Ulster Rugby trial -continued

[ZibbidooZibbidooZibbidoo]

New thread.

Because they were found not guilty who pays the men's legal fees ?

So happy to see the ad in the telegraph. Feel a bit better knowing I helped contribute towards it as couldn't go to the protests. PJ apology is an insult.

I know Olding had legal aid from about the 2nd or 3rd week of the trial. Not sure if they get their own money back. Would doubt it. I expect they would have to sue the complainant.

Legal aid would've covered it I think. If they chose to pay anything on top of that, that's on them.

He didn't write a word of that statement. Too little too late if you ask me.

My immediate thought was, "He's a week too late with that statement". My second thought was "He's nearly two years too late".

I’m pretty sure I’ve read (most probably on a link from this thread or it’s predecessor) that PJ paid his own counsel £500k or thereabouts. He’ll need to pay his PR people at least twice that to reinvent his persona.

I don't think any of us know how we would react if one of our DC behaved so abhorrently, TBH

We Need to Talk About Kevin springs to mind. I don’t know if anyone has read it but it offers a very interesting look into the mind of a parent whose child has done the unthinkable. Obviously these men haven’t committed the same crimes but it does offer an explanation of why their families still support them.

Badger, that book occurred to me too when reading the blaming online. It seemed an even split between "parents" and "mother". I didn't see a single "who could bring up a boy to have that attitude" comment that mentioned his father alone.

Powershower
I think it's because we know how influential mothers are in rearing their children in the majority of children's lives.

If you have been found not guilty of a crime why should you pay for your defence ?

Is free legal aid means tested in the North ?

“If you have been found not guilty of a crime why should you pay for your defence ?”

Arguably the quality of representation helps determine the outcome of the trial. The OJ Simpson case springs to mind. Would he have been found not guilty if he had been dependent on a state funded defence? Would Jackson have been found not guilty if he’d been reliant on a legal aid solicitor/barrister?

Arguably SO and the other defendants also benefited by association from PJ highly experienced representatives in court. While they may have only been questioning on behalf of PJ, the jury is unlikely to have viewed their strategy as independent of the other defendants representatives.

Didn’t PJ’s lawyer also represent the killer of April Jones? Couldn’t get over that.

I do think it’s easy to get caught up in provocative nuggets of information like that.

Barristers are not really paid to have an opinion. They are bound by ethics to defend their client to the full extent of their capabilities. To do otherwise would be malpractice and would see them very quickly out of a job.

Yes, everyone is entitled to a defence and defence barristers have to do the job to the best of their abilities.

It doesn’t mean that they are complicit in whatever crime their client is alleged to have committed.

Well you should do buster, because the nature of being a criminal lawyer is that some of your clients won't be very nice. This is a better way of doing things than any of the possible alternatives.

And yes, the barrister can have feelings about things in his own time. When he's working he holds his nose and behaves like a professional.

I can say without hesitation I would be by my son's side if he had been involved. And if he had been found guilty. Of course I would devastated. But I'd be there.

Cuts to the legal aid budget have meant that there is a widening gulf between representation if funded by legal aid and if wealthy enough to pay your own lawyers. It would be a disservice to suggest legal aid funded lawyers aren't good but capped fees etc have had an impact.

I agree defense barristers are ethically bound to do their best. What I wonder is, did the judge do everything she should in terms of managing the case, eg allowing underwear to be shown, rape myths bandied around. That where the problem lies for me. If she was managing it as she should (and I haven't seen suggestions other) then i think those guidelines need to be revisited.

Chaosandchocolate I was told by someone much more clever than me that she had to handle it that way, as to do otherwise would potentially have gotten a guilty verdict but opened the case up to be eligible for an appeal.

I can’t wait for Monday. Either they will release the information or they won’t, but either way it will restoke the righteous fire in people’s bellies and keep the momentum up to demand change.

Men who commit violent sexual crimes have some kind of trauma, abuse, neglect from childhood so perhaps the parents feel guilty and hopefully are doing a bit of soul searching.

Please don’t state this as fact. It is absolutely not true.

Men who commit violent sexual crimes have some kind of trauma, abuse, neglect from childhood so perhaps the parents feel guilty and hopefully are doing a bit of soul searching.

I think this assertion is wrong. The link between being a victim and going on to commit the same kind of crime is terribly stigmatising for victims and as far as I am aware data is questionable. Many who commit crimes claim to have been abused as mitigation. Some have some haven't. I also think despite the victim in this case having my full sympathy, saying things like this is not fair on the accused's family. (Although of course I expect they have some soul searching to do about his values/behaviour.)

OH FGS.

zibbidoo I am really sorry if I have offended you but how else could their behavior possibly be explained?

Easily. They mistreat women because 1) they want to and 2) they can