Barristers and solicitors not only have a professional duty to represent those accused of crime, but many would say a moral duty too, however abhorrent those crimes may be.
I don’t seem to remember anyone protesting about the fees paid to those representing Colin Stagg, or Stefan Kizko
Both were accused of dreadful crimes. Stage of the knife murder of Rachel Nickell in front of her own small child, and Kizko of the murder of a little girl called Lesley Moleseed. (He had confessed in interview)
Both were acquitted, and in both cases, someone else subsequently convicted of the murder.
Thats why we do this job.
Ann Widdecombe still thinks we get to charge our own fees. It’s the degree of ignorance even at her level which is almost as revolting as the bigotry these people display
The Daily Mail online is outraged at the £350,000 in legal aid given toMick and Mairead Philpott.Of course, this is not entirely correct. The Philpotts were not “given” £350,000 like some sort of lottery win. What they were given was a fair trial. What we, the public, got for that expense were safe convictions. Their victims, their children, got justice.
The outrage is sparked by the heinous nature of their crime. They were responsible for killing six children, their own children. Their notoriety was heightened by their lifestyle which was somewhat unconvential. And involved extensive reliance on benefits.
Imagine for a moment that they were innocent. That they had not committed this terrible crime. That they were innocent parents wrongly accused of murdering their own children. As they were at the outset of the trial. It was a trial process that determined they were responsible and needed…
View original post 1,083 more words