The Zohan

This is just disgusting that this has happened in the UK, when will the judges and politicians wake up to the HR laws being twisted and abused by scum like this

His lawyers stated that jailing him for life meaning life was cruel and unusual punishment.

He executed and unarmed and defenceless policeman

Judges give Cop Killer a reduced prison sentence. « POLICE INSPECTOR BLOG
“You had already disabled him and he was defenceless. You could have escaped then but you chose to wait and fire a second shot at point blank range. To shoot and kill an officer in such circumstances, doing no more than trying to serve us all, is an attack on all of us”
The Court of Appeal have now said that the facts of Bieber’s case, “horrifying though they were”, did not justify a “life means life” sentence, and have reduced it to 37 years.

KiwiGTI

I think Dennis Nielsen and Peter Sutcliffe are going to be released early under these laws too.

For Peter Sutcliffe :

Leslie

I find this sort of thing terrifying and I fear for the future.

Les

warrenm2

How about we leave the EU then?

exvaux

iTrader: (1)

so what the hell does justify a "life means life" sentence

rik1471

Why is it called life?

Also, these lawyers are scum.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

HR Law was put in place for a good reason & now seems to be getting abused on a daily basis. It needs to be altered so that crims like this chap can't get out of serving the sentance that they should. Scary

The lawyers that defend these people are the scum of the earth too though ...

TX.

Edit - just looked at the link - this fella was a hitman wasn't he, if memory serves me correct?

BuRR

So he'll be deported back to the US on his release?

I doubt it, as he was on the run from there, wanted for murder I believe, and I *think* it was in a state that supports the death penalty; SO...... he's going be staying here as our lot won't deport anyone to where they may receive capital punishment.

I know certain facts about this case that weren't disclosed.... when laws allow people such as this to manipulate them, I too fear what this country has become.

ritchie21

Why is it that the lawyers are the scum of the earth??

That makes me so angry! Just because we take on cases like this doesn't mean that we have to agree with everything about them. I have defended many people who I dislike and whose actions I abhor, but I have a job to do and that's what I do. We have what is known as a cab rank rule which means that like in a taxi queue, you have to accept the work as it comes into your chambers.

We have strict rules on when we cannot accept instructions and they don't include a "I don't like you, what you have done and think you deserve to die so I won't defend you' option.

It's not the lawyers fault and they certainly aren't scum of the earth.

PeteBrant

He will be in prison until at least 2041, when he will be 75. If at all - Thats a long time for things to change.

As for the comment that "These lawyers are scum of the earth". That's just a ridiculous thing to say.

Funkii Munkii

It's not the Lawyers who brought the HRA in, if I remember a certain T Blair had a lot to do with it, it certainly made his hideous wife a lot of money.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

When a judge says so - in that case the HR Act is quite happy with it. What the HR Act objects to is the Home Secretary coming along after the event and adding time to the sentence handed down by the courts. How you feel if you got a fine for speeding and the Home Secretary decided it wasn't enough and tripled it? You'd be the first one here complaining.

And note that this guy may well spend the rest of his life in prison - thirty-seven years before he is even considered for parole - and few get it at first attempt.


M

PeteBrant

Looking into it, it seems that there is a bit of sensationalism going on here. Turns out that what has actually happened is that you cannot give out "indeterminate" sentences. So a minimum determined length of stay has to be given; In this case 37 years.

The key word here, is minimum.

Stainy

I agree that you can't just label lawyers "scum of the earth", but the "I was only doing my job" line has been used before by people/groups that indeed were/are scum.

I don't want or expect you to answer this, but the key question for any defence solicitor in my book is whether they actually stick to their own rules....The main one being, if you know you client is guilty, you shouldn't represent them and you certainly shouldn't advise them on the best story to use in order to get away with something.

In my experience a good deal of solicitors will do this, despite knowing of someones guilt....these are indeed the scum of the earth.

If you are not in this category, then fine, I have no problem with you or your work

/edit Oh and the "I wasn't ABSOLUTELY SURE they were guilty" line, that most lawyers use doesn't count

PeteBrant

How does that work, then? You don't know if they're guilty or not until the verdict of the trial.

Of course it does. Innocent until proven guilty. Thats the way it works.

Stainy

Yeah that's what most of the 'scum' lawyers say

/edit ok then, against my better judgement, I'll actually explain.....The 'scum' lawyers get told by their 'client' exactly what they did......then they'll come up with a nice story to cover all the angles and get them off.

Funnily, not a lot of lawyers ever walk out of their consultation and say they can't represent their client.

Next you're going to tell me that every client lies to their solicitor

PeteBrant

No. It's what the law says.

By definition, you do not know if someone is guilty until they have been proven so to be. I mean thats the way the justice system workss.

Stainy

take the time to read my edit

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Surely all this means is that the courts have taken an "in principle sentence" and turned it into an "in effect" sentence. If he were released, after serving 37 years, he'd be 79 i.e. 7 years over average life expectancy of males in the UK IIRC.

Don't get me wrong, what the guy did was unforgivable and I'm no fan of over zealous human rights legislation that puts the rights of the criminal before the victim, but I think condemning it on the basis of this case is a bit OTT.
Ns04

PeteBrant

Which changes nothing. I'm sure clinets do lie. But it is not for the solicitor to decide when someone is lying. That is for a judge and jury.

Stainy

Really not worth further comment

ritchie21

For one I'm not a solicitor but I'm a Barrister specialising in Criminal Law, so I can only tell you what happens my side of the job.

I have NEVER had a solicitor, nor have I, 'create' a defence for a client. My job is to advise a client what his defence may or may not be according to his instructions, but certainly not to tell him what to say. Those are not the 'rules' you talk about in any event - can I enquire as the whether or not you have read the Law Society code of conduct or indeed the Bar Council's Code for Conduct??

If a Defendant ever tells me that he is guilty of the offence but still wants to have a trial, then although I can still represent him strictly speaking, I don't. Neither do any of my colleagues. We would (and I have done so on more than one occasion) go into court and tell the Judge that we need to cease acting for the client because we are professionally embarrassed. I, nor any of my colleagues, have ever acted in a trial for somebody who has told us that they are guilty of the offence.

I and my colleagues, Solicitors and Barristers, are officers of the Court and my primary and most important duty is to the Court, not my lay or professional client. I cannot mislead the court in any way and if I did, then I would be hauled before the Bar Standards Board and disciplined.

I am curious as to whether or not you have ever actually witnessed what you allege and if you have, then you should report it to the Law Society. However, I suspect that you are generalising, largely based upon what you see in the media. The Criminal Justice programme on the other week on BBC 1 was so so inaccurate, it was cringeworthy. But unfortunately, people watch programmes like that and believe that what they see on the TV is really how it is.

A great many of your comments could've caused me offence but hey ho, I'm a big girl and I know what the truth is.

What you seem to forget is that it isn't us 'scum' who make the laws - it's the government. We can only work within the legal framework that we have had set by Parliament and if there are legal provisions that help a client, whether I want them to or not, then it is my duty to use those provisions. That certainly does not make me or any of my colleagues scum.

WaynesWagon

It's about time the general public, you and I, started writing to, and making life difficult for, the Lawyers who represent these arseholes.

I can assure you that Lawyers are like Italians without the ***** .... they are cowards and don't want their name blackened.

We could end it by making sure the Lawyers concerned received the thoughts of the general public ...... !!!!

warrenm2

I think some people have got into the mindset of "shooting the messenger" and not looking at the root problem. In this case it is the role of the HRA. If this did not exist there would be no legal basis for a defence team to work with. There would be no adjustment to the sentence. There would be no story.

The law is a framework. Solicitors and barristers operate within this framework. If there is a result you think is fundamentally wrong, then it is the framework that allowed it to happen. Nu Labour brought in this law - as they say in the US.... do the math