Have you heard about this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...urt-costs.html
Slightly outrageous?
Petition (i'm sure it'll make all the difference ) here: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
Too right! Citizens have no choice over whether the state attempts to prosecute them for an alleged crime. That is why the state must always pay for a successful defence. The proposed new system amounts to bullying by the state and must be resisted. "Plead guilty or we'll bankrupt you even if you win". It will also lead to a two tier system where only the rich can afford to defend themselves.
And while I'm on my soapbox, here's some more dangerous legislation that has no place in a free, democratic society:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s/1806867.html
If a guilty defendent chooses to try and wriggle out of his offence by hiring very expensive lawyers to try to get him acquitted for technical reasons, and fails, that motorist should re-imburse the taxpayer for the extra cost they have caused the prosecution.
Read the ads - there are pages of them bragging about getting clients off on tecnicalities. The taxpayer, and motorists are always complaining about of tax they pay, is funding putting bad drivers on the road. The cost is more than money, it is lives.
60 pounds an hour may be too low, but 250 and hour to check documents for accuracy seems like an abuse.
As citizens of the UK we receive medical care funded by the public purse. We have to freedom to pay more from our own resources for different treatment if we wish to, and are able.
Motorists who are believed by an independent organisation to have committed, in light of evidence obtained, a serious motoring offence have their defence costs paid by the Government. That defendent has the right to seek a more expensive defence if the wish to, and are able to afford it.
"To ensure best value for the tax payer this change will ensure that anyone who pays privately for their legal representation and is acquitted of their motoring offence will be reimbursed at the rates payable under legal aid."
If the defendent was unable to find legal represntation at that rate that would be a serious matter. If the legal representation was incompetent that would be a serious matter. I see nothing in the Telegraph report that alleges either of those situations exist.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks