Very true. They have changed the rules so you can no longer claim your full costs back, just the amount of legal aid, I know as I was out of pocket after my wife was aquitted for something she did not do. As for the delay in the case it was the judges decision according to the media which says to me the prosecutors evidance is currently too weak for it to be worthwhile having a trial.
Johnson should confound them all by becoming an mp. He`ll be free from prosecution until after he`s deed of old age.
He won't though - unless she sells her story for a load of cash she's likely not to have a pot to piss in, much less the £000's he'd sue for And - depending on the case - it would effectively be a re trial but on a different standard of proof (balance of probabilities in the civil court; beyond reasonable doubt in criminal courts). A bit like those in the states who failed to get Jackson convicted but sued his ass in the civil courts for umpteen million. Regardless of winning I can't see AJ wanting the additional public scrutiny - I kno I'd advise him against it.
Not sure what all that was about fella. All I was asking is for confirmation that all you get is basic costs and if you want to recover more then you sue. I wasn't being specific to AJs case, just new protocol. Of course there's no point AJ suing the girl unless her parents wealthy enough to cover the costs(because of her age he'd be suing the parents).
Yes you could sue but then of course you would have to pay another lot of solicitors. We almost did this but in the end decided it was not worth the stress. We got back about £700 which was the costs of legal aid at the time. Our solicitor cost us about £1500.00 so we were out of pocket. It was a different case but it involved someone lying about what happened. Once it got to court however justice was done very quickly as it was quite obvious to the magistrate what had gone on. Our trial got delayed twice due to problems with the evidence (ie there was non apart from a lying ****).
