WTF Lawyers

Sorry, I could not think of any other thread title, but check out this website: http://www.motoroffence.co.uk/
These are lawyers who specialize in getting motorists reduced sentences / no sentence for motoring offences, including drink / drug drive and repeat offenders. Why are they allowed to do this????

immoral ≠ illegal

Essentially just criminal defence lawyers specialising in driving crimes?
Immoral, yes
Irregular, no

"Hello, is that the criminal deafness lawyers?"
"Hello? Hello? Is anyone there?"
"I'll email."

Fuck

Could bombard them with phone calls / emails.... http://www.motoroffence.co.uk/contact-us

'Hello, I have been involved in a collision, a minicab has hit me whilst turning left - he was in the right hane lane on Notting Hill Gate travelling Westbound but wanted to turn left to go towards South Kensington and didn't indicate. He just barged into me. Please could you get me compensation for this motoring offence.'

'Oh, by the way, I was on a bicycle....'

CUNTS

"We keep drivers on the road. Whether you are looking for a driving “loophole” out of the mess you are in or you simply want us to assist in limiting the damage you think is coming your way"

Seriously, that's their opening line. Utter utter fucknuckles.

"Our values are different from most motoring solicitors.'

As in, they have no values.

In a democracy, properly so-called, no one should be punished by the state without the due process of the law. The state must prove its case against the individual. The individual is entitled to question the case put by the state, in terms of both proof of fact and application by law.

If you don't like these principles, there are many more enlightened countries where you can go where the rule of law is not respected.

Good luck there.

^ agreed Cliveo, but there is a big difference in offering legal services which (rightly) test the robustness of our laws, and this particular firm which almost implies that any offence can defended, and by default, that they're not serious offences. If anything the company is just fishing for business that in some cases, it's already clear that their client will lose.

Run them over.. then have them defend you.

I so smart.

Other than murder, all crimes are based on statute. Loopholes or technicalities only exist because of poor drafting of statutes. If a technicality exists, corrrect the statute.

That's the democratic way.

I understand, and to a large extent agree, that the solution is improving statute.

That is not to alter the fact that in our society there is a hierarchy of jobs -

Very valuable - eg the people who staff our hospitals and teach our kids

'Normal' - eg people who sweep the streets and man our shops.

Parasitic scum - eg lawyers and accountants whose job is to find loopholes, who make money by defying the will of the people by exercising their right to spend their time thinking about the letter of the law and not the spirit. When such lawyers and accountants are dealing with commercial matters / contracts then there is an argument that they are not doing much harm, but when they are fucking with the spirit of criminal law and taxation it is fucking immoral, IMHO.

It is sometimes said that our views on taxation are a mirror to the face of hypocracy.

You "must" pay your taxes, but I "should" pay my taxes. Whether these be based on millions in an offshore trust, or a bit of Ebay trading, it is always easier to see the the fault in fellow citizen's fiscal morals, than in our own skewed thinking.

Taxation is an intrusion of the state, into the earnings of its citizens. There may be a greater good in the c.£7 billion that the Iraq/Afghanistan adventures have cost this nation, and that has been collected from citizens, but I am not convinced that there is a moral angle to taxation.

Let the law be clear, let people pay what they are due to pay, but in the words of the the leading tax case

*Every man is entitled if he can to arrange his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure that result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax” *(IRC v Duke of Westminster [ 1936 ] AC1 (HL)).

(Oh, and regretfully, I am not a lawyer, but maybe a little mildewed around the edges)

vad säger lagen, och vad säger moralen?

vad säger lagen, och vad säger moralen?

Damn, where's my IKEA catalogue when I need it?

Other than murder, all crimes are based on statute. Loopholes or technicalities only exist because of poor drafting of statutes. If a technicality exists, corrrect the statute.

That's the democratic way.

Not quite true - there are other common law crimes which exist. Kidnap, for example.

I agree with the fundamental premise of your point though. Everyone is entitled to be tried in accordance with the law, not 'the will of the people'. Punishing people based on the 'will of the people' rather than universally-applicable laws is just mob justice with a sugar coating. If people are being acquitted when they should be convicted then it represents a problem with the law in question, not the principle that everyone is entitled to a fair trial.

Disclaimer: I'm a lawyer. Although I don't practise criminal law.

It is fairer because it is predictable rather than arbitrary. The essense of criminal law is the people must be able to determine in advance whether they are allowed to behave in a particular way or not. As soon as you introduce an arbitrary element, you run the risk of abuse. All very well to say that the "intent" was this or that but if the government has "intent" they should and must express it.

To do otherwise puts us into the position of a dictatorship where we are ruled by the whim of those enforcing the law. These may be benevolent but, on the basis that power corrupts, such benevolence is not likely to last for long.

Disclaimer: I'm a lawyer. Although I don't practise criminal law.

Gang up!!! Get him!!!

Disclaimer: My wife is a lawyer.

Can anyone explain a moral or philosophical reason why it is 'fairer' that the law is applied to the letter and not the spirit?

Interpretation of the statutes is often not clear at all. For example, this is something along the lines of what I suspect you'd like to see. There is lots of relevant stuff linked from there that will keep you busy for a while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule_(law)

The words from that IRC v Duke of Westminster case that Bernie cites is a good principle in my view. And I also agree with cliveo that predictability is what makes for good law.

That's why I am increasingly frustrated by legislation that hands discretion over to the executive - a perhaps trivial example from my own specialist area is where a charity is sending money to an overseas organisation to be used for some worthwhile project, and the rules used to say that this counted as charitable expenditure (notwithstanding the fact that the overseas NGO is not recognised as a charity under English law) provided that the trustees have taken such steps as are reasonable to ensure that the money is applied for purposes which, if they were carried out here, would be recognised as charitable at law. There are perfectly good tried and tested ways of determining what "reasonable" means, but oh no, the law's now changed so that it requires trustees to take such steps as HMRC considers reasonable.

(and yes, another lawyer here...)

The correct response to the Starbucks tax scam is to tax transactions between different parts of a business, when that money goes offshore.
It is not to say "we will charge you whatever the fuck we like"

Starbucks, and indeed any business has a right to expect that its tax liabilities will be predictable and a legal duty to minimise those liabilities for its shareholders.

but I am not convinced that there is a moral angle to taxation.
Not wishing to conflate morality with necssity, but patronage from the wealthy or private enterprise will not pay for the infrastructure of society.

But the duties of company directors are now slightly more subtle - apart from having to consider the longer-term reputational effects of tax dodging, they have to have regard to (among other things):

the interests of the company's employees,

the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others, and

the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment.

pie in the sky, perhaps...

It is fairer because it is predictable rather than arbitrary. The essense of criminal law is the people must be able to determine in advance whether they are allowed to behave in a particular way or not. As soon as you introduce an arbitrary element, you run the risk of abuse. All very well to say that the "intent" was this or that but if the government has "intent" they should and must express it.

To do otherwise puts us into the position of a dictatorship where we are ruled by the whim of those enforcing the law. These may be benevolent but, on the basis that power corrupts, such benevolence is not likely to last for long.

Fair enough, and we want to avoid arbitrariness, but couldn't we introduce something to avoid loopholes which says effectively "Does the drafting or implementation of the law make clear its intent to a competent, impartial person"?

So let's take as an example the parking loophole which allowed people to get off fines on the basis that the yellow lines weren't terminated in a T-shape. Does the fact that the line isn't terminated in a "T" indicate to a competent, impartial person that it is not intended to restrict parking? Of course not, therefore the loophole should not be available.

Of course this just transfers the arbitrariness problem to the definitions of "competent" and "impartial", but it might solve some problems.

So let's take as an example the parking loophole which allowed people to get off fines on the basis that the yellow lines weren't terminated in a T-shape. Does the fact that the line isn't terminated in a "T" indicate to a competent, impartial person that it is not intended to restrict parking? Of course not, therefore the loophole should not be available.

Why's that a 'loophole'? The law said that a fine would be paid if you parked on a yellow line, and defined how the yellow line had to be painted. If it wasn't painted properly, there was no fine. That's the problem with anti-loophole general provision clauses - you end up having to define 'loophole'. And one man's loophole is another man's integral part of the law, and so you end up with the uncertainties and ambiguities which the law is supposed to avoid, so that everyone can know what is lawful and what is not.

The answer is better drafted legislation, and less of it. Unfortunately most legislation these days (no doubt due to the vast volume of it) is poorly conceived, poorly drafted and ineptly implemented.

One example which springs to mind is the RTE provisions of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, introduced in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. In the pre-2002 Act consultation, the government was told that they'd never be able to implement those provisions because they hadn't thought them through properly. They enacted them anyway. 8 years later they had a further consultation about repealing those provisions (which they'd never brought into force) because, lo and behold, it was going to be rather difficult to implement them. They then had the temerity to complain about the low response rate, having ignored the consultees' responses the first time round. Stuff like this reflects the poor quality of modern legislation, not the need for a sticking-plaster 'spirit of the law' rule which attempts to make good poor drafting.