@JWhohe several reasons to use a phone, inc. as another screen, to search something relevant or as a calculator. Can’t see how it can be policed. If an advocates caught using it for inappropriate reasons (e.g. personal matters) then surely a matter for their regulator not the court..
@lostinallypally@Barristerblog probably because they only regulate lawyers and what they may charge, not private individuals and what they may raise by way of crowdfunding, which (to stop this) would need to be regulated at a legislative level.
@ED_LeveyKC I’m sorry but they very likely would have won (at least at first instance). The fact that costs are limited on the small claims track, and that your second point had some merit, likely made it not worth fighting, but doesn’t mean you would‘ve won
@nickingib@Joanna__Hardy they act for the state, and as long as there is a state, they are always, and will always be, available. Defence barristers, on the other hand, are under threat now.
@JJenkinsSJB q: Though case fanciful from the start, do you try and make some offer of compensation or at least an offer for the claim to be withdrawn and the parties to bear their own costs? As once claim is began and costs accrue LIP’s can feel compelled to win at trial
@ContrarianJolly@CliveWismayer@BarristerSecret @SE25A and is clearly how they wish to view it themselves, as ofc it wouldn’t be in their interests to publicly admit any wider circumstances are contemplated.
@ContrarianJolly@CliveWismayer@BarristerSecret @SE25A In the first part they are simply reproducing what it says in the Act. They then add their own narrative when saying ‘it’s intended to protect people such as firefighters’. This selective example of emergency services prejudices peoples minds as to what the Act contemplates
@CliveWismayer@BarristerSecret @SE25A Firstly this is simply the CPS’ interpretation of the law on criminal damage. Secondly, even on their interpretation it explicitly allows a defence if the perpetrators genuinely believe the owner would consent to the damage if they knew of it and it’s circumstance.
@AdamWagner1 is making broad brush findings of fact in a single statement like that even legit? And how can it be to the criminal standard (i.e. sure) if littered with words such as ‘likely’?