To all the Lawyers on here

Azari

pendulum wrote: »

I'm sure he won't win, as his claim is so ludicrous, but I'm equally sure he'll run up a pointless £xxx,xxx legal bill which we have to pay for.

The point is that this is a challenge of a new type. Once it has been tested in court there will be a precedent and further cases of a similar type are unlikely to be heard unless there is some fundamental difference or it can be shown that the original judge may have erred on a point of law.

That is the way the law works.

Parliament makes laws and then they are tested in court and precedents are set. In many cases our rights have been clarified and in some cases enhanced by this process of judicial scrutiny.

Obviously you cannot pick and choose which aspects of which laws need testing on the basis of popular approval.

dmg24

pendulum wrote: »

Basically a blank cheque for society to honour then: let's let the criminals challenge everything they possibly can, all at our expense?

The judicial system is soft enough as it is, and now we have to put up with idiots trying to challenge the legality of jail, via the legal system itself, the appeal paid for by taxes? Have you spared a thought about what would happen if this clown actually won and courts could no longer jail burglars / career criminals just because they have fathered a kid?

I'm sure he won't win, as his claim is so ludicrous, but I'm equally sure he'll run up a pointless £xxx,xxx legal bill which we have to pay for, and I'm disappointed that everyone seems to think this is absolutely fine.

The HRA is still very much subject to interpretation. Until sufficient precedent has been set, cases such as these do need to be brought.

Personally I think the grounds for appeal are ridiculous. However I do not make the law, and I trust that our judiciary will make the right decision and hence stem any other claims of this sort.

jonnyd281 wrote: »

I'm not against people having a proper defence, what I am against is someone who pleaded guilty a being appropriately sentenced using the human rights laws to try and get out of paying thier dues to society, surely as a convicted criminal they forfeit some of the rights of the law abiding population, and what about the rights of the person whos house they broke into?..

This is not trying to find justice for someone who has been victim of a miscarriage of justice, or being denied a defence.

Who says that he has been given an appropriate sentence? Should the right to appeal be denied? You do realise the benefits of living in a democracy, don't you?

jonnyd281

Outpost wrote: »

I just witnessed a poster giving another poster abuse in the Arms. I hope that, as an MSE poster, you are duly ashamed by the actions of one of your fellows.

Perhaps ashamed was the wrong choice of words, I was really annoyed when I read this and thought of the waste of money pursuing this.

I would like to think the judge took circumstances into account when sentencing, I mean do we say ok your a single parent you can do what you like without any comeback, where do you stop?

dmg24

jonnyd281 wrote: »

Perhaps ashamed was the wrong choice of words, I was really annoyed when I read this and thought of the waste of money pursuing this.

I would like to think the judge took circumstances into account when sentencing, I mean do we say ok your a single parent you can do what you like without any comeback, where do you stop?

I don't know of any judge that would say their decisions should not be subject to review.

jonnyd281

dmg24 wrote: »

I don't know of any judge that would say their decisions should not be subject to review.

There is review, but this smacks of trying to get out of going to jail, I just think this one is wrong on so many levels, and shouldn't be going to the court of appeal, according to the article, they are not saying the sentence is too harsh, just that it denies the person thier right to a family life. Should that be grounds to appeal?

geordieracer

jonnyd281 wrote: »

I'm not against people having a proper defence, what I am against is someone who pleaded guilty a being appropriately sentenced using the human rights laws to try and get out of paying thier dues to society, surely as a convicted criminal they forfeit some of the rights of the law abiding population, and what about the rights of the person whos house they broke into?..

This is not trying to find justice for someone who has been victim of a miscarriage of justice, or being denied a defence.

Look at it from his point of view though - he doesnt like jail so is trying everything to stop himself from being locked up in there.

dmg24

jonnyd281 wrote: »

There is review, but this smacks of trying to get out of going to jail, I just think this one is wrong on so many levels, and shouldn't be going to the court of appeal, according to the article, they are not saying the sentence is too harsh, just that it denies the person thier right to a family life. Should that be grounds to appeal?

They are saying that the sentence is too harsh because his right to family life should have been taken into account when sentencing.

It is not up to us to decide who should or should not be able to appeal their sentence. That is why we have the judiciary - they make such decisions based on the law, not personal opinion.

fluffnutter

Outpost wrote: »

I just witnessed a poster giving another poster abuse in the Arms. I hope that, as an MSE poster, you are duly ashamed by the actions of one of your fellows.

Doubly ashamed! I expect it was me in the first place!

Azari

fluffnutter wrote: »

Doubly ashamed! I expect it was me in the first place!

It could have been worse.

Imagine if you were a lawyer.

Then you would have to be triple or even quadruple ashamed.

pmduk

I assume you'd rather justice was doled out by the Daily Mail in line with its prejudices rather than a court following the laws?