Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding fail to get costs reimbursed

Sleeper12 · 15-12-2018 5:50pm

One eyed Jack wrote:

I would at least do some basic investigation of my own and fact checking before making such statements, especially when there is so much propaganda and misleading information that surrounds legal proceedings and Irish law in relation to sexual offences and criminal trial proceedings, as has been evidenced by a number of recent cases and how they have been reported on in Irish media.

Well here's the thing. I don't check everything every day. Last time I checked solicitors were not allowed in the interview room once someone was arrested. I don't wake up every day & say "oh I must check everything that I knew as fact yesterday". I'll bet 95 percent of the population aren't aware that it has changed. Something that has stayed the same all my life changed 4 years ago and I missed it. End of story. Move on.

ebbsy · 15-12-2018 5:51pm

Garibaldi? wrote: »

While they were found innocent of the charge, their disrespect of the plaintiff did not endear them to the vast majority of people.

Not relevant. They got off and should have their costs reimbursed.

bfa1509 · 15-12-2018 6:31pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You do realise that they were NOT found innocent?
.

This is the scariest line I read in this thread. I hope you don't have a legal background?

Sleeper12 · 15-12-2018 6:46pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

This is the scariest line I read in this thread. I hope you don't have a legal background?

Really?

A Court or a jury in a criminal case cannot find you innocent; the choice they face is “guilty” or “not guilty”, and both Ibrahim Halawa and the Jobstown protesters were found “not guilty”.
That’s all a Court or a jury can do.
The question of innocence, from a legal perspective, is a different matter.

https://businessandlegal.ie/not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocent-in-criminal-law

I've never heard of anyone found innocent in Ireland.

EagererBeaver · 15-12-2018 8:13pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You do realise that they were NOT found innocent?
.

This is the scariest line I read in this thread. I hope you don't have a legal background?

He is correct. You are not.

Try and understand the law before pontificating about.

Sleeper12 · 15-12-2018 8:21pm

EagererBeaver wrote:

Try and understand the law before pontificating about.

Can you point out a link to any court case in Ireland where the defendant was found innocent?

You can be found guilty or not guilty. There is no verdict or ruling called found innocent.

You can not be found innocent by a judge or jury. You can be found not guilty and then you have the presumption of innocence but you can not be found innocent.

I'm not saying that these guys aren't innocent but they were not found innocent in court. They were found not g

EagererBeaver · 15-12-2018 8:26pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote:

Try and understand the law before pontificating about.

Can you point out a link to any court case in Ireland where the defendant was found innocent?

You can be found guilty or not guilty. There is no verdict or ruling called found innocent.

You can not be found innocent by a judge or jury. You can be found not guilty and then you have the presumption of innocence but you can not be found innocent.

I'm not saying that these guys aren't innocent but they were not found innocent in court. They were found not g

If you managed to contain your outrage momentarily, you may have been able to notice that I was pointing out that you were correct.

cobhguy28 · 15-12-2018 8:36pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

This is the scariest line I read in this thread. I hope you don't have a legal background?

A solicitor made this claim to me during a case years ago . Both of us were prosecuted for assault against each other . I was first up judge dismissed the case against me no evidence at all. Then person who tried assault me was up. I was on stand where defence solicitor stated that I was not found innocent by the court. I kindly reminded her that my innocents stays until It is found to the contrary.

Sleeper12 · 15-12-2018 8:39pm

EagererBeaver wrote:

If you managed to contain your outrage momentarily, you may have been able to notice that I was pointing out that you were correct.

I wasn't outraged & I'm sorry for getting your comment wrong. It's a little frustrating with so many people insisting that a person can be found innocent

rn · 15-12-2018 8:41pm

I guess the key point is: sexual events happened. It was reported as rape. The police and prosecuters office felt they had a case based on evidence gathered while investigating. The court case verdict was not guilty of rape.

However the judge did find there was enough evidence to justify taking the case. Hence the lads have to shoulder the burden of costs.

Which I think is very fair.

If it had been the case where absolutely nothing had happened and it was motivated by some personal agenda on behalf of accuser, I'd say it was a different story regarding costs for the accused. However in this case, it's an interpretation on real events whether it was rape or not.

EagererBeaver · 15-12-2018 9:00pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

EagererBeaver wrote:

If you managed to contain your outrage momentarily, you may have been able to notice that I was pointing out that you were correct.

I wasn't outraged & I'm sorry for getting your comment wrong. It's a little frustrating with so many people insisting that a person can be found innocent

Lots of people, even intelligent ones aren't aware of the difference and, even when you explain it to them, refuse to accept that there is a difference. Some try to spin it as "sure it's effectively the same thing" when it isn't. There is a subtle, but very distinct difference that people would do well to learn

sexmag · 15-12-2018 9:11pm

rn wrote: »

I guess the key point is: sexual events happened. It was reported as rape. The police and prosecuters office felt they had a case based on evidence gathered while investigating. The court case verdict was not guilty of rape.

However the judge did find there was enough evidence to justify taking the case. Hence the lads have to shoulder the burden of costs.

Which I think is very fair.

If it had been the case where absolutely nothing had happened and it was motivated by some personal agenda on behalf of accuser, I'd say it was a different story regarding costs for the accused. However in this case, it's an interpretation on real events whether it was rape or not.

You might not think the same if you felt you had consensual sex with someone only for them to then claim rape and you have to fork out over 400k to defend yourself.

Edit: putting aside the facts of this particular case,I'm referring to the broader situation people find themselves in

People's views are different in this, the judiciary system is in need of a major overhaul, from criminal to family to planning law, it all needs to be looked at

EagererBeaver · 15-12-2018 9:18pm

I'm caught in two minds over it philosophically.

a) if you've been found not guilty, of any crime, should you be out of pocket? Probably not.

b) the only alternative is for the prosecution (i.e. the state) to pick up the tab. Why should my taxes go to paying for someone's defense where the state (by bringing charges in the first place) clearly thought they had a case to answer?

rn · 15-12-2018 9:24pm

sexmag wrote: »

You might not think the same if you felt you had consensual sex with someone only for them to then claim rape and you have to fork out over 400k to defend yourself.

Edit: putting aside the facts of this particular case,I'm referring to the broader situation people find themselves in

People's views are different in this, the judiciary system is in need of a major overhaul, from criminal to family to planning law, it all needs to be looked at

Correct, however in that case I'm biased. In this case, I'm not. The judge has reviewed all the evidence before them. And subjective and contrasting that it is, the judge has arrived at this decision.

sexmag · 15-12-2018 10:12pm

rn wrote: »

Correct, however in that case I'm biased. In this case, I'm not. The judge has reviewed all the evidence before them. And subjective and contrasting that it is, the judge has arrived at this decision.

It's worth noting that the judge in this case confirmed she has no other case to draw from to make her decision, so she either dismisses their application or puts the state out by a tune of at least 400k.

An interesting point would be regarding cases of circumstantial evidence whereas a defendant is found innocent of all wrong doing by way of evidence to the contrary,they still are not awarded costs and it's entirely not their fault.

Defunkd · 15-12-2018 10:25pm

I read this in the Indo(?) last night and a few of the judges comments struck me as odd:
She said she had no precedent to work off in order to allow the 2 men who recoup some of their losses. What prevented her from setting precedent? Substantial costs were accrued in order to clear the men's name.

I may have misunderstood her point but she seemed to intimate that she personally thought they were guilty but that the jury didn't think so. There seemed to be a very subtle 'blame game' on her behalf towards the jury. Did anyone else read it like that?

Defunkd · 15-12-2018 10:37pm

EagererBeaver wrote: »

b) the only alternative is for the prosecution (i.e. the state) to pick up the tab. Why should my taxes go to paying for someone's defense where the state (by bringing charges in the first place) clearly thought they had a case to answer?

That £400,000 spread out over the U.K's +60 million residents comes in at £0.006 per person.
The State thinking someone has a case to answrr doesn't imply there is just cause for the bringing of the case. The CPS has in the last few years brought some grossly uninvestigated cases to court (that woman who claimed she was groped at a train station despite the cctv showing the accused walking past her with his hands in his pocket - i don't know how to link - and a case i read last night of a woman who is currently imprisoned for multiple false rape allegations, which saw one completely innocent man spend years in prison.) So just because prosecutors press a case doesn't mean squat nowadays.

hullaballoo · 15-12-2018 10:58pm

A finding of not guilty is a finding that the person is innocent in law.

No, that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do what they were accused of but they have been found innocent.

Easy enough logical statement: innocent until proven guilty. That means if you're not proven guilty, you're innocent. So a finding of not guilty is a finding of innocent.

I don't want to have to come into this thread all heavy handed with cards and bans and the likes again. Can we please, PLEASE stick to discussion of legal principles and leave the moralising out.

EagererBeaver · 15-12-2018 11:04pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

A finding of not guilty is a finding that the person is innocent in law.

No, that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do what they were accused of but they have been found innocent.

Easy enough logical statement: innocent until proven guilty. That means if you're not proven guilty, you're innocent. So a finding of not guilty is a finding of innocent.

I don't want to have to come into this thread all heavy handed with cards and bans and the likes again. Can we please, PLEASE stick to discussion of legal principles and leave the moralising out.

This is factually incorrect.

Your logic is flawed and incorrect.

A finding of innocent would mean the court saying "you didn't do it". That is not the case. The court found the prosecution failed to prove they did it beyond a reasonable doubt. This is NOT the same thing.

They are innocent from the outset and are entitled to be presumed so until proven otherwise. The court doesn't "find them innocent" at all.

Sleeper12 · 15-12-2018 11:05pm

hullaballoo wrote:

No, that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do what they were accused of but they have been found innocent.

Im sorry but no one in Ireland can be found innocent in court. They can only be found guilty or not guilty. To be found innocent in court there would have to be concrete evidence proving you innocent.

Yes you have the presumption of innocence but you have not been found innocent. You have been found not guilty. These are different things & shouldn't be confused. This does not imply that the Northern lads were not innocent. I'm just stating that they were not found innocent.

Johnboy1951 · 15-12-2018 11:12pm

I believe the point is that they entered the court as 'innocent' (until proven otherwise), and as the court did not find them guilty they left in the same state - innocent in the eyes of the law.

EagererBeaver · 15-12-2018 11:15pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I believe the point is that they entered the court as 'innocent' (until proven otherwise), and as the court did not find them guilty they left in the same state - innocent in the eyes of the law.

Precisely. This is distinctly different from the court declaring "you didn't do it" which quite a few posters on this thread appear to believe is the case.

Sleeper12 · 15-12-2018 11:16pm

Johnboy1951 wrote:

I believe the point is that they entered the court as 'innocent' (until proven otherwise), and as the court did not find them guilty they left in the same state - innocent in the eyes of the law.

We all understand that. That's a given. Posters have been saying that they were found innocent and that is a totally different thing. To be found innocent there would have to be something like DNA produced in court proving that it is possible for you to be the guilty person in whatever crime. Courts don't find defendants innocent. They find them not guilty.

JJayoo · 15-12-2018 11:24pm

Those lads are seriously fcuked. All savings gone, job opportunities very limited with teams, once retired from playing they will never get a job coaching as the stigma will follow them. So they will leave rugby with broken bodies and zero future.

So much for innocent until proven guilty

hullaballoo · 16-12-2018 12:17am

EagererBeaver wrote: »

This is factually incorrect.

Your logic is flawed and incorrect.

A finding of innocent would mean the court saying "you didn't do it". That is not the case. The court found the prosecution failed to prove they did it beyond a reasonable doubt. This is NOT the same thing.

They are innocent from the outset and are entitled to be presumed so until proven otherwise. The court doesn't "find them innocent" at all.

Look.

Whether you like the system or not, not guilty means innocent.

As I said numerous times before, that's not the same as saying the innocent party did not commit the crime but in the eyes of the law, that's what it is.

If you are going to talk down to someone, you should make sure you have your ducks all in a row.

A finding of not guilty is a finding of innocence as far as the law is concerned.

If you believe the person did the crime, that's great. I wish you the very best with it. But you cannot say as a matter of law that they are anything but innocent.

GreeBo · 16-12-2018 12:23am

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You do realise that they were NOT found innocent?

They were aquited. The jury had reasonable doubt.

You assume that she gave consent. This was NOT proven in court. It was NOT proven in court that any of her story was made up. The DPP can charge her if it's proven in court that she lied. The outcome of the case was that nothing at all was proved one way or the other. There was reasonable doubt.

She is entitled to the assumption of innocence as much as the defendants.

There was no requirement to prove consent.
cps should have paid all costs as they brought the trial.

Sleeper12 · 16-12-2018 12:33am

hullaballoo wrote:

A finding of not guilty is a finding of innocence as far as the law is concerned.

I hate to disagree but you are mixing up what you want it to mean with what it actually means.

This started last night when a poster incorrectly stated that they were found innocent. This is impossible as there is only guilty & not guilty. There is no finding someone innocent. This is a fact. You won find a single case where someone was found innocent.

You have the presumption of innocence but this is a mile away from being proven in a court of law to be 100 percent innocent. A not guilty verdict is there is reasonable doubt. No one in court gets proven innocent & so the court can't rule proven innocent.

Here's the difference. A male teacher on child sex charges or images on his pc gets acquitted. My grand kids will be taken out of the school he's in. If he was proven innocent my grandkids would stay in the same school as him.

Proven innocent or found innocent means that they couldn't possibly have done it. DNA evidence or he was in a different country at the time.

Not guilty is reasonable doubt. He has the right to presumable innocence but it has been proven in a court of law that he couldn't have done it.

Sleeper12 · 16-12-2018 12:37am

GreeBo wrote:

There was no requirement to prove consent. cps should have paid all costs as they brought the trial.

My point is that nothing was proven in court on either side. Everyone was that drunk that they all had different memories. Jury had no choice but to aquit. There was plenty of reasonable doubt as there were so many different versions. You could never convict on those grounds. Jury did a great job

16-12-2018 12:46am

unattendedbag wrote: »

They all had a case to answer and needed to defend the accusation. The cps had enough to bring the case to court and felt that they had enough to get a conviction. Otherwise the judge would have dismissed the whole thing after the prosecution had presented their case. It would still have run the same course even if it was three ordinary lads.

Their legal teams are what saved them in the end and was money well spent. I'm sure they didn't come cheap but that should have been clear from the outset.

And if they didn't have money for such an experienced team?

Always disturbs me that the state can afford to pump millions into a prosecution, versus the limited resources of the individual

EagererBeaver · 16-12-2018 12:54am

It is a problem with justice systems the world over - those with deeper resources can afford more and better lawyers.

tretorn · 16-12-2018 1:02am

Their legal team didnt save them.

The evidence of a woman who walked into a room and saw three people engaged in a threesome is what saved them.

The whatsapp messages were also evidence that the men had behaved as they probably behaved every time young women they didnt know came home to their houses and into bedrooms with them, they hid nothing in their conversations with their pals and their activities didnt shock their pals in anyway whatsoever, the same type of conversations are going on between young men after they score on a night out, the women they meet are just used and then disposed of and the men have a dim view of these particular women and not women in general. Most of the outrage was because of the whatsapp messages but these messages were private and only meant to be seen by fellow young men, the Police brought the messages into evidence because there was nothing else to go on and these rugby players needed taking down a peg or two. If the men werent rugby players the case would never have been brought. The woman was from a well off advantaged background too and this was another reason the case was pursued, if she was from the wrong side of the tracks there wouldnt have been half so much media interest in the case.

It does seem unfair that someone can make such serious allegations and a man has to pay enormous sumds of money to defend himself against the Crown Prosecution Service. This is why these cases should not to be taken if they are very weak and this case was full of holes from the start. Its a very unjust system and young men should really be very careful about who they go home with when they have a lot of drink taken, its not really possible to ever regain your reputation after you have been accused of rape because even when a jury is back in less than an hour some people will still insist you are not innocent but just not guilty, this is nitpicking nonsense.

Sleeper12 · 16-12-2018 1:19am

tretorn wrote:

It does seem unfair that someone can make such serious allegations and a man has to pay enormous sumds of money to defend himself against the Crown Prosecution Service. This is why these cases should not to be taken if they are very weak and this case was full of holes from the start. Its a very unjust system and young men should really be very careful about who they go home with when they have a lot of drink taken, its not really possible to ever regain your reputation after you have been accused of rape because even when a jury is back in less than an hour some people will still insist you are not innocent but just not guilty, this is nitpicking nonsense.

You have missed the entire point. No one said that these lads are not innocent. The law allows the presumption of innocence & rightly so. The point is that they weren't found innocent. Their innocence wasn't proven in a court of law. This does not mean that they are guilty. But a presumption of innocence & proven innocence are totally different things. I'm not even suggesting that they need proven innocence. I'm just pointing out that anyone claiming that they were found innocent is wrong. The court found them not guilty.

Does no one wonder why the judge never says proven innocent or found innocent or even innocent? The judge can only say not guilty.

salmocab · 16-12-2018 1:26am

tretorn wrote: »

Their legal team didnt save them.

The evidence of a woman who walked into a room and saw three people engaged in a threesome is what saved them.

The whatsapp messages were also evidence that the men had behaved as they probably behaved every time young women they didnt know came home to their houses and into bedrooms with them, they hid nothing in their conversations with their pals and their activities didnt shock their pals in anyway whatsoever, the same type of conversations are going on between young men after they score on a night out, the women they meet are just used and then disposed of and the men have a dim view of these particular women and not women in general. Most of the outrage was because of the whatsapp messages but these messages were private and only meant to be seen by fellow young men, the Police brought the messages into evidence because there was nothing else to go on and these rugby players needed taking down a peg or two. If the men werent rugby players the case would never have been brought. The woman was from a well off advantaged background too and this was another reason the case was pursued, if she was from the wrong side of the tracks there wouldnt have been half so much media interest in the case.

It does seem unfair that someone can make such serious allegations and a man has to pay enormous sumds of money to defend himself against the Crown Prosecution Service. This is why these cases should not to be taken if they are very weak and this case was full of holes from the start. Its a very unjust system and young men should really be very careful about who they go home with when they have a lot of drink taken, its not really possible to ever regain your reputation after you have been accused of rape because even when a jury is back in less than an hour some people will still insist you are not innocent but just not guilty, this is nitpicking nonsense.

The mob doesn’t care for your philosophy.

Defunkd · 16-12-2018 10:18am

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You have missed the entire point. No one said that these lads are not innocent. The law allows the presumption of innocence & rightly so. The point is that they weren't found innocent. Their innocence wasn't proven in a court of law. This does not mean that they are guilty. But a presumption of innocence & proven innocence are totally different things. I'm not even suggesting that they need proven innocence. I'm just pointing out that anyone claiming that they were found innocent is wrong. The court found them not guilty.

Does no one wonder why the judge never says proven innocent or found innocent or even innocent? The judge can only say not guilty.

How often must you repeat yourself? You made your point; stop trying to make everyone else adopt your view.

sexmag · 16-12-2018 10:35am

Can we all get off the topic of innocent vrs not guilty?

The discussion is regarding recovery of costs from a lengthy trial where the accused were found not guilty of the crime.

Sleeper12 · 16-12-2018 10:37am

Defunkd wrote: »

How often must you repeat yourself? You made your point; stop trying to make everyone else adopt your view.

Well when people come on & quote me & disagree with me without any proof/ link, purely based on what they want not guilty to mean & not the legalities of it I don't have much option but to correct them. In fact you have some of the same of posters making the same false claims for two days now. I am autistic & I like things to be factual especially on a thread like this

A poster said at the start of this thread that the lads were found innocent. I corrected him/her as there in no such ruling north or south of the border. It's that simple but then posters quote me insisting the defendants can be found innocent. They can not

I am done with being found innocent/ guilty

Sleeper12 · 16-12-2018 10:47am

sexmag wrote: »

Can we all get off the topic of innocent vrs not guilty?

The discussion is regarding recovery of costs from a lengthy trial where the accused were found not guilty of the crime.

There is no automatic right to recover costs.

Same judge that heard the case made the ruling on costs I'm happy with that.

Maybe it's just me but I got the impression that she felt Paddy Jackson wasn't being totally honest/ giving full facts in their application

I'd imagine the lads can appeal the costs so if the judge made a mistake it can be rectified?

Nermal · 16-12-2018 11:08am

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There is no automatic right to recover costs.

Why shouldn’t there be? How can it be justice that an innocent person has their career ruined and has had to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds when they’ve not committed an offence?

Sleeper12 · 16-12-2018 11:18am

Nermal wrote: »

Why shouldn’t there be? How can it be justice that an innocent person has their career ruined and has had to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds when they’ve not committed an offence?

I didn't say that there shouldn't be. I stated that there isn't an automatic right to recover costs. They didn't change the law just for these two rugby players though.

I'd imagine this

The trial judge also said she had taken into account the 'special facts and circumstances' of the case.

played a big part in her decision

I wonder what she is allowed to consider?

EagererBeaver · 16-12-2018 11:43am

Nermal wrote: »

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There is no automatic right to recover costs.

Why shouldn’t there be? How can it be justice that an innocent person has their career ruined and has had to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds when they’ve not committed an offence?

Perhaps there should be.

But there isn't.

That. Is. The. Entire. Point.

Nermal · 16-12-2018 11:54am

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Perhaps there should be.

But there isn't.

That. Is. The. Entire. Point.

I didn’t know that discussing what should be was off limits here, and that we were only allowed to discuss what is. Thanks though!

sexmag · 16-12-2018 11:59am

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There is no automatic right to recover costs.

Same judge that heard the case made the ruling on costs I'm happy with that.

Maybe it's just me but I got the impression that she felt Paddy Jackson wasn't being totally honest/ giving full facts in their application

I'd imagine the lads can appeal the costs so if the judge made a mistake it can be rectified?

Well the issue with that is the judge is making her decision based on her own bias. Just because she "thinks" they did it doesn't mean she should then base any further rulings on this presumption. So if she denied them their costs because she thinks they did it, it is a dangerous things as it means judges are moving away from rulings and taking the law into their own hands.

tretorn · 16-12-2018 12:21pm

The case should never have been taken.

What went on that night was pretty shocking but only for people who arent into rugby. It was probably typical and Jackson and his pals were used to women willingly playing the spit roast game and this night in their eyes was no different to any other night of the week for them, they had another spit roast the night after the one the complaint was made and probably received whatsapps texts then too. They may previously had uninterrupted spitroasts so the women involved werent witnessed three in a bed but unfortuneately the night that ruined their lives the woman involved was seen and then everything changed.

The Jury saw the whole no case to answer scenario and because of how quickly the verdict came back most reasonable people would think the case wasnt strong enough to be brought and it wasnt as if the men werent anonymous, they were named immediately.

Some of their costs should definitely be paid and all other young rugby players need to be strongly advised about taking randomers home with them while intoxicated. The men had probably not been out at all while in South Africa so would have overindulged and being young men would have taken any offer of sex, very dangerous mix nowadays when any man charged with rape will be deemed guilty before, during and after his trial and even if found not guilty the witch hunt wont stop until his life is ruined while he is still in his early twenties.

Sleeper12 · 16-12-2018 12:21pm

sexmag wrote: »

Well the issue with that is the judge is making her decision based on her own bias. Just because she "thinks" they did it doesn't mean she should then base any further rulings on this presumption. So if she denied them their costs because she thinks they did it, it is a dangerous things as it means judges are moving away from rulings and taking the law into their own hands.

Ah no. I wasn't suggesting that. He wasn't forthcoming about his finances

The Judge also revealed: "Mr Jackson has declined the opportunity to provide evidence regarding his current financial situation, including the extent to which he has repaid the debt to his father."

On a different matter what can she consider? She heard the legal arguments that the jury didn't. She knows evidence that she didn't allow. Obviously she can't consider these things.

Can she consider the amount a drink taken for example? by the defendants & claimant? Can she consider that they could have done more to ensure consent was established? Before anyone lashes out at me I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just wondering after hearing the case in full what she can consider now? Respecting the not guilty verdict can she still look at proven facts in the case that she might consider were contributing factors? Her statement below suggests that she can.

The trial judge also said she had taken into account the 'special facts and circumstances' of the case.
Judge Smyth said: "This was a complex police investigation and the prosecution was warranted, albeit the jury did not consider that the charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution was warranted in her opinion based on the evidence. What does that mean? Is she/can she withholding a refund of their fees because they left themselves wide open to being accused as compared to someone randomly accused who never even met her?

16-12-2018 12:38pm

Nermal wrote: »

Why shouldn’t there be? How can it be justice that an innocent person has their career ruined and has had to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds when they’ve not committed an offence?

This is the question isn't it?

Someone must blow through their savings, or go into debt, to take on the might of the state's near limitless resources (as opposed to non mega rich)

Dandelion6 · 16-12-2018 1:08pm

EagererBeaver wrote: »

It is a problem with justice systems the world over - those with deeper resources can afford more and better lawyers.

I am really not sure about "better", at least not when it comes to criminal trials. This isn't the US where you have a public defender system staffed by resentful overworked new law school graduates or those too incompetent to get a job in a private firm. Here legal aid is paid by the state to a privately-employed lawyer, who will also be acting for clients who aren't entitled to legal aid. Most criminal defendants are and so a lawyer who only takes private clients isn't going to have as much experience in the criminal courts as one who takes legally aided clients. I know which one I'd want to defend me.

Bottom line here is legal aid is means-tested and in this case the applicants were found not to meet the financial criteria. They are international rugby players. This should not be a surprise.

EagererBeaver · 16-12-2018 1:22pm

All the top QCs get to cherry pick their clients. I can't remember which one of them was represented by Arthur Harvey, but he, as an example, was the lead barrister for the Bloody Sunday families and has been one of the top barristers in the north for decades.

They do gravy train tribunals and inquiries and defense work. Those lads aren't doing legal aid work except for good publicity as the costs don't come close to covering their fees

hullaballoo · 16-12-2018 2:37pm

Moderator: Despite warnings to keep the thread on topic for Legal Discussion, there's no active engagement with any legal principles and this thread has no place in this forum.

Thread closed.

Paddy Jackson/Stuart Olding fail to get costs reimbursed

Comments