speedking

Is he, as the media say, "the solicitor who helps celebrities get off speeding convictions", or is he "the solicitor who helps clients avoid unfounded prosecution"? I guess on a forum like this that the latter opinion would be in the majority?

I would imagine that he might fire a few writs at the media later

Can anyone enlighten me as to why he has been arrested by Gwent police?

DCI Gene Hunt

He'll probably defend himself and get off through a technicality the police have had it in for him for a while now, and it's always been a matter of time before they nail him for something!

rik1471

I like how he exploits the police's failings, but I can totally understand why they're out to get him.

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

I bet you they will "find" kiddy **** on his computer !

bigsinky

perverting the course of justice.........alledgedly

Felix.

Chances are, he's been telling his clients what to say. After all they are not the sharpest tools in the box

Brendan Hughes

And the role of a solicitor is what, if that's wrong?

GC8

It sint to help them to create a defence. A case in point would be: "Alex; say you were desperate for a ****e". Had Alex told him he was desperate for a ****e then its quite acceptable to make a defence from that and to advise on how best to present it.

As others have said; if the Police officers involved in the prosecutions were competent, then the man wouldnt have managed to secure aquitals for his clients. Perhaps their time would be better spent learning to do their job properly/professionally and not cutting corners; rather than appearing to be quite so keen to nick the man who's shown them as the slackers that they are.....

Longjing

Fair enough, but it's not the role of a solicitor to encourage his clients to fib in court, so maybe they think they can show that's been happening.

DCI Gene Hunt

May not be their 'role' but it's what they all do....... paid liars, all of them..

Longjing

No, no: clients lie, solicitors just advise them.

AndiThompson

He's a tosser who was no problems getting guilty people off serious charges if they pay him enough. I won't be surprised if he's guilty.

Shark Man

Says alot for the law society

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Excellent example of Freeman at work (from memory so the wording is not exactly right but the sentiment made me smile)!

He is questioning the officer and key witness in the witness stand and quite suddenly with no warning asks,

"Are you chewing gum?"

"No!"

"I put it to you that you have been chewing gum"

"It's for medical reasons"

"So you are chewing gum?"

"Yes"

"So you lied to me under oath?"

"Errrr, no, well yes, it wasn't important"

"Your honour I would like to discount the evidence of this witness as he has clearly seen to be lying under oath in court!"

Job done - got an aquital!

His motives may be questionable but the police can be very incompetent at times.

r32

He works within the law, the safe guards are there and he makes sure that if the citizen has to stick to rules then so do the police. They are by no means as honest as they should be, I was personally involved in a case where two officers lied their socks off. But they got caught out ...........

Milamber

iTrader: (2)

Based upon your extensive experience no doubt

DCI Gene Hunt

How rude, but yes.......

Milamber

iTrader: (2)

Daryl

In my experience, most Judges would take exception to this line of questioning and give counsel a bollocking about his behaviour. He would remind the witness of his obligations while under oath and tell counsel to get on with asking questions relevant to the case.

One example I witnessed was when the first question the defence asked a witness was what time it was. At the end of giving his evidence the witness was asked what the first question was, with the clear intent of discrediting the witness if he couldn't remember - but before he had chance to answer, the Judge interjected and told the barrister in no uncertain terms that if he tried something like that again he would be charged with contempt. Very amusing for those watching, but the defence counsel lost all credibility after that.

As regards Freeman, he can't continue to represent a client if they admit their guilt to him and, as stated, it seems as though the police think he may have known they were guilty and suggested various scenarios/excuses that might get them off.

Felix.

WE AGREEEEEEEEEE

Felix.

I don’t know if this is an urban myth to be honest

This sort of thing would not be allowed at Crown – as the judge is on the ball, but at the magistrates, you take a chance. (Its no wonder it’s called the Clown Court)

I have cases where I have argued with the defence solicitor in open court, which I should not be allowed to get away with. And the defence solicitors can ask all sorts of stupid irrelevant things in an attempt to discredit you.

Picture the scene, violent male in a house threatening his ex-partner with a knife. Two of us drive to the scene in a marked car (blues & twos etc), arrive, go into the house, female has been assaulted, bloke threatens us with a knife before barricading himself into the bedroom before we can get to him, police dog sent in, nibble nibble, bloke comes out. The line of questioning at court by the defence was… “Who was driving the car, who put the blue lights on, where did you park, what route did you take, who got out of the car first etc etc.”

Now, they tried to discredit our evidence because we did not agree as to who got out of the car first…????? Now is that relevant to what the bloke did in the house..?

Felix.

Got to disagree mate. The police can only present the evidence which is there – we can’t make up evidence to secure a prosecution – (before you say it – I know it’s happened before, but I’m speaking in general terms here)

Now, if a defence solicitor fills the blanks in with evidence which discredits the case, then its wrong and not down to the role of the police.

As an example. Your car is stolen from outside the house overnight. You wake up in the morning and report it as stolen. It’s found the same day with a young lad driving it, it’s chased and stopped. The lad is arrested for the theft of the car. All he has to say (or his solicitor tells him to say) is that he has just bought the car from a bloke in the pub called Fred Smith. Having bought the car, he was a victim of theft in which he lost the car key and documents for the car, he therefore had to break into the car and hot-wire it to drive it home. The courts would say that it was down to the police to question Fred Smith (who of course does not exist) or the person who stole his documents. Therefore the male found in the car commits no offence of theft and is allowed to walk.

Most TWOCers wouldn’t have a clue about this, but of course if someone tells them what to say………

GC8

I was only questioning their professional competnce; not their honesty. That said; I wouldnt be surprised to learn that sucessful defence counsel help their clients to formulate a defence.....

Simon

DCI Gene Hunt

And lets not pretend that the prosecution don't lie, mislead and also formulate strategies etc......

Basically they're all liars, briefs, councils, lawyers, QC's, Police, Expert Witnesses, Witnesses, and of course 'the accused'....

The only one who isn't is the Judge, and that's because he's too busy snorting coke and interferring with young boys......

The British legal system........... what a pile of ****e

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Surely this would not work; the charge would be handling stolen goods; ignorance is not defence of this charge as it is incumbent on the person who purchases something to take reasonable steps to ensure that the item is not stolen and the actual owner of the car would still have the original documentation.

I think that the legal system does need people like Freeman, it's all well and good to bemoan people getting off on "techicalities" but these technicalities often relate to rules/procedures that are there to uphold a certain standard of evidence in order to ensure that convictions are safe. If the authorities are not following these rules/procedures then they SHOULD be called on it. If transgressions could compromise the evidence or the safety of a conviction then the individual SHOULD be acquitted!

The appropriate way of "closing" these loopholes is for the authorities to do their jobs properly!

Ns04

lozgti

You just wish common sense would prevail in cases that get thrown out on technicalities.

'He burgled 30 houses,stole ten cars,drove while drunk,raped a few women and admits the lot'

'But you forgot to kiss his **** when you arrested him and read him a story about his rights'

'Oh darn,off you go then mate.Sos about the arrest like'

Felix.

You can only handle if you know the goods were stolen in the first place. All he has to say is that he paid a fair price (ie he just so happened to have £3000 in his wallet) and the person had the documentation for the car. The court would rule that his story can not be disproved even though the injured party has the rightful documents. All he says is that they looked genuine and he had no reason to doubt them. The court would still direct us to find these fictitious people to prove the case.

In court cases, the police are there to provide the evidence. Is the court which decides guilt based on that. If this can not be proved, then is not the fault of the police if the evidence isn’t there.

David Lock

Sounds like the jury aren't even given a chance to conclude that the defendant is making up a pile of **** - even though evidence is not definitive??

DCI Gene Hunt

So Sherlock, have you just 'educated' the SN ******* on how to 'get off' with TWOC.......


Please tell me it isn't so............

Paul3446

I must admit, I wondered that about an earlier post as well!

Might be worth removing these if so?