Anne Sacoolas

[one o in huntingdon]

Read it again and even more disgusted by your attitude, what a way to earn a living

[spen666]

Why are you drawing false equivalents between a street brawl and shoplifting and killing someone and fleeing the country?

Lets see. Now Shoplifting, [public order and motoring offences are all crimes.


However, leaving the country whilst not subject to bail is not an offence.

Oh, and could you point to the CONVICTION this lady has for killing someone? No, strange that isn't it? She has not been interviewed or charged let alone convicted and already you have decided she has killed someone. Where is the evidence SHE killed someone?

Just because someone makes an accusation, it doesn't make it true.

Rember the golden thread as outlined in his famous judgement by Viscount Sankey.

throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen – that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception...

The duty is not on the accused or in this case someone not even charged to prove their innocence

[Proposition Joe]

Where is the evidence SHE killed someone?

Just because someone makes an accusation, it doesn't make it true.

Apart from her admitting liability for the accident and him being, y'know, dead?

[spen666]

All you who are attacking me for doing my job would be saying the opposite if you found yourself accused of an offence. You would want a strong and robust solicitor to represent you and give you the best legal advice for your situation, not the advice that satisfies the lynch mob or the prosecution.

I do my job in accordance with the law and indeed, if I didn't, as outlined by UpminsterO, I could be referred to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and struck off for not acting in my client's best interests.

I am proud to say I would always lawfully represent my client in his or her best interests.

What offence is anyone suggesting this lady has committed by chosing to leave the UK? If she hasn't committed any offence, then why condemn here. We have laws for a reason. If the laws are inadequate, its not her fault and she shouldn't be condemned, the law makers are at fault

[spen666]

Where is the evidence SHE killed someone?

Just because someone makes an accusation, it doesn't make it true.

Apart from her admitting liability for the accident and him being, y'know, dead?

I repeat the question

Where is the evidence SHE killed someone?


Your saying she admitted it, neither makes it true, nor does it make it evidence?

She has expressed regret for the incident is not the same as saying I drove dangerously or carelessly and committed a criminal offence.

[spen666]

Joe why bother answering spen

What is your problem with someone doing their job professionally, lawfully and properly?


Don't like it that I am prepared to defend my decisions and that I raise questions that you can't answer?

[one o in huntingdon]

Your earlier comments suggest you are fine with possibly denying a grieving parent their proper justice.
Can't imagine my child or wife being killed by a drugged driver who then evades the correct consequences

Feel ashamed I have to walk the same earth as you let alone possibly be in the same ground
Might only be doing your job, but the words catch, fire and piss on spring to mind

[spen666]

Your earlier comments suggest you are fine with possibly denying a grieving parent their proper justice.

My earlier comments suggest I am fine with giving lawful advice to my client. It is not my role to represent the grieving parent. Indeed if I did, I would be struck off as a solicitor as that is a clear case of a conflict of interests[/quote]
Can't imagine my child or wife being killed by a drugged driver who then evades the correct consequences

[/quote] Lots of emotive language there. Firstly the cause of the accident has not been decided, but you have already assumed it is driver's fault. The police for example who are investigating this matter have not said the driver was at fault.

~Secondly, and without any evidence you talk about drunk or drugged driver - no suggestion even by the victim's family that this is the case here, so can only be included to swing people's emotions

Feel ashamed I have to walk the same earth as you let alone possibly be in the same ground
Might only be doing your job, but the words catch, fire and p*ss on spring to mind

I hope you never find yourself ever accused of anything because you will be seeking a lawyer to represent you if you are.

Read that last bit again

a lawyer to represent you

. You won't be seeking a lawyer to represent your accused or to prosecute you.



In a criminal case, a defence lawyer's job is to lawfully represent the accused not anyone else.

[one o in huntingdon]

I have provided similar advice in fatal RTC cases before. Advising known suspects that is they handed themselves into police shortly after the accident, the drugs tests would show they were high as a kite when driving, but if they remained at large fora week or so the drugs in their system would be out of their system and they couldn't be charged with causing death by dangerous driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs

Client took ad ice and handed himself in a week later and ended up facing much less serious charges and avoiding a prison sentence.

This the comment i'm referring to, the victim was no doubt someone's loved one.
My comment stands, I hope to never meet you in any capacity, thought sickens me.
Not many people I wish misfortune on, but will make an exception for you.
Need some fresh air after reading all your posts, actually feel revulsed

[spen666]

Joe why bother answering spen
Her words in what spen is quoting would of been crafted by a USA based or uk based lawyer before being circulated in the press

Pure speculation and nothing more.

However, even if words were "crafted" by a solicitor, so what. She is not required to admit to any crime.

Remember the judgement of Viscount Sankey quoted above

I note spen states about being struck off

I am no lawyer but I know their is a massive difference between negligence to a degree to enable the body to strike you off to the lesser X case of just pure incompetence

Haven't a clue what you are trying to say here. Lawyers get struct off for being incompetent. Try looking at the judgements in the Solicitors Diciplinary Tribunal or looking up the following case


Iqbal v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2012] EWHC 3251 (Admin) Where the High Court confirms that a solicitor can be struck off on grounds of incompetence.

Not sure what negligence or incompetence have to do with anything here in any event. There are very strict rules on solicitors not acting where there is a conflict of interests. A solicitor lawfully represents his client and no one else

We have examples in medical / construction all the time - to prove a cases of professional behaviour by any professional to the level they get struck off is very demanding in a court of law

[spen666]

I have provided similar advice in fatal RTC cases before. Advising known suspects that is they handed themselves into police shortly after the accident, the drugs tests would show they were high as a kite when driving, but if they remained at large fora week or so the drugs in their system would be out of their system and they couldn't be charged with causing death by dangerous driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs

Client took ad ice and handed himself in a week later and ended up facing much less serious charges and avoiding a prison sentence.

This the comment i'm referring to, the victim was no doubt someone's loved one.
My comment stands, I hope to never meet you in any capacity, thought sickens me.
Not many people I wish unpleasantness on, but will make an exception for you.

Not sure what your problem is, unless you do not understand what the role and responsibilities of a solicitor is.

In a criminal case, a defence lawyer's job is to lawfully represent the accused not anyone else.


It is not the role of a defence solicitor to act on behalf of the victim's family. Indeed, that would be a striking off offence as you would be acting where there is a clear conflict of interest.

My role is to lawful act in the best interests of my client. In the case you quote me on, I did exactly that.


Oh the victim's family came to court for the sentencing hearing on my client and gave evidence on the driver's behalf.


Not everyone is narrow minded and vindictive as you.I

It says a lot about you and your mentality that you wish unpleasantness on someone you do not know, have never met and who was only doing his job, lawfully I may add

[Oforever]

She did kill someone. She was the driver in an incident where someone was killed. Now how the accident happened we do not know (though all reports give us a clue). I hope of it were me driving I would stay in the country in which it happened. Very different to shoplifting etc.

[Long slender neck]

"Anne Sacoolas has as many convictions for causing death by dangerous driving as you & I"

[Thor]

Don't try and weasel out of your own words, spen. Quoting you below to remind you:

If I was in her position, I would do as she did. I would leave country to avoid a prison sentence.

You weren't talking about giving legal advice, you stated what you would do personally - ie, run away after killing someone to escape justice.

And don't most people try to avoid consequences?

does every shoplifter, immediately walk into a police station and say I have committed a crime.

after a fight do participants walk into police station and admit a public order offence?

Have you immediately gone to the police and admitted your wrong doing every time you break the law?


There is absolutely no requirement on anyone to admit to crimes or even to remain in jurisdiction to see if police want ot arrest them.

This lady broke no laws by leaving the UK and I for one am honest enough to admit I would try legitimately to avoid being punished

In answer to your varied examples of course they don’t. However, as a person of trust and of a high intellect level and a duty to do the right thing then it’s immoral the way you would behave whilst advising your client.

[spen666]

She did kill someone. She was the driver in an incident where someone was killed. Now how the accident happened we do not know (though all reports give us a clue). I hope of it were me driving I would stay in the country in which it happened. Very different to shoplifting etc.

Firstly, she may have been involved in an incident where someone was killed, but that doesn't mean she killed them.

For example (and a hypothetical example). You drive your car and stop on a country road in a safe place. You are making a phone call whilst sat in car with engine turned off, handbrake on etc. Motorist comes the other way, possibly drunk, possibly on drugs, or possibly not paying attention and veers onto your side of the road, hits your vehicle and dies. Have you killed someone? You were the driver of your car even if it was stationary.

You are jumping to conclusions that she is responsible for his death ( she may well be , but that is not determined). Indeed where is the evidence she was the car driver?

Secondly
Its easy to say you would stay and face the consequences when sat behind your keyboard...when its you facing upto 14 years in prison for it and you can lawfully take actions to reduce the risk of a 14 year sentence, you would take that course of action





Now you say its very different to shoplifting, so can we perhaps have a list of offences its permissible for you not to own up to and a list where you have to own up to? The law could provide such a list, it chooses not to and whether the lady is alleged to shoplift or have killed someone by dangerous driving, she is treated equally by the law in terms of her rights

[spen666]

Don't try and weasel out of your own words, spen. Quoting you below to remind you:



You weren't talking about giving legal advice, you stated what you would do personally - ie, run away after killing someone to escape justice.

And don't most people try to avoid consequences?

does every shoplifter, immediately walk into a police station and say I have committed a crime.

after a fight do participants walk into police station and admit a public order offence?

Have you immediately gone to the police and admitted your wrong doing every time you break the law?


There is absolutely no requirement on anyone to admit to crimes or even to remain in jurisdiction to see if police want ot arrest them.

This lady broke no laws by leaving the UK and I for one am honest enough to admit I would try legitimately to avoid being punished

In answer to your varied examples of course they don’t. However, as a person of trust and of a high intellect level and a duty to do the right thing then it’s immoral the way you would behave whilst advising your client.

Once again another person who spouts emotional nonsense whilst missing the fact that legally the role of a defence solicitor is to act for their client, no one else.

There is nothing immoral about advising someone of the law and the consequences of their actions.

A defence solicitor lawfully acts for his client and no one else.

[Long slender neck]

It’s a little concerning that a lawyer / solicitor would advise a client to do a runner rather than clear their name and or face justice in a court of law tried by their peers.

I have provided similar advice in fatal RTC cases before. Advising known suspects that is they handed themselves into police shortly after the accident, the drugs tests would show they were high as a kite when driving, but if they remained at large fora week or so the drugs in their system would be out of their system and they couldn't be charged with causing death by dangerous driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs

Client took ad ice and handed himself in a week later and ended up facing much less serious charges and avoiding a prison sentence.

A lawyers job is to represent his client

What you are describing is advising somebody on how to cheat justice.

Is it lawful to evade the law?

[spen666]

It’s a little concerning that a lawyer / solicitor would advise a client to do a runner rather than clear their name and or face justice in a court of law tried by their peers.

I have provided similar advice in fatal RTC cases before. Advising known suspects that is they handed themselves into police shortly after the accident, the drugs tests would show they were high as a kite when driving, but if they remained at large fora week or so the drugs in their system would be out of their system and they couldn't be charged with causing death by dangerous driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs

Client took ad ice and handed himself in a week later and ended up facing much less serious charges and avoiding a prison sentence.

A lawyers job is to represent his client

What you are describing is advising somebody on how to cheat justice.

Is it lawful to evade the law?

Neither cheating justice, nor evading the law.

She acted perfectly legally in returning to the USA.

How has she evaded the law? She may have avoided the consequences but that is not illegal. In the same way it is not illegal to avoid tax. It is illegal to evade tax though.

She lawfully and legally travelled back to the USA. Nothing illegal in that. As a lawyer it would be negligent not to advise her that if she lawfully returned to the USA she was far less likely to be prosecuted than if she remained in the UK

[Long slender neck]

Read it again Spen, I am referring to YOUR advice to a drugged up RTC suspect, not talking about Anne.

[spen666]

The Solicitors Regulation Authority set out the rules that govern solicitors. Their principles include

Part 1: SRA Principles
1: SRA Principles
These are mandatory Principles which apply to all.

You must:

...;
not allow your independence to be compromised;
act in the best interests of each client;.....

If a solicitor took the views or feelings of a victim's family into account when acting for an accused he would be in breach of both of those mandatory principles and be liable to be struck off.

A solicitor acts for his client. It is not expected that a solicitor acts for both parties or balances the interests of competing parties. That is the job of the court

[spen666]

Read it again Spen, I am referring to YOUR advice to a drugged up RTC suspect, not talking about Anne.

Same thing. I advised my client what the consequences were of 2 courses of action. Both were perfectly lawful. The courts and police were aware of what i had done as were the CPs and all agree I acted lawfully.

I have a duty to act in best interests of my client and if I did not advise him there was a lawful way to reduce the charges against him I would not be acting in his best interests and would be liable to be struck off.

He did not evade justice. He acted in accordance with the law, as did I. He committed no unlawful act in not rushing to police station to hand himself in

[BoniO]

Your earlier comments suggest you are fine with possibly denying a grieving parent their proper justice.

My earlier comments suggest I am fine with giving lawful advice to my client. It is not my role to represent the grieving parent. Indeed if I did, I would be struck off as a solicitor as that is a clear case of a conflict of interests

Can't imagine my child or wife being killed by a drugged driver who then evades the correct consequences

[/quote] Lots of emotive language there. Firstly the cause of the accident has not been decided, but you have already assumed it is driver's fault. The police for example who are investigating this matter have not said the driver was at fault.

~Secondly, and without any evidence you talk about drunk or drugged driver - no suggestion even by the victim's family that this is the case here, so can only be included to swing people's emotions

Feel ashamed I have to walk the same earth as you let alone possibly be in the same ground
Might only be doing your job, but the words catch, fire and p*ss on spring to mind

I hope you never find yourself ever accused of anything because you will be seeking a lawyer to represent you if you are.

Read that last bit again

a lawyer to represent you

. You won't be seeking a lawyer to represent your accused or to prosecute you.



In a criminal case, a defence lawyer's job is to lawfully represent the accused not anyone else.
[/quote]

Firstly, this is a football MB, not a court of law, so your constant spouting of the legal position is both tiresome and ill-judged.

You state that it's a lawyers job to represent his/her client. I reckon most of us on here probably already knew that little pearl of wisdom. I would argue though that a lawyer can decide whether or not he will take on a client. You aren't forced to defend someone, as per the drugged up scumbag you described. The fact that you were not only happy to defend him but also to advise him how to best evade the correct punishment for his actions (yes I know you'll say your advice was legal.........) and then are happy to tell the World what you did just demonstrates, to me, that your moral compass has up and left you.

Not surprising that many people dislike lawyers is it.

[Long slender neck]

So it is lawful to avoid the police if you are wanted? Does it make a difference if the police want to just question or want to arrest you?

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Top wummery from spens.

[spen666]

....

Firstly, this is a football MB, not a court of law, so your constant spouting of the legal position is both tiresome and ill-judged.

Perhaps we should be discussing how Anne Sacoolas was not playing in a 4-3-3 formation when she should have been and that her choice of a 442 was wrong.


strangely enough, in a thread about legal matters, it is often necessary to talk about the law.

You state that it's a lawyers job to represent his/her client. I reckon most of us on here probably already knew that little pearl of wisdom. I would argue though that a lawyer can decide whether or not he will take on a client. You aren't forced to defend someone, as per the drugged up scumbag you described. The fact that you were not only happy to defend him but also to advise him how to best evade the correct punishment for his actions (yes I know you'll say your advice was legal.........) and then are happy to tell the World what you did just demonstrates, to me, that your moral compass has up and left you.

Not surprising that many people dislike lawyers is it.

Sadly you couldn't be further from the truth in any of what you have written in the penultimate paragraph.

You say

You state that it's a lawyers job to represent his/her client. I reckon most of us on here probably already knew that little pearl of wisdom.

Of course in saying that, you miss out the key part of my quote namely that I am not representing anyone else. A solicitors duty is to lawfully do his best for his client, not for anyone else and it is not a relevant consideration that the lawful advice given may upset others.

*******************************
As a defence lawyer, it is not for me to make moral judgements on my client or to decide if he should be represented or not. My job is to advise the client to the best of my ability. I will happily represent anyone on any charge, no matter how vile or offensive it may be to you. Everyone has the right to a fair trial.

i will not and never have broken the law on behalf of a client. Nor will I knowingly allow a client to lie in court. That doesn't mean I can't defend someone I know or believe has done the act alleged.

It is for the prosecution to prove the offence, not for the defence to prove he is not guilty.

I am perfectly happy to tell the world I did my job in accordance with the law and the legal requirements upon me as a lawyer. I represent my client, not you and your morals, nor anyone else.

I am a LAWyer, nor a moralist. I work with the law and am responsible for working within the legal framework.

If you do not like those laws, then get onto your MP and get them to change the laws. I do not make the laws, nor do I enforce the laws