Cambridge case hoax phone call

The_Deep

I do not know either, please tell.

hoohoo

It does not appear that any barristers are being libelled here. There is nothing wrong with a barrister helping an arrested person, and if somebody has deep enough pockets to do that then Jonathan Kirk is perfectly entitled to charge large fees if somebody thinks there is enough at stake to purchase the services of his chambers.

The interesting question is who paid for the services. I see 3 obvious candidates though there may be more;
1) The person himself, (or a rich relative)
2) Savilles
3) ParkingEye

Let's say, for instance, that ParkingEye paid. There is of course no inference that they had anything whatsoever to do with the phone call. It would still be in their interests to pay vast amounts of money to get charges dropped against this person, because otherwise this muddies the case. With so much at stake, they could afford to drop a large 5 figure sum protecting this foolish person because any slight risk of losing the case is worth spending huge amounts of money to smooth over, given the costs involved in changing their business model if they lost the case.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

Indeed, it is always sensible to stop digging when you are in a hole.

There is a big difference between the Huhne case. They committed an illegal act and lied to court. In this case, someone actually disrupted court business sabotaging a trial.

In my book, this was a deliberate wilful act to interfere with court business and the Judge seemed to want to put someone behind bars at the time for that. The Prankster hints at why there was a change of heart and it stinks.

The_Deep

But that is not my point, the fact is that the CPS has limited funds and, I suspect, this case, a small claim over a couple of hundred pounds, is not one that they would wish to throw our money at.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

But that is not my point, the fact is that the CPS has limited funds and, I suspect, this case, a small claim over a couple of hundred pounds, is not one that they would wish to throw our money at.

They have more chance of getting money for the state from the perpetrator of this case than from the countless burglars, shoplifters and petty criminals that get let off with cautions or community service. And limited funds? Then why re-try Andy Coulson on some counts when any sentence would almost certainly be concurrent and the case will cost £000.000s?

The_Deep

Then why re-try Andy Coulson on some counts when any sentence would almost certainly be concurrent and the case will cost £000.000s?

Because he has upset some Establishment figures, made the PM look a cake, hacked VIP's phones, and told porkies to all and sundry.

As I said before, the CPS have no control over the sentences being handed out in the courts.

bazster

Fergie76 wrote: »

What happened?

He isn't here any more, and his departure was not voluntary.

bazster

hoohoo wrote: »

It does not appear that any barristers are being libelled here.

Never suggested they were, just suggesting we keep it that way, unlike the last time this subject was discussed when someone did make some unfortunate unfounded suggestions regarding a barrister, persisted in doing so even after the potential libel was pointed out, and as a consequence was reduced to whining on PePiPoo that he was banned from MSE.

The_Deep

Go on Mr B, tell we arrivistes his name.

nigelbb

The_Deep wrote: »

But that is not my point, the fact is that the CPS has limited funds and, I suspect, this case, a small claim over a couple of hundred pounds, is not one that they would wish to throw our money at.

That's not the point. Just as with the Huhne case the reason for a prosecution is the deterrent effect that it will have on others. It's very easy for people to swap speeding points if they want to with little chance of detection so pour encourager les autres the courts deal very strictly with those who are convicted. It should be the same with disrupting a court case no matter that it's a civil case involving a few hundred pounds it is the principle that if you attempt to pervert the course of justice then you will be dealt with harshly.