. One is not a criminal until one has been found guilty.

Yes it is. He is not however the defendant.

Please show where I have said he was a criminal. I have quoted what he was charged with. At least I took the time to read the article



@Collie D - Yes I do. What is your point?

Little CuChulainn

Beano wrote: »

charged being the operative word. One is not a criminal until one has been found guilty.

Eh no, one is not a convict until they have been found guilty. They are a criminal when they commit a crime.

Beano

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Eh no, one is not a convict until they have been found guilty. They are a criminal when they commit a crime.

he is not a criminal until he is found guilty. even if he is found guilty he will not necessarily be a convict. he is only a convict if he is given jail time.

kneemos

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Eh no, one is not a convict until they have been found guilty. They are a criminal when they commit a crime.

We don't know if he committed a crime so not a criminal.

Beano

bjork wrote: »

Yes it is. He is not however the defendant.

Please show where I have said he was a criminal. I have quoted what he was charged with. At least I took the time to read the article



@Collie D - Yes I do. What is your point?

so you agree he is not a criminal then?

bjork

Beano wrote: »

so you agree he is not a criminal then?

Please quote where I've said he is?

Beano

bjork wrote: »

Mr Cahill, of Crumlin Park is charged with possession of cannabis at South Circular Road on November 28, 2013. He is also charged with being a passenger in a stolen vehicle at Ballymun Road on November 3, 2014.

bjork wrote: »

Please quote where I've said he is?

well if you dont think he is then what was the purpose of the first post i quoted?

anncoates

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

An appearance in court does not automatically mean a huge legal bill. Both his offences are relatively minor.

He qualifies for FLA. The judge himself said he couldn't revoke it so if he can go on a cheapo holiday it's not a consequence.

Whether he's a nice person or a criminal isn't the issue.

People just want to see sackcloth and ashes for anybody with any kind of state assistance, unless of course it's ones that benefit them such as mortgage interest relief, mostly free college and other no less tax-funded sweeteners.

bjork

Beano wrote: »

well if you dont think he is then what was the purpose of the first post i quoted?

If you can't follow the conversation for yourself, I'll break it down for you.


A Poster was confused as to whether he was a defendant.
I quoted the bit out of the independent outlining his charges.


Simple, stop arguing with me about something I didn't say or prove I said it.

Beano

bjork wrote: »

If you can't follow the conversation for yourself, I'll break it down for you.


A Poster was confused as to whether he was a defendant.
I quoted the bit out of the independent outlining his charges.


Simple, stop arguing with me about something I didn't say or prove I said it.

but why quote me if you agree with what i said?

dr.bollocko

They should melt him down and build a homeless shelter out of him.

bjork

Beano wrote: »

but why quote me if you agree with what i said?

Because it was you who thought it was the defendant- You obviously didn't bother to read the article

Beano wrote: »

is he a criminal? i thought he was the defendant.

Satriale

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Sounds a bit like an urban myth. Like the one where you can crap in Guard's hat if you're pregnant. And a woman.

:eek:
feck, now i know why he got so cranky!

Beano

bjork wrote: »

Because it was you who thought it was the defendant- You obviously didn't bother to read the article

you seem to be confused. He IS the defendant.

bjork

Beano wrote: »

you seem to be confused. He IS the defendant.

Ok I stand corrected on the use of the term defendant (I would have called him the accused but I see now both terms are interchangeable)



Now, Would you like to point out where I said he was a criminal?

Beano

bjork wrote: »

Ok I stand corrected on the use of the term defendant (I would have called him the accused but I see now both terms are interchangeable)



Now, Would you like to point out where I said he was a criminal?

i never said you did.

Strong Life in Dublin

Beano wrote: »

not true. They are proposing to make it illegal but so far they have not done so. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30242641

It is procuring it on the street that is illegal http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0020/sec0007.html#sec7

Yeah exactly that's why I said escorts are legal............

Beano

Strong Life in Dublin wrote: »

Actually paying sex have always been illegal! Escorts are legal because you are 'paying for their time'

Strong Life in Dublin wrote: »

Yeah exactly that's why I said escorts are legal............

The part i was disagreeing with (and i thought this was clear from what i posted) was where you said paying for sex has always been illegal. Clearly it isnt.

Strong Life in Dublin

Beano wrote: »

The part i was disagreeing with (and i thought this was clear from what i posted) was where you said paying for sex has always been illegal. Clearly it isnt.

Ehh paying for sex is illegal, escorts get around it by charging for her time and companionship only. Yes, escorts often have sex with their clients, but that is a matter of coincidence and choice between consenting adults... It is not the escort selling sex to the client!

Grand Moff Tarkin

Free legal aid is just a money train for the legal profession. The more often a scut is before a judge the better for the lawyers in the state.