I heard today that the family of Mark Duggan, shot by the police, have the services of Michael Mansfield QC. Two things struck me - 1) why does he always take on cases involving the police or the establishment and 2) how can the Duggan family have the money to pay for his services?
He probably has an axe to grind; maybe his mother was arrested for something whilst he was in the womb? The family probably won't be paying. It's maybe legal aid, or some of his friends had a whip round
He is a barrister and defending people is what he does.
I would expect he would do everything he can to get his client off, that is what he is paid to do.
If he finds out that police or the establishment have acted unlawfully then what do you expect him to do. It is not his fault that the police or establishment have acted unlawfully.
Just because he defends them do not assume 1.) he agrees with them 2.) likes them
Frankly he is good at what he does and if ever faced with a situation where I was arrested I would hope he would be defending me.
A republican, vegetarian, socialist, and self-described "radical lawyer", he has participated in prominent and controversial court cases and inquests involving accused IRA bombers, the Bloody Sunday incident, and the deaths of Jean Charles de Menezes and Diana, Princess of Wales. He has said that 95 per cent of his work comes from legal aid.
He does lot's of cases that seem silly. He makes his name on the high profile cases and his money on the low profile or simply on the threat of a civil suit for damages.
He has said that 95 per cent of his work comes from legal aid.
So that is what my taxes is paying for.
Quote:
Just because he defends them do not assume 1.) he agrees with them 2.) likes them
Racedo
If he defends them, he has heard their evidence and accepted it at face value, hence the agreement to represent them. I did not suggest he liked the people he represents.
Look, it's the guy's job to get off the sort of people whom many would prefer to take round the back of the hanger for a good kicking, or more. He's doing his bit within the legal system we have. I personally find anyone who perpetuates human misery (which is what nasty people whom he gets off on technicalities do) and makes money out of it entirely odious and immoral, but they aren't doing anything illegal. I'd like to see him and all the rest of the journalists, politicians etc who make their 'living' in this way permanently unemployed. Equally, I'd like the Police to do their job properly so we don't get so many getting off.
Most of all, I'd like the politicians to write better (read less) laws and procedures so there simply aren't the technicalities there in the first place!
Don't entirely blame the politicians. There's been a ferocious argument in politico/legal Britain for many years over the separation of the judiciary from the political. Judges seem to think that their business is to interpret the law and not to serve the 'judicial' will of the people. In the opinion of judges, protecting the people seems to have fallen beneath the priority to make sure that the law is upheld. Since the law encompasses vast number of volumes and thousands of cases, there's no longer room for justice, just the law. There might be a better criminal justice result if judges were elected. Public perceptions of suitable punishment, hard or soft on crime, might then be better served. The judiciary in Britain do not serve the society they pretend to represent.
Edit. Mansfield would pull that lot to shreds in ten seconds of course but that would just be an argument not a solution.
Last edited by cavortingcheetah; 24th Oct 2012 at 04:41.
Can someone tell me how legal aid works ? I believed it had been cut back because of exploding costs but innumerous recent cases, defendants have been able to apparently choose very high-profile briefs who, I believe , won't have been offering cut-price services.
This is not a rhetorical question, I would be glad if someone could explain matters.
Last edited by AlpineSkier; 24th Oct 2012 at 06:23.
Alpine skier - the way legal aid works is that there is a set rate no matter who you use. A high profile lawyer can charge no more than anyone else. Many cases are paid on what is effectively a fixed fee basis. The same fee no matter how much or how little work is done on the case.
Yes there have been substantial cuts in legal aid - as much as 40% in some areas. Some of you will say good - until you find yourself wrongly accused of a crime that could put you in prison or ruin you. Don't think - "it'll never happen to me" because I could give you a long list of people who thought the same.
The end result will be corner cutting in case preparation and many able lawyers are now trying to get out of legal aid work.
Those of you who still say good should be aware that there have been similar cuts in the rates paid for prosecuting cases. Do you want the man who burgled your house or raped your daughter prosecuted by the cheapest lawyer they could find? Probably not.
whom many would prefer to take round the back of the hanger for a good kicking, or more.
And the many might be entirely in the wrong. I suppose your jolly "kicking, or more" includes lynching or, not to quibble, murder. By you, that is. Are you prepared to murder?
Suppose you later discover that your victim was innocent, where would that leave you? Or, of course, he was guilty, still where would that leave you?
Are you the one who would do the actual "kicking, or more"? Or just cheer the others on?
Quote:
I could give you a long list of people who thought the same.
My list would be short. I had written some outline, but the facts are not my own to disclose. Intervening circumstances prevented an application for leave to appeal against the original conviction. It all happened years ago. It ruined a life and it haunts mine still, though there was nothing more I could do.
Yes there have been substantial cuts in legal aid - as much as 40% in some areas. Some of you will say good - until you find yourself wrongly accused of a crime that could put you in prison or ruin you. Don't think - "it'll never happen to me" because I could give you a long list of people who thought the same.
But legal aid is not available to everyone. It is a farce that millionaires like Adil Nadir are entitled to legal aid and people like myself with a regular pension or income are not. And I am sure Mansfield would not represent me should I require his services unless I was of a certain persuasion that suited his agenda.
Quote:
Methinks this betrays a basic misunderstanding of the relationship
No. I fully understand the relationship. Seen enough of it before. Legal team think "you are probably guilty but let's push hard to get you off on a technicality". Successful outcome and the guilty walk free "not guilty" to continue as before.
Here's a solution then. Legal aid should only ever be available to tax payers. All barristers and QCs should be graded according to ability and track record of acquittals. Shall we say 1-5 worst to best. Thus then: Tax payer for ten years gets you a category 1. Tax payer for fifty years gets you a category 5. That's fair!
All barristers and QCs should be graded according to ability and track record of acquittals. Shall we say 1-5 worst to best.
Grading barristers on ability is incredibly difficult. Maybe the great barristers had a bunch of clients that couldn't (or shouldn't) have been acquitted. That doesn't make them bad barristers, any more than the lawyers who only take on the easy cases with a high chance of acquittal (and it happens) are good barristers. More the opposite... though it looks great in the ads.
A well known, successful and undoubtedly competent barrister here ended up with dementia. It was well known within the profession that his skills were slipping, but there was no way to either prove it or stop him taking on cases, which he did; badly.
It was only when he turned up to court completely unprepared and wearing his pyjamas that the Bar Association finally took action. Before that, they had nothing measurable to act on. The same thing happens with doctors.
Quote:
And how do you know what if anything he charges?
Even high profile QCs sometimes work pro bono, for a number of reasons. Tony Morris never charged a cent for this case (because they didn't have a cent) despite his normal daily rates being enough to buy a small tropical island. Why? Word 'round the campfire was that he heard about the case, felt sorry for them and thought it was worth running. He believed it was the right thing to do, though the High Court didn't agree. Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun
If the legal aid system is getting rorted (and ours certainly is ) then that's a problem for the relevant government to address, not the lawyers or their clients. Legal aid is a government provided service and as such, the government should administer it fairly. If they don't; start hammering them.
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 24th Oct 2012 at 09:55.
though it looks great in the ads. 
) then that's a problem for the relevant government to address, not the lawyers or their clients. Legal aid is a government provided service and as such, the government should administer it fairly. If they don't; start hammering them.
