Shakes head in disbelief .....

[Rewulf]

At a number of things about this case.

Look whos defending him BTW , and absolutely ridiculous sentencing 

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/reporter-jumped-red-lights-after-6384367

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Not the Anna PitA Soubry?

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Not the Anna PitA Soubry?

The very same, I wonder if she was sober as she defended him 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Gawd knows, how can she defend the undefendable?

[Rewulf]

14 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Gawd knows, how can she defend the undefendable?

Because , like her forays into politics, someone pays her to....
The morals of the cause are unimportant to her, as can clearly be seen from her undemocratic posture in the Brexit wars.

Its all about the money.

[chrisjpainter]

21 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Gawd knows, how can she defend the undefendable?

Because it's her job? She's only said what any lawyer would have said in those circumstances. If she hadn't, she wouldn't have been fulfilling her role as the guy's legal representation. Somebody would have to have done it. And I imagine barristers are left scratching their heads with some of their defendants' ideas of mitigating circumstances, but they can't just turn around and say 'you know what, your honour? This guy's as guilty as they come.'

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

That would be extremely refreshing!

[enfieldspares]

4 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Because it's her job? She's only said what any lawyer would have said in those circumstances. If she hadn't, she wouldn't have been fulfilling her role as the guy's legal representation. Somebody would have to have done it. And I imagine barristers are left scratching their heads with some of their defendants' ideas of mitigating circumstances, but they can't just turn around and say 'you know what, your honour? This guy's as guilty as they come.'

 

This. Even if he/she thinks or believes that their client is guilty. If the client says they are not guilty then the barrister has to defend them. Also the legal system here works on the long stated "cab rank" system. That a brief cannot be refused in the same way when on a "cab rank" a taxi cannot in principle refuse a fare.

[strimmer_13]

Must of been on a promise 

[Rewulf]

31 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Somebody would have to have done it. And I imagine barristers are left scratching their heads with some of their defendants' ideas of mitigating circumstances, but they can't just turn around and say 'you know what, your honour? This guy's as guilty as they come.'

Like I say , morally bankrupt.
She even tried to 'mitigate' by saying he might not have been over the limit , because he didnt provide a breath specimen , completely irrelevant , as that was not what he was charged and convicted of.

24 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

This. Even if he/she thinks or believes that their client is guilty. If the client says they are not guilty then the barrister has to defend them. Also the legal system here works on the long stated "cab rank" system. That a brief cannot be refused in the same way when on a "cab rank" a taxi cannot in principle refuse a fare.

I know they need to be defended , and thats as it should be, but as the title thread goes , I shake my head in disbelief at the pathetic excuses the man made as he went on a drink drive jolly, high speed police chase, and the equally pathetic sentencing due to his pathetic , and frankly unbelievable mitigating circumstances...

Yet courts seem to swallow this type of BS on a daily basis.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Like I say , morally bankrupt.
She even tried to 'mitigate' by saying he might not have been over the limit , because he didnt provide a breath specimen , completely irrelevant , as that was not what he was charged and convicted of.

I know they need to be defended , and thats as it should be, but as the title thread goes , I shake my head in disbelief at the pathetic excuses the man made as he went on a drink drive jolly, high speed police chase, and the equally pathetic sentencing due to his pathetic , and frankly unbelievable mitigating circumstances...

Yet courts seem to swallow this type of BS on a daily basis.

Can't be seen to be racist!    

[ditchman]

could barely understand it...........the reporter needs to go back to school and learn to read and speak

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, ditchman said:

could barely understand it...........the reporter needs to go back to school and learn to read and speak

Would you like it translated in to Norfolkese?  

[chrisjpainter]

19 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Like I say , morally bankrupt.
She even tried to 'mitigate' by saying he might not have been over the limit , because he didnt provide a breath specimen , completely irrelevant , as that was not what he was charged and convicted of.

I know they need to be defended , and thats as it should be, but as the title thread goes , I shake my head in disbelief at the pathetic excuses the man made as he went on a drink drive jolly, high speed police chase, and the equally pathetic sentencing due to his pathetic , and frankly unbelievable mitigating circumstances...

Yet courts seem to swallow this type of BS on a daily basis.

Irrelevant to the charges, perhaps, but Mr Dee, prosecuting, had tried to make it relevant by saying, 'He was clearly intoxicated'. She's doing her job by finding holes in the prosecution's case. 

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Irrelevant to the charges, perhaps, but Mr Dee, prosecuting, had tried to make it relevant by saying, 'He was clearly intoxicated'. She's doing her job by finding holes in the prosecution's case. 

Mr Dee bought up the issue, and with him not being there at the time , its fairly obvious its from a police report.

The police observation of him being 'clearly intoxicated' is valid , whether through drink, drugs , even prescription medicine, if he was , in the polices opinion, unfit to drive, that is a valid observation.
For the defence to somehow play down that statement, is at best , distraction, he has obviously failed to provide a breath specimen, so was charged and convicted anyway (of that charge).
If he didnt agree that he was in fact intoxicated, he could have provided the evidence he was not ?

The simple fact is , the defence mentioned that there was no breath sample, so no evidence to say he actually was , but again, he wasnt charged with that anyway, so what was she trying to prove ?
That he wasnt intoxicated ? She had no evidence to prove he wasnt either ?

If you can read the case and say that there is nothing amiss with the way it was handled and sentenced , then thats fine, but me personally find it disgusting that he got barely more than a straightforward drink driver, and with mitigating circumstances made up of lies and BS , should have been made an example of.

There are far too many scrotes ,driving about drunk and high, putting lives at risk, high speed police chases, where only the diligence of other more sensible road users prevents horrific accidents.
The ridiculous sentences these idiots receive , IF they are caught, is scandalous.

Like a lot of crime in this country , there is no deterrent .

 

[Newbie to this]

What the hell has Indian policing got to do with his crimes committed in the UK!

For me it should be deportation if he holds Indian citizenship.

[chrisjpainter]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Mr Dee bought up the issue, and with him not being there at the time , its fairly obvious its from a police report.

The police observation of him being 'clearly intoxicated' is valid , whether through drink, drugs , even prescription medicine, if he was , in the polices opinion, unfit to drive, that is a valid observation.
For the defence to somehow play down that statement, is at best , distraction, he has obviously failed to provide a breath specimen, so was charged and convicted anyway (of that charge).
If he didnt agree that he was in fact intoxicated, he could have provided the evidence he was not ?

The simple fact is , the defence mentioned that there was no breath sample, so no evidence to say he actually was , but again, he wasnt charged with that anyway, so what was she trying to prove ?
That he wasnt intoxicated ? She had no evidence to prove he wasnt either ?

If you can read the case and say that there is nothing amiss with the way it was handled and sentenced , then thats fine, but me personally find it disgusting that he got barely more than a straightforward drink driver, and with mitigating circumstances made up of lies and BS , should have been made an example of.

There are far too many scrotes ,driving about drunk and high, putting lives at risk, high speed police chases, where only the diligence of other more sensible road users prevents horrific accidents.
The ridiculous sentences these idiots receive , IF they are caught, is scandalous.

Like a lot of crime in this country , there is no deterrent .

 

She's making comments in mitigation. She's saying no alcohol charges have been laid, so sentence cannot be made with any alcohol-based sentencing. And she doesn't need to prove he wasn't. The burden of proof's on the prosecution. All she's done is her job. She's trying to present the best case for her client. That includes pointing out relevant details in the case that should not be harmful to him in sentencing. Alcohol shouldn't have been brought up by the prosecution, but because  it was, she's well within her rights to point out that as no charges were brought based on alcohol intoxication, any suggestion he was over the limit should not count towards sentencing. 

The sentence is a joke, but that's down to the judge. And the police have stuffed up over the lack of alcohol test. But that's not Soubry's fault either. The legal system must have defending counsels doing the best possible job they can for their clients. 

She's done her job. It's just a shame the police and judge didn't do theirs. I imagine if drink driving charges had been brought the sentence would have been more.

Edited December 24, 2021 by chrisjpainter

[mel b3]

11 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

She's making comments in mitigation. She's saying no alcohol charges have been laid, so sentence cannot be made with any alcohol-based sentencing. And she doesn't need to prove he wasn't. The burden of proof's on the prosecution. All she's done is her job. She's trying to present the best case for her client. That includes pointing out relevant details in the case that should not be harmful to him in sentencing. Alcohol shouldn't have been brought up by the prosecution, but because  it was, she's well within her rights to point out that as no charges were brought based on alcohol intoxication, any suggestion he was over the limit should not count towards sentencing. 

The sentence is a joke, but that's down to the judge. And the police have stuffed up over the lack of alcohol test. But that's not Soubry's fault either. The legal system must have defending counsels doing the best possible job they can for their clients. 

She's done her job. It's just a shame the police and judge didn't do theirs. I imagine if drink driving charges had been brought the sentence would have been more.

This .

We may not always like it , but it's the way it all works , and the way that it has to work.👍

[Rewulf]

20 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

he's making comments in mitigation. She's saying no alcohol charges have been laid, so sentence cannot be made with any alcohol-based sentencing. And she doesn't need to prove he wasn't. The burden of proof's on the prosecution. All she's done is her job. She's trying to present the best case for her client

No one was trying to , they just mentioned he appeared intoxicated, again , he was sentenced for failed to provide a specimen.

21 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

She's trying to present the best case for her client. That includes pointing out relevant details in the case that should not be harmful to him in sentencing. Alcohol shouldn't have been brought up by the prosecution, but because  it was, she's well within her rights to point out that as no charges were brought based on alcohol intoxication, any suggestion he was over the limit should not count towards sentencing

He failed to provide a specimen of breath , yet alcohol shouldn't be mentioned ?

Why do you think it's an automatic 18 month ban for failing to provide ?

21 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

She's done her job. It's just a shame the police and judge didn't do theirs. I imagine if drink driving charges had been brought the sentence would have been more

What do you mean ? The police should have forced him to provide a sample , and the judge should have ignored all his mitigation lies?

She's doing her job ? She probably told him what to say, as she knew any and all mitigation has to be considered by the judge and  lowers the sentence.

You try doing what he did , and not make up BS excuses and see what happens.

1 minute ago, mel b3 said:

This .

We may not always like it , but it's the way it all works , and the way that it has to work.👍

I know , doesn't mean I can't whinge about it 😄

[chrisjpainter]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

No one was trying to , they just mentioned he appeared intoxicated, again , he was sentenced for failed to provide a specimen.

He failed to provide a specimen of breath , yet alcohol shouldn't be mentioned ?

Why do you think it's an automatic 18 month ban for failing to provide ?

What do you mean ? The police should have forced him to provide a sample , and the judge should have ignored all his mitigation lies?

She's doing her job ? She probably told him what to say, as she knew any and all mitigation has to be considered by the judge and  lowers the sentence.

You try doing what he did , and not make up BS excuses and see what happens.

I know , doesn't mean I can't whinge about it 😄

Exactly. That is her job. She presents the best possible case she can, which includes highlighting what he can and can't be punished for.

Failing to provide is relevant to sentencing. But whether he was actually over or not isn't, because that couldn't be proved. The Prosecution suggested he was clearly intoxicated. She counters that by saying there's no proof of that, so it can't be used in sentencing. There's a clear difference between the two. He hasn't been charged with drink driving, so the prosecution shouldn't assume that he was and the judge shouldn't include into the sentencing a punishment for drink driving. 

[Rewulf]

39 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Exactly. That is her job. She presents the best possible case she can, which includes highlighting what he can and can't be punished for.

Even if its a pack of lies ?

That's called perjury. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

We used to have a legal system that was apparently the envy of the world.

Now it is a JOKE!

[chrisjpainter]

25 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Even if its a pack of lies ?

That's called perjury. 

What did she lie about? 

Wife was 'in difficulties': Need more information, but it's not clear she lied

He was in a place he didn't know: True

'Drove in the way [they] have seen': True

No alcohol sample was provided: True. 

She's not lied. She might have put a positive spin on it, but she's not lied.

[mel b3]

39 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Even if its a pack of lies ?

That's called perjury. 

The police will lie and cheat to the best of their ability (but be seen as a paragon of virtue), and his legal representative will lie and cheat to the best of their ability (but be seen as a paragon of virtue) . That's how it works , and it's how things are kept relatively fair for the defendant.  

His legal representative believes that he is innocent (of course she knows he isnt) .

Personally,  I'd be quite happy to see him horse whipped , because I really don't like drink drivers.

[Pushandpull]

The OP is evidently ignorant of the role of a defending barrister. Plus he does not like MS head shaken in disbelief indeed.