Niner leprauchan wrote: » Opposite can be true. When the state is paying there's no issue with the cost or the numbers. Additional solicitor, barrister? No problem. Chasing a private client who went to jail for years? Not such a straight forward affair. Again, who are these legal eagles winning cases left right and center privately? I would also point out that a prominent solicitor currently before the courts himself is using a legal aid colleague.
mr_fegelien wrote: » But still, know any family, friends, coworkers who did stupid shit and were hit with the full force of the law?
Rubberchikken wrote: » No. Don't know anyone and I don't want to. ignorance is bliss imo.
Harryy wrote: » I have in the North for political activities
Bobtheman wrote: » Criminal record often means what the middle class decide what's a crime. Lending to idiots and then taking the house off them after you got your bonus is not a crime. Allowing insurance companies to ride the Irish public bareback is not a crime either it seems. I could go on but I think most of you get the picture.
mick087 wrote: » Would you rather we did not have legal aid for those who could not afford it? Yes the state must foot the bill if the individual is not able to afford legal aid. No i would argue its not a straight forward affair chasing money owed. I have not stated anything about legal eagles. The prominent solicitor currently before the court using legal aid could we have more details please? it would be interesting to compare the outcome to similar cases.
ilovemuffin wrote: » It's not necessarily stupid shit. The law is not always fair. Smoking cannabis for example should not be outlawed. It's a plant medicine and can heal many things, and open a person up to life in whole new ways. I don't advocate strong skunk or leafy herb though as it can cause psychosis. But hashish/pollen has lots of CBD in it that can counter the often energetic and panicky/psychotic aspects of leafy green. The Irish government should just decriminalize it, tax it, then move on.
TheBoyConor wrote: » Just look at how many convictions there are and the type of defence arguments for general scumbaggery assault involving addicts and low lifes who spend their lives in and out of prison. Then look at the defences put forward by the defence teams for the likes of the rich boys in the Club Anabel case. A gang of posh rich boys literally kicked the absolute head off of that poor young fella while he lay unconscious and defenceless in front of a crowd of about 50 onlooking witnesses and they more or less got away with it after making different appeals. If you swapped the posh boys for 4 strung out Anto, Deco, Johno types with 50 previous convictions, do you think they would have gotten off as handy? They kicked and stomped an 18 year old boy to death got away with no more than a slap on the wrist because of their privileged status, wealth, and no doubt somewhere along the line there were connections, probably indirect, with people in the legal and judicial sphere who probably aided and advised behind the scenes to help get them off the hook. Your average street addict or "aww, i dunno why i dunnit" type low life simply isn't going to have the same high profile influential connections who can discreetly aid their cause from behind the scenes by having a word with their barrister friend who knows a judge who played rugby with them years ago type scenarios and getting their opinion on it that gets fed back to the defence team in a sort of "right, this is what you are gonna get the defence barrister to say" type thing. If you have money and connections to powerful people. You can have a much better chance of wriggling your way out of a bad situation.
mr_fegelien wrote: » I'd say the average boardsies would be hard pressed to know anyone with a record or anyone who has been to prison. The average middle class person isn't the one usually committing crimes. But still, know any family, friends, coworkers who did stupid **** and were hit with the full force of the law?
Randy Archer wrote: » The appeals were primarily based on the legality of the investigation By the Gardai ,after the event . The Gardai properly screwed up on the warrants , trying to be smart and fast and loose with the suspects . Evidence was unable to be submitted to the court because it was obtained illegally .Those defences would have been available to Anto the Scum bag if the Gardai tried similar tactics
Niner leprauchan wrote: » What are you talking about? Seriously. You are the one trying to say that legal aid equals inferior defences. Not me. You back your argument. You are actually agreeing with me about private clients and again I ask, based on your knowledge, who is a very good solicitor to employ for criminal defence? If you don't know the solicitor in question, you don't know the legal system and those that work within it as it was common knowledge, he spoke about it himself and it was in the papers
TheBoyConor wrote: » Yes, the the Gardai might have screwed up their investigation and of course the defence would be available to anyone, posh or junkie. But if we were not dealing with the Tarquin brigade, but with the Anto gang on free legal aid, would the defence bother to investigate or bring up whether there had been failings in gathering evidence. I mean, if they loose the case and he gets convicted, what difference does it make to the defence team. They still get paid by the DoJ. No skin off their nose, so why bother busting themselves with effort trying to find a way out when they could just say "yeah, poor upbrinigng, chaotic lifestyle, we are appealing for leniency and he'll write a letter of apology and make a donation to the court poor box". Meanwhile, all their hard effort and time spared there on the FLA cases is better spend defending private clients. I wonder did the Club Anabel Head Kickers have free legal aid? My point is, there is one way of applying the law for the poor and another for the rich and influential. Anyone who thinks we are all equal before the law is comically naïve.
mick087 wrote: » I would not agree that the justice system is fair. I would argue it would favour the rich and powerful.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » I know you would but you are basing it on nothing. You don't actually know as you have no experience within. Your knowledge comes from the TV where we watch overburdened public defender lawyers for entertainment. In Ireland the only one overburdened is the prosecution. There's no public defender, they are all private. The only question is who pays them.
Deleted User wrote: » I know a few,who would Everything from drunk and disorderly to a very distant relative who got done for capital murder A young lad,i know got caught with 50 grand of coke,during lockdown....so i guess he's going away for few years too Its an easy,easy life to get sucked into,wouldnt judge anyone too harshly for it....im just thankful,i never did.....i see lads i went to school with,lives are ruined with it now
mr_fegelien wrote: » What's an easy life to get sucked into? Drugs or crime?
Can I ask, did you grow up in a rough area in Ireland or middle class/upper middle class?
Mad_maxx wrote: » Yes ,myself Lost a case ,foolishly didn't appeal, paid the fine ,conviction struck out following the fine being paid but it would go against me were I to find myself before the courts again Happened fifteen years ago
Augeo wrote: » I know a few, armed robbery, larceny, burglary, dangerous driving, criminal damage and assault. Most have drug convictions too of course. One chap was murdered over 10 years ago. Most of them appear decent enough lads to be fair ........... a few are total scrotes too of course.
Frankx wrote: » I'm on the spectrum myself Autistic people communicate more telepathically We recognise emotions but don't process them the same as others
bmc58 wrote: » So you know yourself! Not really the question the OP asked.
mick087 wrote: » I would base this on things that i have witnessed. I would not be a fan of tv to be honest. Maybe the prosecution is overburdened and maybe it's time for a full review of the justice system and wealth it creates in parts of the said sytem. What would you think of a capped salary for solicitors clerks barristers judges etc? If we could have a more equal pay strcture, not only for those involved with the justice system but those who enforce the law, then maybe we could have a more equal and fair society as well better fairer justice system.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » Caps exist when they work for the public sector. Private sector, caps are against free trade and competition. If you are good, up should be paid appropriately. Caps in regards fees exist albeit loose. Hand on heart, I don't know how the cap allows for being a great solicitor or a bad one. Probable just means the big guns can charge at the top of the cap. I think legal aid should be limited but that's against your argument. My reasoning for that is simple, because it's a gravy train, they look for remand dates they don't need to charge more whereas if it's a private client, the client won't accept that.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b866050111185697984c86572569f0ea.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)
