PDA

View Full Version : Expenses MPs Devine, Chaytor and Morley get legal aid



Doggy Styles
12th April 2010, 21:34
Expenses MPs Devine, Chaytor and Morley get legal aid (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8616261.stm)

All four are accused of theft by false accounting and if found guilty, face a maximum sentence of seven years in prison.
So, as we taxpayers are paying for it, I suppose we should hope it's worthwhile and they get off.

MarillionFan
12th April 2010, 21:39
Saw this on the news.

So they know that they're political careers are over so of course they're going to claim.

Scum

Peoplesoft bloke
12th April 2010, 21:45
....and people wonder why we have no respect for the law, lawyers and politicans (many of whom are lawyers).

threaded
13th April 2010, 11:39
Gordon Brown says they'll have to pay it back.

So it looks like they're going to get away with it. :laugh

northernladuk
13th April 2010, 11:42
WTF are you all on about. They have as much right to public funding as anyone else. Christ we give that McKinnon idiot enough cash and people murdering, stealing, illegal immigrants...

Jeez get real....

Doggy Styles
13th April 2010, 11:45
Gordon Brown says they'll have to pay it back.

So it looks like they're going to get away with it. :laughDid he say when?

threaded
13th April 2010, 11:53
Did he say when?

He said


We have actually abolished this free legal aid from the end of June, so it has to be means-tested and they wouldn’t have got it in these circumstances.

Which I believe means that they've got it and there's nothing he can do about it, and then he waffled that if they'd asked for it at some point in the future then they might not have.

Clever use of tenses to give the impression of a firm past event when he's actually talking about a potential future one.

'Weasel words' is the phrase IIRC

Pondlife
13th April 2010, 11:57
Agree with Threaded (:eek:)

This will disappear under all the election news.

Doggy Styles
13th April 2010, 12:00
'Weasel words' is the phrase IIRCThat's what I thought. That change in legal aid rules doesn't apply to the Westminster area yet. So they won't have to pay it back.

A handy nail for Labour's coffin?

northernladuk
13th April 2010, 12:02
That's what I thought. That change in legal aid rules doesn't apply to the Westminster area yet. So they won't have to pay it back.

A handy nail for Labour's coffin?

I would hope people have more about them than to vote based on the insignificant outcome of something that really has affected all parties :( I am more than ready to be proven wrong though.

OwlHoot
13th April 2010, 12:05
Gordon Brown says they'll have to pay it back.

So it looks like they're going to get away with it. :laugh

Apparently Labour MPs have taken to saying they'll "increase their ambition" to do something.

In other words, they may have wanted to do it before, but now they want to do it even more. :laugh

threaded
13th April 2010, 12:06
The thing is, they will get the money under the new rules too.

It's going to cost well in excess of £5 mil to drag these guys through court: and both sides appear to have teams of the countries most eye-wateringly expensive silks on the case.

I bet they all got together over dinner at one of the Inns and did Port challenges to decide who was going to be on what side. :laugh

expat
13th April 2010, 12:06
WTF are you all on about. They have as much right to public funding as anyone else. Christ we give that McKinnon idiot enough cash and people murdering, stealing, illegal immigrants...

Jeez get real....That was quite an unprovoked and ungrammatical rant that you were heading off on there. A bit reminiscent of Asperger's if you ask me. Not that you did.

OwlHoot
13th April 2010, 12:09
Gotta concede, AtW had a blinding idea the other month (Or it may have been me).

Fees paid to briefs should gradually decline over the duration of a case, for example 1% per day. That would give them a huge incentive to avoid spinning out cases (which as things stand they undoubtedly do).

Pondlife
13th April 2010, 12:25
Gotta concede, AtW had a blinding idea the other month (Or it may have been me).

Fees paid to briefs should gradually decline over the duration of a case, for example 1% per day. That would give them a huge incentive to avoid spinning out cases (which as things stand they undoubtedly do).

Sounds great, I can imagine the conversation on the golf course...

Lawyer 1: How did you get on with that complete travesty of justice you were working on.
Lawyer 2: Pfft, it looked like it was going to go on for a fortnight so I sold the guy out. Think he got life in the end. From now on it's strictly guilty pleas for me. Kerching!

fullyautomatix
13th April 2010, 13:06
On what basis are they eligible for state legal aid ? As former MP ?

threaded
13th April 2010, 13:23
On what basis are they eligible for state legal aid ? As former MP ?

Almost certainly because they're "likely to succeed". :laugh

DaveB
13th April 2010, 13:36
On what basis are they eligible for state legal aid ? As former MP ?

Under the current system anyone being tried in a Crown Court is entitled to legal aid for their defence costs for all but a few types of case ( Libel is not covered for example ).

This is changing in 2010. From January 2010 cases heard in the following courts may have to pay towards their defence costs.

Blackfriars
Swansea
Preston
Bradford
Norwich


From April 2010 this will extend to all Crown Courts in England and Wales.

In essence if you are under 18 or on Benefits you will pay nothing.

For others aid will be means tested and you will be expected to pay your defence costs if you have more than a certain level of residual income after living costs and family circumstances have been calculated.

If you residual income is less than £12,475 you will get free legal aid.

If you have more than £22,35 in residual income you will have to pay the full costs.

If you residual income is between those figures then your disposable income will be calculated.

Below £283 per month and you get free legal aid.

Above £283 per month and you will have to pay.

If you are found not guilty you will get back what you have paid, plus interest.

If you are found guilty and have more than £30,000 in capital or savings you may also have to contribute towards your defence costs from this.

If you need it you will have to apply for Legal aid in order to find out if you will get it for free or will have to pay.

original PM
13th April 2010, 13:42
great so the lazy unwashed scrotes who don't work and rob our houses while we are out at work will get legal aid and we will not...


is this another of Labours fairness changes?


ffs

SueEllen
13th April 2010, 13:53
great so the lazy unwashed scrotes who don't work and rob our houses while we are out at work will get legal aid and we will not...


is this another of Labours fairness changes?


ffs

It's to save taxpayers money and force people into pleading guilty at a quicker stage in proceedings instead of the morning of the trial.

d000hg
13th April 2010, 14:13
great so the lazy unwashed scrotes who don't work and rob our houses while we are out at work will get legal aid and we will not...


is this another of Labours fairness changes?


ffsHave you heard of the Welfare State? That's the whole point. I thought outside America, this was one socialist idea that was generally viewed as essential in a civilised society?