Loop holes and the law

[glojo]

Following on from my other thread:

Are we happy to have the likes of Nick Freeman, the celebrity barrister who is nicknamed Mr Loophole to practice his type of law?

If so why?

If not why?

Please feel free to have a friendly debate but be prepared to have differing points of view.

 

[Alfie]

I personally think its lawful that he is allowed to practice and I dont blame him one bit for exploiting inadequacies in the law. If the law makers were more competant then the loopholes wouldnt exist.

 

[davidjpowell]

Laws are there to be followed. If the Police / CPS have not copmlied with the law, why should they be able to then convict somebody and negatively effect their life.

On the other side of the coin... providing the Police have followed the law, the guilty party should be willing to accept responsiblity for their actions.

I suppose some of this comes to how serious the crime is as well. If it is simple speeding, where nobody got hurt and the police procedure was followed is one thing. I would be less than comfortable if a loophole got say a murderer of the hook.

David

 

[Shude]

I am 100% behind all three of the poll options!

I *am* an armchair critic, it is right that he is allowed to practice and the guilty should not get off on minor technicalities.

 

[Benzowner]

I voted A, on the basis that as the loopholes are found, it takes time, but the will eventually get blocked. Also, the various prosecution services also know these loopholes and should make sure their paperwork etc is correct, 14 day speeding tickets issuing for example

 

[oldcro]

I voted B because the guilty deserve to be punished. E.G. Minor infringements of procedure by an arresting officer should not be allowed to alter the fact that one is innocent or guilty.

 

[verytalldave]

The law is the law and thats it. If he manages to be clever and help his clients get off on a technicality, then the law should be changed. He is actually doing the justice system a favour by highlighting these areas that need alteration. The most famous loophole that I remember was the one whereby you kept a small bottle of whisky in the car with you and if stopped by the police after having a few pints, then you would take a swig or two from the bottle in front of the police and that meant they couldnt prove you were actually drink driving.
Its not the likes of NF that need banning, its the wallys that draw up these laws with loopholes in first place.

 

[st4]

The poll's question is should Nick Freeman be allowed to practice. provide one reason why he shouldn't. He is a lawyer, passed all his professional exams and is a professional person. AFAIK he has never been in trouble for breaching his professional code of product so as far as "should he be allowed to practice law" for the life of me I can't see why not.

Loopholes in the law? Should they be allowed to exist - thats a more interesting question?

 

[Dieselman]

The most famous loophole that I remember was the one whereby you kept a small bottle of whisky in the car with you and if stopped by the police after having a few pints, then you would take a swig or two from the bottle in front of the police and that meant they couldnt prove you were actually drink driving.

I believe that's urban myth. A pair of blood test will soon show depletion of alchohol over time, thus the actual percentage at a given time can be calculated.
It takes approximately 20 minutes for alchohol to enter the bloodstream so a reading taken soon after the drink will show the blood level, not the recently injested level.

I'm prepared to be wrong on this if anyone has information to the contrary.

 

[st4]

I believe that's urban myth. A pair of blood test will soon show depletion of alchohol over time, thus the actual percentage at a given time can be calculated.
It takes approximately 20 minutes for alchohol to enter the bloodstream so a reading taken soon after the drink will show the blood level, not the recently injested level.

I'm prepared to be wrong on this if anyone has information to the contrary.

Nope, your right. My mothers friend tried this one on, and it failed. Miserably.

 

[AndyS]

I voted A - as I think he should be allowed to practise I also think that it's wrong for the guilty to get off on a minor technicality but this fault lays firmly in the court of the law-makers not the lawers.

 

[oldcro]

Trying to plug all the loopholes in all the laws of the land is virtually impossible, like trying to plug all the holes in a sponge to stop the water running out. Remember, all NF's clients were guilty.

I wonder how people would react if it was a child rapist instead of a rich man speeding that NF got off because of a loophole in the law.

 

[AndyS]

Trying to plug all the loopholes in all the laws of the land is virtually impossible, like trying to plug all the holes in a sponge to stop the water running out. Remember, all NF's clients were guilty.

I wonder how people would react if it was a child rapist instead of a rich man speeding that NF got off because of a loophole in the law.

I would react with fury at the CPS for letting it happen and not doing their job properly.

But I cannot recall a case of a child rapist getting off on a technicality so perhaps this negates your 1st statement about loopholes?

 

[st13phil]

Remember, all NF's clients were guilty.

Not in the eyes of the law, they weren't.

The media have given Nick Freeman (and others) a reputation for somehow exploiting "loopholes" in the law. Nothing could be further from the truth. In every defence case he has won for his clients he has found a deficiency in the prosecution's case with respect to evidence or application of the law.

There is no such thing in English law as being "morally guilty", however much some people think there should be, and so his client's who were found "not guilty" in court were exactly that: not guilty.

 

[AndyS]

Are they actually found 'not guilty' though or is it more 'case dismissed' due to a technicality?

 

[verytalldave]

Didnt a rather famous, rich pop star get off from something similar recently almost amount to the same thing?

And the swig from a bottle of whisky escape DID happen. Albeit only once. The loophole was plugged within days.

 

[neilrr]

oldcro,

You trust in the Establishment is terrifying. Is to be charged the same as guilty now?

If it is, I'm either emigrating or starting the revolution!

 

[st4]

Trying to plug all the loopholes in all the laws of the land is virtually impossible, like trying to plug all the holes in a sponge to stop the water running out..

True enough

Remember, all NF's clients were guilty...

And you know that for a fact do you

I wonder how people would react if it was a child rapist instead of a rich man speeding that NF got off because of a loophole in the law.

An emotive example, but why the use of the word rich? I sense your attempting to conjure up contempt for NF's clients for your audience here, and paint a sour picture of what he does and the goings on of the "rich". I can see there is a political bias there too - why does it matter how much money his clients have?

 

[glojo]

I would react with fury at the CPS for letting it happen and not doing their job properly.

But I cannot recall a case of a child rapist getting off on a technicality so perhaps this negates your 1st statement about loopholes?

I know of a rapist who continually used the same defence every time he was prosecuted.

"My victim enjoyed being tied up and enjoyed violent sex"

I heard about this when a judge tried to order the arrest of the defendant's brother who screamed abuse at the judge and jury. (hell and freezing comes to mind ) This person stated both the judge and jury were all morons and his brother would eventually kill someone!! The judge had refused to allow the prosecution to produce the previous victims, all of which suffered terribly at this animal's hands. To my knowledge there were six of these ladies but I have NO knowledge of how many people this evil person raped.

I do know however that the defendant eventually killed a young student and was finally convicted. I'm sure the defence were pleased with themselves every time they won their case but if it were our wife or daughter that suffered at the hands of this person then would we still be so happy?

In my opinion it is wrong to suggest it is okay for minor traffic offences but not okay for the more serious criminal acts. Tell that to the parents of someone who has been run over by a speeding motorist that should have been disqualified but they used the services of loop hole Harry.

To a degree I agree with everything everyone has said but it is hypocritical to say that the work is sloppy or they should avoid these so called loop holes. I cannot imagine anyone saying second-best should be good enough. I cannot imagine anyone saying, "I can't be bothered to do a better job"

It is a far easier task to find fault with something rather than make out a case. Remember the defence only has to find fault they do not have to say to the prosecution, "Here's our defence, dissect it, but don't tell us the result until the day of the trial"

Everyone in this country is innocent until proved guilty, be that speeding, or be it murder. If there are serious blunders that makes the evidence worthless, then that evidence must be thrown out. BUT......... If there is a slight error in procedures then let that error be exposed, let the culprit be made responsible for the error and make the culprit be accountable. If the proof of guilt remains then why on earth let the guilty party walk? Why throw out the whole charge just because of a very small, very minor procedural error? Here what the error is, weigh up its significance and act accordingly.

I have no objection to any advocate exploiting the system, that is what they do, that is what they receive large sums of money for, but please do not insult my intelligence by saying it is fair. It would be fair if we all had access to this type of defence, but how can it be fair when this service costs so much money. Should money be allowed to let guilty people walk? Why does this person charge so much if there is a straight forward error with the evidence?

Why do we say it is okay, but then scream like a stuck pig when a police officer walks?? That is crazy; are they not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us? Why is it fair for us to take advantage of any loop holes but not alright for the police when they are charged with an offence?

 

[st4]

Why do we say it is okay, but then scream like a stuck pig when a police officer walks?? That is crazy; are they not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us? Why is it fair for us to take advantage of any loop holes but not alright for the police when they are charged with an offence?

Because it seems more likely that there could be an element of foul play on their part.

Liken it to a football game, where Rangers and Celtic are playing. A Rangers player fouls a celtic player injuring them, but the ref says he saw nothing so lets the player continue...

...You then discover the referee is a reserve rangers player.

I am not saying foul play went on (i.e. a deliberate bodge of evidence taking so the copper could get off in court), but lets not be to niave. Stranger things have happened.