... is abusing the legal aid system by appealing against his conviction whilst on the run. Yet a legal entity would and has facilitated his request. What an injustice!!!
It's a complete joke. 1. How he can claim legal aid when he's wealthy enough to own a speed boat and 2. that he can appeal his conviction when on the run.
The prick will end up getting caught and spending a lot of time in jail. I'd make him share a cell with a 6ft 6 bisexual Moroccan bodybuilder
It's a complete joke. 1. How he can claim legal aid when he's wealthy enough to own a speed boat and 2. that he can appeal his conviction when on the run.The prick will end up getting caught and spending a lot of time in jail. I'd make him share a
If the barrister defending him can earn money out of this terrible tragedy, thats all that matters, defence barristers have no morals and are parasites of the lowest order
If the barrister defending him can earn money out of this terrible tragedy, thats all that matters, defence barristers have no morals and are parasites of the lowest order
And if they can get him Legal Aid, then all the more money for the barrister, f u c k the family of the poor girl ,they're just a number. Thats they way Barristers think, just look at the barristers/ solicitors in Govt at the moment, all self indulgent pieces of 5hit, Kier Starmer tops the list.
And if they can get him Legal Aid, then all the more money for the barrister, f u c k the family of the poor girl ,they're just a number.Thats they way Barristers think, just look at the barristers/ solicitors in Govt at the moment, all self indulgen
I'd make him share a cell with a 6ft 6 bisexual Moroccan bodybuilder
The implication being : if there is a 6ft 6 bisexual Moroccan bodybuilder out there , and he has no criminal conviction , that he should be fitted up on some spurious charge in order to facilitate your request
I'd make him share a cell with a 6ft 6 bisexual Moroccan bodybuilderThe implication being : if there is a 6ft 6 bisexual Moroccan bodybuilder out there , and he has no criminal conviction , that he should be fitted up on some spurious charge in order
Being remanded and being imprisoned carry the same financial burden to the taxpayer . Less expensive to allow them their continued freedom with the possibility that they will commit further offences or abscond . If they choose to abscond it saves the cost of locking them up for years on end . The state view this as a win-win scenario .
Being remanded and being imprisoned carry the same financial burden to the taxpayer . Less expensive to allow them their continued freedom with the possibility that they will commit further offences or abscond . If they choose to abscond it saves the
Freedom is priceless, and convicted criminal must serve sentence imposed in their absence. The state could choose not to feed or cloth him or do what some councils are doing to pensioners with tangible assets ie pay their way.
Freedom is priceless, and convicted criminal must serve sentence imposed in their absence. The state could choose not to feed or cloth him or do what some councils are doing to pensioners with tangible assets ie pay their way.