"Without the solicitors, the criminals are fúcked"- alleged Dublin criminal

Hijpo · 09-12-2011 3:55am

Millicent wrote: »

Hijpo wrote: »

Wernt the birmingham 6 sentanced in the uk? Thats a bit diffrent than some low life who repeatedly.offends because anytime hes caught he can get free legal representation. If it was costing him he might have a diffrent take on it.

Seriously? That's your argument? That legal aid should only apply to the UK because we don't have any wrongful convictions here?

No, i dont know why yourself and k-9 are reading into my posts so much. im commenting on the OP and saying that if the repeat offenders had to pay to get represented then maybe they wouldnt go breaking the law so freely.

Millicent · 09-12-2011 4:03am

Hijpo wrote: »

No, i dont know why yourself and k-9 are reading into my posts so much. im commenting on the OP and saying that if the repeat offenders had to pay to get represented then maybe they wouldnt go breaking the law so freely.

Free legal aid is not why criminals offend though. I know it sounds wishy washy, but if you are poor and accused, you still need (and have a right to) legal representation. Even if you are a reoffender, you're presumed innocent at each trial and have a right to representation. What if the Birmingham Six were reoffenders and were denied representation for a crime they didn't commit?

Hijpo · 09-12-2011 4:27am

Millicent wrote: »

Hijpo wrote: »

No, i dont know why yourself and k-9 are reading into my posts so much. im commenting on the OP and saying that if the repeat offenders had to pay to get represented then maybe they wouldnt go breaking the law so freely.

Free legal aid is not why criminals offend though. I know it sounds wishy washy, but if you are poor and accused, you still need (and have a right to) legal representation. Even if you are a reoffender, you're presumed innocent at each trial and have a right to representation. What if the Birmingham Six were reoffenders and were denied representation for a crime they didn't commit?

Im not saying its why they offend, but having to pay could be an added deterrant thats all. I see your point about the birmingham 6, im just viewing it from a point of repetitive convictions for similar offences like assault, drunk and disorderly, breaking and entering, robbery etc, the lower end of the scale but extremely common.

Killer Pigeon · 09-12-2011 4:31am

*Sigh*

Okay, the big deal here is as follows:

Free legal aid fees were cut but state prosecutor's fees weren't cut.

Basically this meant that solicitor's representing the state were getting more money than those who were representing the accused (and no, not everyone who claims free legal aid is a criminal with previous prosecutions).

Personally, for the goodness of keeping a fair trial, I don't think this was really fair. State prosecutor fees should be the same as free legal aid fees, it's all public money after all. The state should not really favour any one side involved.

As far as I gather, solicitors who gained a large amount of their firm(s) income from the free legal aid campaigned to have the state prosecutor's fees reduced, which I believe they were successful in doing.

What's happened now is that this same group of solicitors are campaigning for there not to be any more cuts in the free legal aid.

Just to be clarify. Many solicitors who find work through the free legal aid scheme, usually don't rake in a massive salary, even in the top firms. I'd say it would be hard to find a solicitor in that line of work who earns more than €60,000.

Everyone who goes to court should have the right to be represented fairly and this is the service a lot of these solicitors are providing. I hate the way solicitors are all being tarred with the same brush, simply by common stereotypes.

K-9 · 09-12-2011 4:46am

Hijpo wrote: »

Wernt the birmingham 6 sentanced in the uk? Thats a bit diffrent than some low life who repeatedly.offends because anytime hes caught he can get free legal representation. If it was costing him he might have a diffrent take on it.

Ah, not as simples as you made out then.

mackg · 09-12-2011 4:53am

Hijpo wrote: »

Im not saying its why they offend, but having to pay could be an added deterrant thats all. I see your point about the birmingham 6, im just viewing it from a point of repetitive convictions for similar offences like assault, drunk and disorderly, breaking and entering, robbery etc, the lower end of the scale but extremely common.

The deterrent should be that multiple convictions will lead to a fitting punishment, but it doesn't it leads to suspended sentences or worse a slap on the wrist. I'm not saying imprison anyone who is caught doing anything but repeat offenders need to be sentenced to deter them as well as others in the future. You're approach to the problem hurts everyone, guilty or innocent, needlessly when a solution that only hurts the guilty is staring you in the face.

The other possibility is for someone with we'll say 3 convictions or more free legal aid is provided but if proven guilty they owe the state the legal costs but that just popped into my head there so I have not really thought it through.

Hijpo · 09-12-2011 4:57am

K-9 wrote: »

Hijpo wrote: »

Wernt the birmingham 6 sentanced in the uk? Thats a bit diffrent than some low life who repeatedly.offends because anytime hes caught he can get free legal representation. If it was costing him he might have a diffrent take on it.

Ah, not as simples as you made out then.

Pretty simple until ye throw catholics in britain with a link to terrorist organisations leaving a city full of protestants just before bombs go off into the mix :-)

Hijpo · 09-12-2011 5:10am

mackg wrote: »

[

The deterrent should be that multiple convictions will lead to a fitting punishment, but it doesn't it leads to suspended sentences or worse a slap on the wrist. I'm not saying imprison anyone who is caught doing anything but repeat offenders need to be sentenced to deter them as well as others in the future. You're approach to the problem hurts everyone, guilty or innocent, needlessly when a solution that only hurts the guilty is staring you in the face.

The other possibility is for someone with we'll say 3 convictions or more free legal aid is provided but if proven guilty they owe the state the legal costs but that just popped into my head there so I have not really thought it through.

I agree that the punishments are lenient and that it would be better to increase the severity. I fail to see how having to pay for legal aid after repeated offences is hurting everyone though. If you keep your nose clean, you wont be brought to court, you wont need to pay for solicitors. From experience, thats my take on it.

kraggy · 09-12-2011 5:23am

LighterGuy wrote: »

I hate solicitors.
Scum. Just utter scum.

Think about it, even if a decent bloke studied to become one. The nature of the job will turn him. Lying and twisting events. Repersenting blatantly guilty people. And I hate all that "ah people are innocent until proven guilty" bollocks out of them. Its just an excuse to justify the nature of repersenting a scumbag.

Somebody has to represent them in court. Just because they represent them, doesn't mean they agree or support them.

It's a necessary part of the legal system.

Ellis Dee · 09-12-2011 9:36am

billybudd wrote: »

Crime is lucrative, no overheads and with todays crazy judges not much risk.

There must be some risk, because our prisons are severely overcrowded. And only a small proportion of their inmates are there for not having a TV licence and ridiculous things like that.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

arybvtcw0eolkf · 09-12-2011 9:52am

kraggy wrote: »

Somebody has to represent them in court. Just because they represent them, doesn't mean they agree or support them.

It's a necessary part of the legal system.

Is it not the barrister who represents the defendent in court?.

Professey Chin · 09-12-2011 10:12am

LighterGuy wrote: »

I was talking about from a solicitors point of view. Them agreeing to repersent a clearly guilty man. Take johnny cochran. Great example. Took on the Oj Simpson case. Cochran knew he was guilty. The world knew he was guilty. But he got him off.
I'm talking about ethics and morals here. Can a person repersent a clearly guilty man (talking oj case level of clearly guilty here) and look in the mirror and say "i am a good person" .. or is it all about the money. Not caring if they did it or not. As long as you get them off any get the paycheck.

To be fair, this would get Hitler off

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1QI4P0YqtM

TelePaul · 09-12-2011 10:16am

I gots the shotgun, you gots the brief case...s'all in the game yo.

billybudd · 09-12-2011 10:28am

sock puppet wrote: »

It seemed from your post that you had an issue with the fact that it doesn't take a degree in law to become a solicitor (or a barrister for that matter).

Hmm not me guv, i merely suggested and i am sure you would agree that anything is possible, rain on a sunny day etc.

It was another poster who suggested those possibilities.

you can defend yourself thus you being your own solicitor or barrister without any proffessional exams, example: John Gilliigan v The state.

Being a solicitor or barrister is not that difficult.

billybudd · 09-12-2011 10:33am

Ellis Dee wrote: »

There must be some risk, because our prisons are severely overcrowded. And only a small proportion of their inmates are there for not having a TV licence and ridiculous things like that.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Compared to what should be there? plenty of criminals who for instance recieved a 3 yr sentence have been released after 8-9 months due to new arrivals who probaly will face the same scenario, so say you rob a shop and get 75 grand, get caught stash the cash, get sentenced to 3 yrs but you know you will be out in 9 months, would that not be a lucrative thing?

44leto · 09-12-2011 10:53am

This is a great idea, no legal aid would would give an incentive for the scummers not to commit crimes,,,not,,,..

The truth is free legal aid is a necessity in a democracy, but do the fees have to be so high, I think the very closed shop and powerful lobby, the legal profession have to face cut backs like the rest of us.

Gyalist · 09-12-2011 11:01am

billybudd wrote: »

Compared to what should be there? plenty of criminals who for instance recieved a 3 yr sentence have been released after 8-9 months due to new arrivals who probaly will face the same scenario, so say you rob a shop and get 75 grand, get caught stash the cash, get sentenced to 3 yrs but you know you will be out in 9 months, would that not be a lucrative thing?

That's hardly the fault of the legal system. The blame lies with the politicians who have failed to provide sufficient prison places.

billybudd · 09-12-2011 11:03am

Gyalist wrote: »

That's hardly the fault of the legal system. The blame lies with the politicians who have failed to provide sufficient prison places.

I agree 100%

starbelgrade · 09-12-2011 11:08am

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Still makes them a danger to society after they are cleared of crime 51.

Taken from Guardian article, but still..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8853042/Repeat-criminals-responsible-for-half-a-million-crimes.html

All of this stuff relating to rights, I would think people would have a different view if a career criminal hurt someone close to them.

What do you suggest then? Removing someone's basic human rights - ie. the right to representation & a fair trial?

Orando Broom · 09-12-2011 11:32am

LighterGuy wrote: »

I was talking about from a solicitors point of view. Them agreeing to repersent a clearly guilty man. Take johnny cochran. Great example. Took on the Oj Simpson case. Cochran knew he was guilty. The world knew he was guilty. But he got him off.
I'm talking about ethics and morals here. Can a person repersent a clearly guilty man (talking oj case level of clearly guilty here) and look in the mirror and say "i am a good person" .. or is it all about the money. Not caring if they did it or not. As long as you get them off any get the paycheck.

Perhaps you should just ascend straight to heaven, oh omni-cogniscent one!

cosmicfart · 09-12-2011 12:20pm

The law is the law. unfortunately though civilised society needs to have people who can twist words in order to call a spade a shovel. Ill never get how Justice is perverted by technicalities and the clearly guilty persons walk free while victims get abused even moreso than the original crime they had perpetrated upon them. Judges in this land are pawns of the political elite and like their compatriot lawyers on the opposing bench are all in it for the monetary gain and not for justice.

Those so called lawyers and judges on the tribunals of the recent past have only been surpassed in criminality by those people responsible for our generational recession.

Criminals of the highest order, answerable to no one.

44leto · 09-12-2011 12:32pm

The big question I have, is why are legal fees so high. Its a profession but not a particularly difficult one. I personally have more respect for an engineer or the medical profession. What is wrong with a soliticor or barrister earning a sane hourly rate.

The legal profession have protected themselves by knowledge of the law and a kind of closed shop.

Teyla Emmagan · 09-12-2011 12:32pm

Gyalist wrote: »

That's hardly the fault of the legal system. The blame lies with the politicians who have failed to provide sufficient prison places.

Clearly it's cheaper (in terms of the cost of legal aid and damages to person and property) to let criminals back on the streets than it is to provide more prison places. €75k per inmate per year I believe, and that's just for existing places. I think we've spent €43 million on Thornton Hall so far and not a brick laid.

Brain Stroking · 09-12-2011 3:08pm

Funny watching a bunch of people tar a profession with the one brush from a position of complete ignorance.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 09-12-2011 4:02pm

44leto wrote: »

The big question I have, is why are legal fees so high. Its a profession but not a particularly difficult one. I personally have more respect for an engineer or the medical profession. What is wrong with a soliticor or barrister earning a sane hourly rate.

The legal profession have protected themselves by knowledge of the law and a kind of closed shop.

Give Blackhall or Kings Inns a try and tell me its not a difficult profession. It's a high stress job where you have to be on the ball at all times, there is no margin for error, if you fcuk up, you open yourself up to being sued by the client or struck off by the Law Society. The law is constantly evolving which means its a never ending learning experience and you have to keep on top of it.

cosmicfart · 09-12-2011 4:04pm

Brain Stroking wrote: »

Funny watching a bunch of people tar a profession with the one brush from a position of complete ignorance.

Maybe funny to you but im not laughing. Its a clear fact that numerous lawyers starting out on their careers working on tribunal cases went on afterwards to start up their own practices employing numerous people. That might not sound to bad but when you put it in context, that the tribunals were nothing but mere show trials that achieved nothing whatsoever and cost the taxpayer Hundreds of millions (possibly even going into billions), well its hardly ignorance, maybe on your part but not mine.

44leto · 09-12-2011 4:07pm

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Give Blackhall or Kings Inns a try and tell me its not a difficult profession. It's a high stress job where you have to be on the ball at all times, there is no margin for error, if you fcuk up, you open yourself up to being sued by the client or struck off by the Law Society. The law is constantly evolving which means its a never ending learning experience and you have to keep on top of it.

As is other professions and they are not the only ones opened to be sued and have a profession which is constantly evolving.

I have dealt with them and know people in the profession and they don't seem to stressed to me,, the opposite they seem to age very healthily and well.

Ellis Dee · 09-12-2011 4:47pm

K-9 wrote: »

This presumed innocent thing is costing the state a fortune.

I mean who needs the presumption of innocence?

You or I might need it one day.:)

Brain Stroking · 09-12-2011 4:49pm

cosmicfart wrote: »

Maybe funny to you but im not laughing. Its a clear fact that numerous lawyers starting out on their careers working on tribunal cases went on afterwards to start up their own practices employing numerous people. That might not sound to bad but when you put it in context, that the tribunals were nothing but mere show trials that achieved nothing whatsoever and cost the taxpayer Hundreds of millions (possibly even going into billions), well its hardly ignorance, maybe on your part but not mine.

I've highlighted the part of your post i want to deal with. The rest is absolute nonsense. Which lawyers started their careers working on tribunals? Starting your career working a tribunal case seems like a 20 year headstart on a career to me. Also, who set up the tribunals? Do you blame lawyers for crimes being committed too?
As for the rest of your post, you just prove my initial point. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and just want to have a go.

As for my position of ignorance, well i am a Solicitor so hardly a position of ignorance to this issue is it? And this thread is actually making me doubt the intelligence of those that post on this site.

Anyone who thinks being a Solicitor is easy or easy to get into is again talking through their arse. Very time consuming job, €35k a year for relatively newly qualifieds like myself and the constant threat of being sued by clients, banks and sanction from the Law Society makes every letter sent out potentially hazardous.

Also, there is no more awful people doing law than any other profession. I come from a rural non-legal background. More ignorance

But hey, you armchair critics know best, sure Johnnie Cochrane represented a clearly guilty man. Screw all lawyers :rolleyes:

woodoo · 09-12-2011 4:54pm

Criminals should have to pay some of their legal costs out of their dole.

cosmicfart · 09-12-2011 5:01pm

Brain Stroking wrote: »

what a winge baby.

I've highlighted the part of your post i want to deal with :rolleyes:

u chose ur profession, deal with it.

And yes , I am strictly correct that many lawyers started up their own practice from the monies they made from working on tribunals.

Brain Stroking · 09-12-2011 5:09pm

cosmicfart wrote: »

what a winge baby.

I've highlighted the part of your post i want to deal with :rolleyes:

u chose ur profession, deal with it.

And yes , I am strictly correct that many lawyers started up their own practice from the monies they made from working on tribunals.

You said that they started their careers working on tribunals. That is what i said wasnt true. Far from "strictly correct" as you mistakenly put it.

I like my job. It is interesting, constantly changing and you need to rely on your own judgment a lot of the time which gives great satisfaction (when you get it right). I am not whinging. In fact, by the very nature of this thread and your comments, you are the whinger. What do i have to whinge about? I'm just saying you and a host of others here are talking complete crap and showing up your lack of intelligence. Maybe i am whinging about that actually, so you could be right. I do get annoyed by stupid people who try to shout loud about things they havent the first clue about.

Ps i assumed you were on about me whinging even though you call it "winge". Maybe you are saying i'm whining? I'll let you join the dots

CrazyRabbit · 09-12-2011 5:36pm

7 arrests. No convictions. God I love solicitors.

(May, or may not be true.)

LighterGuy · 09-12-2011 5:40pm

Orando Broom wrote: »

Perhaps you should just ascend straight to heaven, oh omni-cogniscent one!

Excuse me for having some sort of morals/ethics.

desertcircus · 09-12-2011 5:45pm

LighterGuy wrote: »

Orando Broom wrote: »

Perhaps you should just ascend straight to heaven, oh omni-cogniscent one!

Excuse me for having some sort of morals/ethics.

At the risk of asking the flamingly obvious question: how does a lawyer decide who's guilty and therefore unworthy of representation, and who's innocent and deserves help? Presumably they'd have to strive for impartiality, maybe they could hire someone to argue their guilt and someone else to argue their innocence...

You have no more ethics than the next man, so get down off the high horse.

Killer Pigeon · 10-12-2011 12:32am

44leto wrote: »

The big question I have, is why are legal fees so high. Its a profession but not a particularly difficult one. I personally have more respect for an engineer or the medical profession. What is wrong with a soliticor or barrister earning a sane hourly rate.

The legal profession have protected themselves by knowledge of the law and a kind of closed shop.

You clearly don't know how much money solicitors or barristers earn themselves, remember they also have to pay their staff. Just because a very small percentage of solicitors/barristers earn massive three figure salaries doesn't mean they all do. The legal profession in Ireland has become ten-a-penny, you'd rarely see someone earning over €50/60 thousand.

Nodin · 10-12-2011 12:53am

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Give Blackhall or Kings Inns a try and tell me its not a difficult profession. It's a high stress job where you have to be on the ball at all times, there is no margin for error, if you fcuk up, you open yourself up to being sued by the client or struck off by the Law Society. The law is constantly evolving which means its a never ending learning experience and you have to keep on top of it.

No, no, no, no, no. Its one of them jobs like Taxi driving, being a guard, soldier, teacher, nurse or Nigerian. Free money for feck all.

44leto · 10-12-2011 12:55am

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

You clearly don't know how much money solicitors or barristers earn themselves, remember they also have to pay their staff. Just because a very small percentage of solicitors/barristers earn massive three figure salaries doesn't mean they all do. The legal profession in Ireland has become ten-a-penny, you'd rarely see someone earning over €50/60 thousand.

I love these screams of poverty whenever there is any kind of industrial action, so they have to pay "their staff" really, that I think is the best poverty cry I have ever heard.

Killer Pigeon · 10-12-2011 12:57am

44leto wrote: »

I love these screams of poverty whenever there is any kind of industrial action, so they have to pay "their staff" really, that I think is the best poverty cry I have ever heard.

Yes, staff who barely earn €20,000 a year themselves.

44leto · 10-12-2011 1:03am

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yes, staff who barely earn €20,000 a year themselves.

Well on the new rates solicitors will have to make their own tea.

This is the market place, if there are to many professions in the legal practice why isn't the consumer benefiting from the additional competition??. I draw a parallel there are a lot of unemployed builders, house improvements have never been cheaper.

Killer Pigeon · 10-12-2011 3:02am

44leto wrote: »

Well on the new rates solicitors will have to make their own tea.

Wow, if you only new what amount of work legal secretaries had to do, you'd withdraw that statement immediately. Pure ignorance.

Brain Stroking · 10-12-2011 3:12am

44leto wrote: »

Well on the new rates solicitors will have to make their own tea.

This is the market place, if there are to many professions in the legal practice why isn't the consumer benefiting from the additional competition??. I draw a parallel there are a lot of unemployed builders, house improvements have never been cheaper.

You've given away that you havent got the first clue about life in a legal office by the bit in bold. How's that chip on your shoulder?

El Weirdo · 10-12-2011 12:02pm

woodoo wrote: »

Criminals should have to pay some of their legal costs out of their dole.

Yes. Because every person that receives legal aid is on the dole.:rolleyes:

SirDelboy18 · 10-12-2011 1:38pm

Better call Saul.

woodoo · 10-12-2011 6:17pm

El Weirdo wrote: »

Yes. Because every person that receives legal aid is on the dole.

And anyone else should have to pay towards it too.

Mike 1972 · 10-12-2011 6:39pm

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly, tighten up bail laws, we'd a referendum about it years ago, fat lot of good it did.

Rather than tighten up bail laws what about addressing the ridiculous amount of time it generally takes to bring cases before the courts.

frisbeeface · 10-12-2011 6:53pm

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the ignorance in this thread

RichieC · 10-12-2011 6:59pm

I can see both arguments here. one the one the the right to a defence is a noble law. but on the other hand we have have drug dealers and murderers swanning around the streets after getting off with technicalities.

I do think *known* gang members should have their right to a trial denied and a sentence handed out on the spot. They don't have a right to a trial in gangland, a point of the finger and you're dead.

laoch na mona · 10-12-2011 7:06pm

judges are overpaid **** there just upset that cuts would slightly affect them

Mike 1972 · 10-12-2011 7:08pm

RichieC wrote: »

I do think *known* gang members should have their right to a trial denied and a sentence handed out on the spot..

1) Define "gang" ?
2) Known by whom ?

"Without the solicitors, the criminals are fúcked"- *alleged* Dublin criminal

Comments

"Without the solicitors, the criminals are fúcked"- alleged Dublin criminal