8pm tonight

[Guy]

Solicitor Nick Freeman explains his uncanny ability to obtain acquittals in driving cases for Sir Alex, Becks, Dwight, etc - you guessed, he's from Manchester...

 

[janner]

What the program didn't really say though, is who pays for his millionaire lifestyle?
If he gets everyone off then presumably the taxpayer pays all the legal fees for both sides?

I didn't see it as a good thing that he gets drunk drivers off on 'technicalities'.

 

[glojo]

I didn't see it as a good thing that he gets drunk drivers off on 'technicalities'.

Hi Janner,
That is exactly what ghouls me. Stand outside any crown court and watch the celebrations of these 'people'

They see no wrong in their conduct and are proud to get a rapist\killer, druunk driver off on a mere technicality. How I could work myself up into a full blooded, insulting rant, but no.......

Missed the program.

John

 

[mapleleaf]

I think from watching the program, that its the defendants who pay his fees - they employ him to represent them. I noticed he played Golf at Mere - a pretty exclusive club in Cheshire and of course he has his Bently's . I say good luck to him. If the legal system is so flawed that he can earn a living highlighting its failures then thats fine. he's in a way doing the system a favour by ensuring that things are tightened up .

that said, I do not condone driving at inapropriate speeds or drink/drug driving that could put human life or property at risk. and according to Nick Freeman, neither does he. As he so eloquently said -- he is not getting people off , he is just putting forward a different argument - its up to the courts to decide guilt or otherwise

 

[glojo]

-- he is not getting people off , he is just putting forward a different argument - its up to the courts to decide guilt or otherwise

And that is how these 'people' sleep at night.

If the defence wins the arguement then I believe it is down to the Judge to decide who pays the costs?


John

 

[SportsCoupeRich]

how they sleep at night???


in a ridiculously big and comfy bed i imagine!!!

 

[janner]

If the defence wins the arguement then I believe it is down to the Judge to decide who pays the costs?

Normally if you win or the case against you is dropped then 'reasonable' fees are paid by the taxpayer. Presumably 'reasonable' is higher if you're a celeb?

 

[Swiss Toni]

And that is how these 'people' sleep at night.

If the defence wins the arguement then I believe it is down to the Judge to decide who pays the costs?


John

Programme was not exactly "in depth" journalism, but Nick Freeman made a very good point - that the law is too slack in relation to many motoring offences.

Taking the micky out of Vic Reaves for not engaging his services was a shame.

Truth is, if you know what you are doing and you have enough "front", then it is possible to suggest even the smallest element of doubt (and that is all that is required).

The change required is not with lawyers ( ) but with the law ( ) - and its application.

 

[glojo]

The change required is with the law ( ) - and its application.

Dare I suggest we allow our juries to use common sense and not allow some of the absurd technicalities that occur day in and day out.


Off topic!
I hear now that the latest suggestion is in relation to 'Expert witnesses'. If the prosecution produce an expert witness, and the defence produces one that states completely the opposite then the evidence in question will be deemed inadmissable!!!That makes sense,

John

 

[mark.t]

speeding,drinking and driving a vehicle while under the influence are serious crimes getting off on a technicality is a joke, he made a mockery of the system but unfortunately the people who made the cockups (prosecution) where not interviewed ......spare them the interview and sack em for gross misconduct for failing to protect the public, but as said if this can not tighten things up nothing will ....I reckon a 10 year old could have come up with the excuses he gave ....just a average entrepreneur got lucky cashing in on all those idiots ....using the licence fee paid wages and tax payers money to stay sweet

 

[Swiss Toni]

Dare I suggest we allow our juries to use common sense and not allow some of the absurd technicalities that occur day in and day out.

John

A "Technicality" is a defence allowed for in law (usually) - The jury will have no option but to find the case against the defendant unproven if the defence is applied.

The defeneces that Nick Freemen are nothing new - most law grads would know them by the end of day 1?!!

 

[fuzzer]

say what you like ... guess who ill be calling should the worse happen ...

 

[glojo]

A "Technicality" is a defence allowed for in law (usually) - The jury will have no option but to find the case against the defendant unproven if the defence is applied.

And that is what really annoys me. If I break into a murderers house and steal the gun he killed someone with and hand the weapon over to the Police. That evidence might well be deemed inadmissable!!!

Why not allow the evidence, and charge me with burglary? The gun might welll be the only evidence that is going to be ever found that might convict the person.

I accept my idea will never be accepted by our legal friends, but surely there can be nothing wrong with producing the gun and connecting it to the killing by forensic evidence. Explain to the court that the gun was found at the accused persons home address by a burglar who awaits trial and leave it to the jury to decide?

John

 

[kikkthecat]

Give him more money, that's what I say. Give them all more money.
Barristers are simply liars but they tell convincing lies. Even when they know they are losing a case they will tell a jury all about their current criminal clients good character and reputation.

But failed barristers become politicians, it's in our interests to make sure they succeed as barristers.

 

[Swiss Toni]

say what you like ... guess who ill be calling should the worse happen ...

Absolutely!

What is in your interest is not necessarily in the interest of society as a whole.

And for the reason fuzzer gives here, money buys the quality of service you'd want - One reason why removal of Trial By Jury for Complicated Fraud might be a good idea....

By the way fuzzer - who would call if you were innocent?

 

[Guy]

And for the reason fuzzer gives here, money buys the quality of service you'd want - One reason why removal of Trial By Jury for Complicated Fraud might be a good idea....

You mean no jury equals more convictions? The majority of large failed trials seemed to have stopped by the Judge...

 

[glojo]

By the way fuzzer - who would call if you were innocent?

I had the priviledge of attending the chambers of George Carmen QC and if he were still alive he would be my choice.

Regards,
John

 

[fuzzer]

By the way fuzzer - who would call if you were innocent?

But i am innocent

 

[glojo]

But i am innocent

Say's you!!

John