Costs in Criminal Cases Should Be Reviewed
-
Don't need to understand common law, just understand the letter a little better will do.
Yes, Atobe and the like may not know what they are talking about. But the author of the letter is a lawyer and should know what he was talking about.
Didn't the lawyer author say, "The position in Singapore contrasts sharply with that in England. The law in England states that if a person is acquitted, the court should normally make an order of costs in his/her favour unless there are positive reasons for not doing so."
May be he is a pseudo-lawyer?
Or may be he didn't understand common law?
Btw, the thread is not "arguing for compensation for persons found innocent in criminal trials and ways to reduce costs in criminal trials" but asking for the cost of criminal cases to be reviewed. -
May be he is a pseudo-lawyer?
Certainly sounds like it...he doesn't know what he is talking about.
There is no general entitlement to recompense for wrongful conviction, for example compensation will not be awarded in cases where at the trial or on appeal the prosecution is unable to sustain the burden of proof against the accused person....
However, in the UK, the minister may pay compensation in the event of a wrongful conviction or miscarriage of justice (section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 198
; NOT merely because a defendant was found innocent after a trial.
TEXT OF PART OF WRITTEN ANSWER TO HOUSE OF COMMONS ON 29 NOVEMBER 1985 ABOUT COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION [REFERENCE HANSARD COLUMNS 691-692]
Mr. Hurd: "There is no statutory provision for the payment of compensation from public funds to persons charged with offences who are acquitted at trial or whose convictions are quashed on appeal, or to those granted free pardons by the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy. Persons who have grounds for an action for unlawful arrest or malicious prosecution have a remedy in the civil courts against the person or authority responsible. For many years, however, it has been the practice for the Home Secretary, in exceptional circumstances, to authorise on application ex gratia payments from public funds to persons who have been detained in custody as a result of a wrongful conviction."
The following is part of the Home Secretary's answer referred to his preparedness to pay compensation as required by the Government's international obligations.
"I remain prepared to pay compensation to people who do not fall within the terms of the preceding paragraph but who have spent a period in custody following a wrongful conviction or charge, where I am satisfied that it has resulted from serious default on the part of a member of a police force or of some other public authority." "There may be exceptional circumstances that justify compensation in cases outside these categories. In particular, facts may emerge at trial or on appeal within time, that completely exonerate the accused person. I am prepared, in principle, to pay compensation to people who have spent a period in custody or have been imprisoned in cases such as this. I will not, however, be prepared to pay compensation simply because at the trial or an appeal the prosecution was unable to sustain the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the specific charge that was brought."
Don't simply accept the words of some libertarians in the ThinkCentre website claiming to be a lawyer. If he is, he's not a very good one. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
"no general entitlement to recompense for wrongful conviction" does not necessarily mean that Singapore Society cannot revisit this 'WRONG' and make it 'RIGHT'.
Certainly sounds like it...he doesn't know what he is talking about.
There is no general entitlement to recompense for wrongful conviction, for example compensation will not be awarded in cases where at the trial or on appeal the prosecution is unable to sustain the burden of proof against the accused person....
However, in the UK, the minister may pay compensation in the event of a wrongful conviction or miscarriage of justice (section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 198; NOT merely because a defendant was found innocent after a trial.
In a system, when the Law changes the Legislation that "a Citizen is innocent until proven guilty" - and place the onus on the Citizen to prove his own innocence, rather than for the Law to prove his guilt - it is only correct that justice is fully serve when the Law is shown to be at fault for flippantly placing a Citizen under such heavy and unnecessary burden.
Singapore Leaders have always exacted a high price on their integrity and reputation being questioned or tarnished in any way.
Singapore Citizens who are wrongfully accused without any proof from the Law Enforcers should similarly be entitled to similar exacting redress.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Was this thread about "barristers doing criminal cases" ?
No you didn't indeed. The thread is about barristers doing criminal cases. What I meant was that criminal law does not pay well compared to other branches of law. I cited corporate law but you are right in that some solicitors handling civil cases are well paid and maritime law is so specialized that lawyers in that field certainly do well. [/b]
Or is it as clearly printed on top of this page about "Costs in Criminal Cases Should be Reviewed" ?
How could one with tertiary education misinterprete the clear language and drift so far off the intended path ?
Can the influence of money be so strong that it can cause myopia to occur ?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
It is already bad enough when the Public Prosecutor accuses a Citizen and cannot prove his guilt as a Defendant, and bring a Citizen's reputation into question and under intense public scrutiny, with the resulting adverse publicity.
Anyway, this is a side issue. The threadstarter is arguing for compensation for persons found innocent in criminal trials and ways to reduce costs in criminal trials. The former is not provided for in common law jurisdictions unless the defendant can prove negligence on the part of the police and prosecuting authorities. The only way to provide compensation in these cases would be from the taxpayer. As usual, Atobe and the like advocate compensation without a clue as to where the money will come from.
Should the plight of the Citizen be made worse by also imposing a financial burden for the high costs of a trial caused by a false accusation from the Law Enforcers ?
If you are a Doctor - as you have claimed to be - we can probably forgive your handicap in not being able to grasp the obvious clue about available Public Finance to compensate Singaporeans in such cases.
Is the Singapore Government so poor as to be unable to have a Justice Compensation Fund ?
This Fund can serve as a useful benchmark to gauge the performance of the Judiciary System, as the depletion of this fund will clearly show that - either the standard of Law Enforcing has been due to flippant and baseless accusations and charges, resulting in high incidence of acquttal; or that the Law Enforcers are not as professional as they are made out to be in their preliminary investigative work and prosecution preparation.
As a self-proclaimed Doctor, are you being a realistist or an alarmist ?
As for the latter, defence costs in criminal prosecution relate to mainly the costs of his own defence lawyers. To reduce the legal costs for the defendant, we would have to lower the fee of criminal lawyers, which as I have said, are probably cheaper than the highly-paid corporate lawyers. If we force the fees of criminal lawyers down (by bringing in cheaper FT or other means), we will force more talented lawyers to go into corporate law or civil litigation instead.
Fortunately, there are other Professionals who have higher morals and are not as money driven as reflected in your postings.
Some of the best Criminal Lawyer was the late David Marshall, and he has represented some of the accused Singaporeans who can hardly afford his services under normal circumstances; and yet this Gentleman Lawyer is none the worse in his modesty, lifestyle nor standard of living. -
a prosecution isn't called a prosecution for nothing. the definition of innocent proven guilty: the defendant is INNOCENT and it is up to the prosecution to prove that the charges against him or her are valid, and in the context of criminal cases: actus reus, mens rea and causation are all present. a lack of any one factor amongst the 3 will allow the defendant to walk away a free man.
-
As I have said (and Atobe has not read, as usual), criminal costs for the defence relate mainly to the cost of their barristers. But there is no point debating with Atobe. He is so blinkered and full of anti-government sentiments that he will reject any view that does not coincide with his own. Now he is moving towards personal insults...that's fine with me . I am secure enough with my achievements....
There are people who are out to disparage all government policies and would stoop at nothing to mislead the public, including the sowing of falsehood. -
Unfortunately, in the Singapore context - the defendant has to prove his own innocence on the charges which the prosecutor has based its accusation on.Originally posted by vito_corleone:a prosecution isn't called a prosecution for nothing. the definition of innocent proven guilty: the defendant is INNOCENT and it is up to the prosecution to prove that the charges against him or her are valid, and in the context of criminal cases: actus reus, mens rea and causation are all present. a lack of any one factor amongst the 3 will allow the defendant to walk away a free man.
This reality world issue probably did not appear in your First Year Notes. -
Tsk, tsk, tsk ...... when you do make a response, and do so with so much gusto in an agitated emotional response, it makes one wonder if our Singaporean doctors are trained to keep a level head while in the heat of critical moments.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:As I have said (and Atobe has not read, as usual), criminal costs for the defence relate mainly to the cost of their barristers. But there is no point debating with Atobe. He is so blinkered and full of anti-government sentiments that he will reject any view that does not coincide with his own. Now he is moving towards personal insults...that's fine with me . I am secure enough with my achievements....
There are people who are out to disparage all government policies and would stoop at nothing to mislead the public, including the sowing of falsehood.
If you see me as being blinkered, could it be that you are wearing poorly prescribed glasses that mistake my thick eye brows for blinkers ?
If one is wrongly charged by the Law, incarcerated for the duration of the investigation and trial, and finally discharged - should one be compensated for the cost of one's own barristers only ?
Why should one - who is acquitted and discharged - be made responsible and liable for all costs incurred by the Court, when it is the Legal Establishment that is responsible for the error of judgment in raising the charges that could not be proven and later found to be be without basis ?
By all logic, the person - who has been acquitted and discharged - should also be compensated for the loss of income, misery, and embarrassment from the adverse publicity and soiled reputation.
Did you read my post in which I had stated that if PRESENT Legislations have no such provisions, then Parliament should review this and prevent further injustice from occurring ?
Is it not typical reasoning of the Elites that when their argumentative position is weakened, they turn to threatening language - "There are people who are out to disparage all government policies and would stoop at nothing to mislead the public, including the sowing of falsehood".
Is it not a fact that it is a government policy of INVOICING the Cost of the Trial to the person who has been acquitted - (and is the reason for this Thread being started ) ?
Is this disparaging government policies, misleading the public and sowing of falsehood ?
Surely your educated and liberated mind can be more discerning ?
"Stoop" ? - it has been quite a long time ago when adopting the "vietcong" firing position during Basic NS Training.
"Stoop at nothing" ? - surely you will do the same for money - or perhaps you do have Principles afterall ? -
As usual, myopic and uninformed views of the libertarianOriginally posted by Atobe:[b]By all logic, the person - who has been acquitted and discharged - should also be compensated for the loss of income, misery, and embarrassment from the adverse publicity and soiled reputation.
Did you read my post in which I had stated that if PRESENT Legislations have no such provisions, then Parliament should review this and prevent further injustice from occurring ?
Name me one jurisdiction that compensates someone who is acquiited after a trial or appeal. The threadstarter made a huge boo-boo claiming that UK does that as a matter of course, which it does not. The reason is simple: such a mindless system will unnecessarily shackle the law enforcement agencies from prosecuting anything but the most obvious cases and will result in more crime.
We have sufficient safeguards to prevent frivolous or negligent prosection through our appeals court and a civil suit can be brought against the prosecting authorities in that event.
Do supporters of the Opposition have nothing else to offer except tax and spend, more crime and greater social unrest?
And stick to the thread. Making snide remarks and personal insults will get you nowhere..don't start it
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Is it any surprise that being a very opinionated person, you can also be a sensitively thin-skinned person; when most opinionated persons are - generally - tolerantly thick skinned and quite immune to similarly opinionated views from others towards themselves. .
Originally post by Atobe:
By all logic, the person - who has been acquitted and discharged - should also be compensated for the loss of income, misery, and embarrassment from the adverse publicity and soiled reputation.
Did you read my post in which I had stated that if PRESENT Legislations have no such provisions, then Parliament should review this and prevent further injustice from occurring ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As usual, myopic and uninformed views of the libertarian
Name me one jurisdiction that compensates someone who is acquiited after a trial or appeal. The threadstarter made a huge boo-boo claiming that UK does that as a matter of course, which it does not. The reason is simple: such a mindless system will unnecessarily shackle the law enforcement agencies from prosecuting anything but the most obvious cases and will result in more crime.
We have sufficient safeguards to prevent frivolous or negligent prosection through our appeals court and a civil suit can be brought against the prosecting authorities in that event.
Do supporters of the Opposition have nothing else to offer except tax and spend, more crime and greater social unrest?
And stick to the thread. Making snide remarks and personal insults will get you nowhere..don't start it 
"Personal insults and snide remarks" ? - are you merely being insecure from your perceived views of the opinions by others; despite your claims of being "secure enough with my achievements......." ? .
How should I rate your performance with your remarks - "Atobe .... is blinkered, and full of anti-government sentiments" or "myopic and uninformed views of the libertarian" - should I perceive these as "backhanded compliments" or should I harbor insecure feelings of hurt ? .
Just to give you some comfort by clarifying my position in that since I do not know you personally - except from this forum - can there be anything personal in my remarks, when there is no intention to hurt your feelings on personal basis - even if my style have a tendency to bite and cut - impassionately - sometimes to drive a point home.
If you will refer to my reply above - on this page - posted on 8 July 2006 09.17a.m :-
you did not give any follow-up response in all your subsequent replies posted in this thread - so I had asumed that you had perhaps agreed to some degree to my position, or prefer to ignore a point driven home ( ??? )
"no general entitlement to recompense for wrongful conviction" does not necessarily mean that Singapore Society cannot revisit this 'WRONG' and make it 'RIGHT'.
Why have you revisited this issue again ?
If you must quote with an extract from anyone's post, at least do some justice to the writer by being complete and not give a "myopic view" to suit your position only - (if you notice, I have done justice to every piece of your efforts by quoting you in full, as much as it maybe seen as a waste of space).
The correct Partial Extract from my post of 10 July 03.08a.m. should be:
May I add that if our Elite Leaders can sue for million dollar compensations for implied hurt to their public standing, how much should a Citizen be compensated when wrongly charged and acquitted by the Justice System for an error that bring harmful publicity to the Citizen ?
If one is wrongly charged by the Law, incarcerated for the duration of the investigation and trial, and finally discharged - should one be compensated for the cost of one's own barristers only ?
Why should one - who is acquitted and discharged - be made responsible and liable for all costs incurred by the Court, when it is the Legal Establishment that is responsible for the error of judgment in raising the charges that could not be proven and later found to be be without basis ?
By all logic, the person - who has been acquitted and discharged - should also be compensated for the loss of income, misery, and embarrassment from the adverse publicity and soiled reputation.
NB
Since you have only nitpicked on my last post (preceding piece), I suppose you have nothing to respond to my reply to your earlier posted "snide" remarks:
"There are people who are out to disparage all government policies and would stoop at nothing to mislead the public, including the sowing of falsehood" -
i'm studying uk law with the university of london, not the laws of the republic of lee kuan yewOriginally posted by Atobe:Unfortunately, in the Singapore context - the defendant has to prove his own innocence on the charges which the prosecutor has based its accusation on.
This reality world issue probably did not appear in your First Year Notes. -
if we can't trust a lawyer who dared to put his name on the letter (which meant he was prepared to be challenged by readers) he sent to a government-controlled newspaper, i don't know who else can we trust. A spin doctor?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Don't simply accept the words of some libertarians in the ThinkCentre website claiming to be a lawyer. If he is, he's not a very good one.
you seem to have the typical civil servant mentality of "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" -
maybe he is a government spyOriginally posted by pearlie27:if we can't trust a lawyer who dared to put his name on the letter (which meant he was prepared to be challenged by readers) he sent to a government-controlled newspaper, i don't know who else can we trust. A spin doctor?
you seem to have the typical civil servant mentality of "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" -
He got his facts totally wrong...can't you read?Originally posted by pearlie27:if we can't trust a lawyer who dared to put his name on the letter (which meant he was prepared to be challenged by readers) he sent to a government-controlled newspaper, i don't know who else can we trust. A spin doctor?
you seem to have the typical civil servant mentality of "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" -
"spin doctor" - neat one - you have beaten me in creative thinking .Originally posted by pearlie27:if we can't trust a lawyer who dared to put his name on the letter (which meant he was prepared to be challenged by readers) he sent to a government-controlled newspaper, i don't know who else can we trust. A spin doctor?
you seem to have the typical civil servant mentality of "if it ain't broken, don't fix it"
Can one trust a 'doctor' to know the law better than one who is qualified as a lawyer ? .
Can a lawyer make incisive judgment to the workings of a doctor ? .
Your 'spin doctor' term accurately classify those who think that they are "Doctors of Law" - when they are simply medical doctors (if they have graduated already ) - who spin-off their own preferred concepts and interpretation of the Criminal and Civil Law. . -
The facts speak for themselves. The threadstarter makes an allegation and cannot back it up with facts. When confronted with the evidence, there are those who would blind themselves to the facts and embrace fallacy. With supporters like these, Opposition parties will never be credible.
-
Originally posted by vito_corleone:
So you are in the good company of Chiam See Tong in your alma mater - doing the course by correspondence - like Chiam ?
i'm studying uk law with the university of london, not the laws of the republic of lee kuan yew
Just a word of caution, if it is a correspondence course, I believe that there is no recognition for the LLB that is awarded by this university - then again, I could be wrong as the situation may have changed as so typical of the many flip-flop policies of the Ruling Elites forming our Government. -
Bollocks. We do not have 'barristers' in SIngapore. You do not *need* a 1st or 2:1 to practise as a solicitor or barrister in england.Originally posted by vito_corleone:not necessarily. in countries like singapore you have to have 1st class honours in order to enter the bar and be a barrister, in most commonwealth countries its 1st class and 2nd upper class for barristers(represent clients in court). with a 2nd lower class you can only be a socilitor(legal advice eg. corporate legality, cannot represent clients in court). so who said less talented lawyers handle criminal cases and more talented lawyers handle corporate affairs?
The fact is corporate law pays better than criminal lawyers. Criminal lawyers, in the UK at least, are usually consigned to what are called 'legal aid cases'. This means that your clients usually cannot afford to engage a lawyer himself (after all, they are criminals and there aren't that many rich criminals around) Criminal law practitioners are therefore either very altruistic/idealistic or not very good.
IMO they rank just above army lawyers
-
Did the threadstarter make any allegation, or did he/she merely post an issue of public interest - "Costs in Criminal Cases Should be Reviewed" - which dealt with "compensation for those acquitted of criminal charges" ?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The facts speak for themselves. The threadstarter makes an allegation and cannot back it up with facts. When confronted with the evidence, there are those who would blind themselves to the facts and embrace fallacy. With supporters like these, Opposition parties will never be credible.
This thread was probably started from a recently reported case of a Singaporean having been acquitted of criminal charges, was then given a bill for court proceedings - which will definitely bankrupt him when all his finances were expended on legal fees resulting in his acquittal.
Are you certain that your facts are correct, and those stated by the subject Lawyer are incorrect - and was quoted by the threadstarter ?
You may wish to change your position and perhaps extend a public apology to the threadstarter - (as well as to the Lawyer) - after reading this referenced piece concerning "Compensation in the UK Justice System" : Ciminal Justice Act 1988 Section 133
Part XI Miscellaneious
Miscarriage of Justice
Compensation for miscarriages of justice.
133.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, when a person has been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the Secretary of State shall pay compensation for the miscarriage of justice to the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction or, if he is dead, to his personal representatives, unless the non-disclosure of the unknown fact was wholly or partly attributable to the person convicted.
(2) No payment of compensation under this section shall be made unless an application for such compensation has been made to the Secretary of State.
(3) The question whether there is a right to compensation under this section shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
(4) If the Secretary of State determines that there is a right to such compensation, the amount of the compensation shall be assessed by an assessor appointed by the Secretary of State.
(5) In this section "reversed" shall be construed as referring to a conviction having been quashed—
(a) on an appeal out of time; or
(b) on a reference—
(i) under section 17 of the [1968 c. 19.] Criminal Appeal Act 1968;
(ii) under section 263 of the [1975 c. 21.] Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975; or
(iii) under section 14 of the [1980 c. 47.] Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980.
(6) For the purposes of this section a person suffers punishment as a result of a conviction when sentence is passed on him for the offence of which he was convicted.
(7) Schedule 12 shall have effect.
Further to the above referenced article, you may also wish to peruse the following referenced piece to fully clarify the situation and be convinced that the UK Legal System does provide compensation to those who have been wrongly accused and acquitted :
Guilt and Innocence in the Criminal Justice System:
A Comment on R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Departmentfrom PDF Page 2 of 12 :
Perhaps Singapore could learn a piece of Humaneness to be on the road as a member of the First World ?
The judgments in both courts proceeded on the basis that section 133 was intended to give effect to the UK's obligation under article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires compensation to be paid to persons whose convictions are quashed (other than by way of an ordinary appeal within the usual time limits) where the discovery of facts unknown at the time of the original trial show beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
But section 133 and article 14(6) were given different interpretations both by each court, and by each of the two Law Lords (Steyn and Bingham) who gave full jugments in the House of Lords.
The three interpretations of section 133 offered were that compensation is required: whenever a conviction is quashed on the basis of new facts (the positon of the Court of Appeal); only when a claimant can thereafter satisfy the Secretary of State beyond reasonable doubt of her/his innocence (Lord Steyn's view); whenever the new facts show that the claimant did not have a fair trial (Lord Bingham's view).
The issue that is central to all these different interpretations, is the nature and strenght of the presumption of innocence which is recognised both nationally and internationally as an important constituent of justice.
Get the facts, or the facts will get you.
And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.
Dr. Thomas Fuller (1654 - 1734), Gnomologia, 1732
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that they contain the whole truth, or the only truth.
Charles A. Dana (1819 - 1897)
The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.
Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)
I'm not sure I want popular opinion on my side -- I've noticed those with the most opinions often have the fewest facts.
Bethania McKenstry -
whatever you said is bollocks indeed.Originally posted by lwflee:Bollocks. We do not have 'barristers' in SIngapore. You do not *need* a 1st or 2:1 to practise as a solicitor or barrister in england.
The fact is corporate law pays better than criminal lawyers. Criminal lawyers, in the UK at least, are usually consigned to what are called 'legal aid cases'. This means that your clients usually cannot afford to engage a lawyer himself (after all, they are criminals and there aren't that many rich criminals around) Criminal law practitioners are therefore either very altruistic/idealistic or not very good.
IMO they rank just above army lawyers -
i so happen to stay in chiam's constituency. doing year 1 in singapore. finishing off the rest in london after ns, hopefully king's college. and the correspondence degree entitles you to practice as a lawyer in all of the commonwealth countries except for singapore, which has a saturation of lawyers. only graduates from the main school in london may enter the singapore bar if they have attained 1st class honours. oh? and which school were you from may i ask? chiam has done great stuff, the only thing you're doing is sitting behind a computer and posting stupid stuff. do you even know how skillfully manouved his way out of the many traps pap set for him? pls la ah boy. go study first then talk ok?Originally posted by Atobe:So you are in the good company of Chiam See Tong in your alma mater - doing the course by correspondence - like Chiam ?
Just a word of caution, if it is a correspondence course, I believe that there is no recognition for the LLB that is awarded by this university - then again, I could be wrong as the situation may have changed as so typical of the many flip-flop policies of the Ruling Elites forming our Government. -
Originally posted by vito_corleone:
While you are still filling up your First Year Notes and dreaming yourself to be v_c; this "kopi-tiam ah boy" is contributing to the coffers of all the Alternative Parties.
i so happen to stay in chiam's constituency. doing year 1 in singapore. finishing off the rest in london after ns, hopefully king's college. and the correspondence degree entitles you to practice as a lawyer in all of the commonwealth countries except for singapore, which has a saturation of lawyers. only graduates from the main school in london may enter the singapore bar if they have attained 1st class honours. oh? and which school were you from may i ask? chiam has done great stuff, the only thing you're doing is sitting behind a computer and posting stupid stuff. do you even know how skillfully manouved his way out of the many traps pap set for him? pls la ah boy. go study first then talk ok?
Which traps have you seen that has been set up for Chiam - Potong Pasir ?
Guess you were simply "thin air" - not even a nano matter in physics - when Chiam was campaigning in Cairnhill - and could not possibly appreciate his efforts ?
Can you do something positive for your own future - and that of the Alternative Parties - even if you cannot contribute time and money ?
You will be surprised how productive one can be if we manage our time well.
I guess you belong to the newbie group who will need at least an equal amount time - for each activity to sleep, rest, play and study - just to keep a "balanced life" ?
Too much time spent here looking for ways to redress wounded pride may puncture your attention where it should properly be directed.
Take your own sound advise, quit - "sitting behind a computer and posting stupid stuff.... go study first" - and move on while you are still one step ahead. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom: 8 July 2006 08.00pm
As I have said (and Atobe has not read, as usual), criminal costs for the defence relate mainly to the cost of their barristers. But there is no point debating with Atobe. He is so blinkered and full of anti-government sentiments that he will reject any view that does not coincide with his own. Now he is moving towards personal insults...that's fine with me . I am secure enough with my achievements....
There are people who are out to disparage all government policies and would stoop at nothing to mislead the public, including the sowing of falsehood.[/quote]Originally posted by oxford mushroom: 10 July 02.40pm
As usual, myopic and uninformed views of the libertarian Name me one jurisdiction that compensates someone who is acquiited after a trial or appeal. The threadstarter made a huge boo-boo claiming that UK does that as a matter of course, which it does not. The reason is simple: such a mindless system will unnecessarily shackle the law enforcement agencies from prosecuting anything but the most obvious cases and will result in more crime.
We have sufficient safeguards to prevent frivolous or negligent prosection through our appeals court and a civil suit can be brought against the prosecting authorities in that event.
Do supporters of the Opposition have nothing else to offer except tax and spend, more crime and greater social unrest?
And stick to the thread. Making snide remarks and personal insults will get you nowhere..don't start it Originally posted by oxford mushroom: 12 July 03.03am
[quote]Originally posted by oxford mushroom: 12 July 03.44am
He got his facts totally wrong...can't you read?
The facts speak for themselves. The threadstarter makes an allegation and cannot back it up with facts. When confronted with the evidence, there are those who would blind themselves to the facts and embrace fallacy. With supporters like these, Opposition parties will never be credible. After my last post with the proof that deflated your insistent view of "no jurisidiction will compensate anyone acquitted after a trial" - perhaps you owe the threadstarter and the lawyer a public apology for all your dismissive remarks made - derogatory or personal or otherwise.
I will let mine pass, as I am sufficieintly thick-skinned enough to tolerate similar robust views directed this way.
Is it any wonder that we have ardent skeptics when ardent supporters of the Government prefer to be blindsided and gullible, and refuse to respect alternative views; and when forced by circumstances, can only to do so unwillingly with hollow arrogance and condescending false pride ?
It is about time that you take those in the Alternative Parties and their supporters seriously, before you wake up too late and is left in the wake of the New Ship that will move ahead with or without you. -
If anyone can dismiss a libertarian as useless, I can also dismiss a conservative for being narrow-minded and so full of BS too.
Extremism is not the way. -
As usual, selective reading by Atobe without reference or understanding of how the law is to be implemented. Compensation is at the discretion of the Home SEcretary and he made clear the basis of his decision in such cases in the House of Commons.
There may be exceptional circumstances that justify compensation in cases outside these categories. In particular, facts may emerge at trial or on appeal within time, that completely exonerate the accused person. I am prepared, in principle, to pay compensation to people who have spent a period in custody or have been imprisoned in cases such as this. I will not, however, be prepared to pay compensation simply because at the trial or an appeal the prosecution was unable to sustain the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the specific charge that was brought."
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
As usual, selective reading by Atobe without reference or understanding of how the law is to be implemented. Compensation is at the discretion of the Home SEcretary and he made clear the basis of his decision in such cases in the House of Commons.There may be exceptional circumstances that justify compensation in cases outside these categories. In particular, facts may emerge at trial or on appeal within time, that completely exonerate the accused person. I am prepared, in principle, to pay compensation to people who have spent a period in custody or have been imprisoned in cases such as this. I will not, however, be prepared to pay compensation simply because at the trial or an appeal the prosecution was unable to sustain the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the specific charge that was brought."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pettiness and nit-picking ?
Did you not demand in your post :
Notwithstanding your taking a slanted position on this issue based on the personal remarks of the Home Secretary - the fact remains that there is in the UK Jurisdiction, a legislation that compensate someone who is acquitted after a trial or appeal - period.
Originally posted by oxford mushroom: 10 July 02.40pm
As usual, myopic and uninformed views of the libertarian
Name me one jurisdiction that compensates someone who is acquiited after a trial or appeal. The threadstarter made a huge boo-boo claiming that UK does that as a matter of course, which it does not.
Your dismissive and challenging remarks have been proven - in my last post - to be mistaken by the referenced site : "Compensation in the UK Justice System" : Ciminal Justice Act 1988 Section 133
There was also the other referenced piece which revealed the difference in views from the Home Secretary's position as advanced by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords (which is the final arbiter of English Law through the Judiciary Committee of the Privy Council) - and was last referred for you as:-
"Guilt and Innocence in the Criminal Justice System:
A Comment on R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department"
These reference pieces are sufficient and immediate repose to your obvious limited understanding of the English Law; and reveal the wrong that you have done based largely on your own limited knowledge, and resulting in your condescendingly ungraceful remarks towards the threadstarter - (and the lawyer who was quoted).
You ought to do some justice to your own declared profession - by being more dignified and admit your apology; and perhaps at the same time, stop being arrogantly critical towards those in other professions.
Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Our lives improve only when we take chances - and the first and most difficult risk we can take is to be honest with ourselves.
Walter Anderson
Every man has his fault, and honesty is his.
William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616),
"Timon of Athens", Act 3 scene 1