Not only does the man comment on every other premier league clubs business he is at it defending **** Hall. Can he not just stay out of matters which are not his concern. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...glowing-character-references-Stuart-Hall.html
More proof Dave Whelan is a lowlife scumbag Aylett the scumbag lawyer, saying Hall was a ****, but not a bad **** How Hall only got that short sentence is beyond reason, 13 girls molested, ****ing corruption.
I know everyone has a right to a fair trial & full defence but I actually hope this lawyer has a stroke and is unable to ever utter a word again. His descriptions are appalling. "A frightened & bewildered man" what unlike his victims eh? "His victims put their assaults into perspective" "13 not 1300" What a bastard.
The man is SCUM. I've been saying this for years and now people can see it for themselves. First Thatcher now Hall, what next, George Bush? Bin Laden?
Tbf to the lawyer, that's their job. Felt ashamed for the one in that April Jones trial having to come up with that ****e about knocking her down and forgetting what he'd done with the body. remember huntley's trial too? ****ing embarrassment about bathing them, putting his hand out and, gee, suddenly they were both drowned...
if its your job to be a lowlife scumbag you are still a lowlife scumbag. You have to be one of the worst type of people to be a criminal defence lawyer and have no morals and just love ****ing money
Actually, its a requirement for criminal law to function that a qualified brief represents you if you want a fair trial to go ahead. It needs to be done correctly in order to prevent miscarriages of justice. For instance, in cases of mental impairment a defendant could be intimidated into confessing to crimes - this has happened in the past. Of course, you could take the view of hanging every defendant, because they are scum. Guilt becomes immaterial. Just ask the paediatric registrar targetted by an illiterate News of the Screws whipped up mob...
This Though i do remember a female defence barrister recently absolutely hectoring a prosecution witness/victim to the point of utter distress, and then they said they were "testing the evidence". Like democracy, it's a **** system whose only saving grace is that it's the worst way of doing things - apart from all the others.
Oh I know all that, started my post with it but its the fact that he had admitted guilt and yet the lawyer used the quoted chosen arguments to attempt to get him a lenient sentence. By all means test the validity of the arrest, the evidence against him and that the sentencing was as per the law (as in fact the judge was pained to make clear) but the rest was being a scum bag lawyer. He chose the frail scared old man ploy to try and get him a reduced sentence. Being old & a bit scared now you've finally been caught is not an acceptable reason for the minimum rather than maximum sentence & to argue it on behalf of your client shows further contempt for the victims. Remember he continued to use his BBC rep to deny it and "fight to clear his name" right up to changing his mind. He wasn't weak & frail & old when he thought he had a chance to avoid it. Arguing that he only molested 13 children not 1300 is not an acceptable mitigating factor in any society. I mean did Holloway get his brief to argue "well at least I didn't murder as many as Brady" in the sentencing hearing? If he had not used this argument could it really be argued he hadn't defended his client to his full ability? It's not that he did his job, it's the arguments he chose to use that I find appalling & would like to see that type of lawyer removed from being able to do it again.
I agree with DF. There should be a way to suspend lawyers who overstep the mark in cross examination or summing up their case. They banned them from questioning rape victims about their sexual history, as in rape case were the defendant was bang to rights the defendant would still go to court to get his kicks from hearing the sexual history of the girls he had attacked. I hated It's A Knockout so had no time for **** Hall.
Disgusting comments from Whelan. The NSPCC person stood down after defending Hall. It's not the same with Whelan but I would be ashamed to have him connected to our club.
The right to a defence is a higher principle than the actions of the individual in question. Sure, it's not nice to see the guilty get off, but the right to a fair and lawful trial and the presumption of innocence are fundamental to democracy and modern society. Without them, this country would be a very different place. The principles of fairness and liberty are far more important than the occasional guilty person going free. It's worse to have 1 innocent man convicted than to let 10 guilty men escape, philosophically. It's about the role of the state in taking your personal liberty and autonomy away from you - it can only do so when absolutely necessary, and the 'burden of proof' is always on the state (see say Woolmington v DPP [1935]).
Lets keep the facts absolutely straight - 4 of the victims were 16 or 17. Not quite children, but also not quite adult. But definitely of an age where you'd find some of them in nightclubs out of their skulls and acting older than they should be... Not to defend him, because the behaviour is not acceptable, but the offences were committed many, many years ago, when behavioural norms were a little different, and I suspect copping a feel might have been a hazard for a girl. Its a bit like condeming slavery now that was comitted 300 years ago, when it was acceptable. On the other hand, those who were younger than, say 14-15, have as far as I can remember, always been off limits for 30- and 40-something men. For that he certainly needs to be punished. Its too easy to leap to the "He's admitted it, so he should swing" argument, as this is an easy target. Its far more difficult to review the evidence and come to a rounded conclusion on a suitable punishment for a crime. As for lawyers going too far, and its been quoted here, a vicitm's sexual history can be of relevence, not just whether they were 'easy' but whether, for instance, they have had a history of 'changing their minds' after the fact, crying rape (which is a truly vile thing for the man, and for any women who have been raped) and dropping the charges further down the line. You can't simply rule something off limits in a blanket fashion. However, the ability of the defendant in a case to conduct their own cross-examination in such cases has been banned for just the reason mentioned by Carrollsponytail...
St John; it's his lawyers quote, not mine so insinuating that I somehow exaggerated is flawed. unless he has been misquoted you would need to tell his lawyer to differentiate between talking about the children his client sexually assaulted and the teens. Me I just see sexual assault. The law then decides the appropriate sentence (I have my opinions about sentencing as well but that's not something the convicted is at fault for) but I'm also not going to say ah well 5 of the 13 counts were sexual assault against teenagers so he's not that bad a feller after all.... As the judge, based on the laws of the day sentenced him on all counts I assume it was still sexual Assault under the law: that he again admitted to: this wasn't challenging his innocent or guilt. I state again, the lawyer used the words regarding getting the perspective right not me. I have issues with this once someone is found guilty as does the judge apparently. I didn't say swing but I also don't want a lawyer actively trying to get the minimum sentence possible in a sexual assault case based on his client being old & frightened or based on the fact that his client didn't commit crimes as bad as another convicted of sexual crimes. I find these tactics have no place in the legal system. By all means as unpleasant as it is if the lawyer was arguing that the judge should take into account a psychiatric report etc then Fine! But he wasn't saying that was he? He was using spurious and cynical excuses. This has absolutely nothing to do with eroding the ability of providing an adequate defence. It's about tactics. Suggesting that as a society we should accept a lawyer doing or saying anything for his client as a rightful test of the law is a side step, a distraction. As was the arguments the lawyer put forward. The law should not care if the old pervert is frightened or old. The law should not care if he's not the worst offender in the broad scope of sexual crimes. And if I was a judge the attempt to downplay the crimes after pleading guilty would make me think their was no remorse or contrition so I'd edge towards the maximum sentences available based on that opinion. Again I personally wasn't talking about removing his right to a fair trial, I wasn't even asking him to receive a sentence outside of the law as it stood. I was wishing a stroke & therefore a removal of the ability of his scum lawyer using such appalling tactics disguised as service to his client ever again.
On the whole DF, I agree wholeheartedly. It is tough to strike a balance between the Rule of Law and the Needs of Justice. Take for instance, the issue surrounding the defendant being 'frightened and old' - the Law makes no distinction, old or young, bold or fearful. But Justice and Society does. Hall has been named and shamed in the most public arena. His life is going to be a long, long drudge (no matter how long he lives), constantly knowing that everyone knows what he's done. He'll never be able to escape this, and he's going to be abused, mostly verbally, but you just know a 'vigilante' type will want to make a name for himself - the man who did a known *****. That kind of fear is a life sentance in itself. He's not going to be like any run-of-the-mill kiddy fiddler with no public profile (so the papers barely mention them) who are released in anonymity. Justice also knows that, being armed with the knowledge of what he's done in the past, he'll never be in the position again to commit such an act. In that respect, he's no longer a threat to anyone. None of this excuses his actions, although as I said before, the 70's and 80's are a world away in terms of what was and is acceptable. Life on Mars is a great series to revisit attitudes. That the judge complained that he couldn't sentance based on the date of trial, rather than on when the crime was committed disregards this, which can be argued both ways. No-one is suggesting that we start to prosecute men who were openly gay in the 60's because it was illegal then, but not now. We have to work within the framework of the Law, right or wrong, else we submit to the tyranny of Newspaper Editors (whipping up their various hatreds)...
The part about Hall "suffering anxiety and depression since his arrest" is pathetic. Of course you will be anxious and depressed if you're about to get done for raping children FFS
Don't think he actually did that, did he? Not defending the old perv, but I thought he was kiddy-fiddler/molester? Pity he's too old to get a ****ing good kicking inside now.
