May 7, 2008
The law of intended consequences?
Well known blogger Geeklawyer opens the batting on the controversy over the government’s decision on fees to barristers in criminal cases: “The government lost a case because it wouldn’t pay barristers a proper rate. No barrister would accept the defendants brief so he had to defend himself while the state had an army of lawyers. The judge said this was an abuse of process. No ….. s**t Sherlock : reverse the burden of proof deprive the accused of the means of defending himself. The governments robbery scheme seems to have been undermined by the own parsimony. Idiots.”
None so deaf as those who will not listen?…
The present government appears to have embarked on a process of ignoring advice from its own advisers. Today, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith will press ahead with plans to re-classify cannabis from Group c to Group B - despite recommendations to be published today by the government’s scientific experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, that cannabis should remain class C. In a few weeks time, the government will press ahead, Charge of The Light Brigade style, with plans to extend the terror detention without charge laws from 28-42 days - again, despite advice from law officers past and present, the DPP and others with expertise who see no need for an extension to the present law. The government may well lose.
Discussion Board and interaction: We have a new discussion board - functional and quick loading. It will take some time to build up - but if you would like to join, please register. You may upload an ‘avatar’ at 48 x 48 pixels. Instructions on the discussion board console when you register. Discussion Board
Free Weekly Newswire by email
Please register to receive the email if you would like this free summary.
Telegraph: Arrests of binge-drinking women rise by 50pc
upload an ‘avatar’ at 48 x 48 pixels. Instructions on the discussion board console when you register. 
Head of Legal writes…
DPP says that 42 day detention is not necessary