Kopek Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Prejudice aside, it will be nice to get this one over before the next 'Big Name' Court case begins? I would agree, Tb has been abandoned by the 'Established Society' to pander to someone. How will the Anonymous witness thing work? By closed video link? Hope its not for the next case, that could stink a bit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Can I just remind all posters that unless something has changed which the press have not reported, Mrs Baines and Jenny Holt are still to stand trial, one at least having been reported as commencing 10 January. Don't speculate and post anything that may prejudice a fair trial fair trial?? we're still on the isle of man remember..... where if you are high enough up your partner can take the blame for some of your actions..... and if you can embarrass those high up enough, NO trial at all. ( not in the public interest etc etc ) the flip side must be that having unprosecuted ( so not yet officially 'criminals'?? ) in possitions of authority IS in the public interest?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Prejudice aside, it will be nice to get this one over before the next 'Big Name' Court case begins? I would agree, Tb has been abandoned by the 'Established Society' to pander to someone. How will the Anonymous witness thing work? By closed video link? Hope its not for the next case, that could stink a bit! the anonymous witness 'maybe' a family mamber that has done a deal and sold out?? or Sooty has an opening in his panto schedule?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 NO trial at all. ( not in the public interest etc etc ) The one I keep coming across these days from advocates is 'proportionality'. It is about as nebulus a word as you will get but sounds good and the judges love it for getting the big boys off the hook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 NO trial at all. ( not in the public interest etc etc ) The one I keep coming across these days from advocates is 'proportionality'. It is about as nebulus a word as you will get but sounds good and the judges love it for getting the big boys off the hook. - advocates + a chap I met down the pub who used to do renovations at some advocates' offices Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 PMSL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweek Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Defendants change their pleas "On the eve of his trial, former business tycoon Trevor Baines has admitted stealing more than £900,000. The 71-year-old, of Woodbourne Road in Douglas. had initially denied taking £925,000 while his wife Wendy denied obtaining £45,000 by deception. Both have now pleaded guilty to the charges." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I wonder how much that late plea change will cost the tax payer...hopefully no sentencing discount because of it and that any sentence runs consecutively Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweek Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) I wonder how much that late plea change will cost the tax payer...hopefully no sentencing discount because of it and that any sentence runs consecutively Yes...just think how much it would save the taxpayer if people didn't get a chance to fight their case and just all admitted guilt, regardless. In fact why bother with courts at all, surely a couple of coppers could decide the outcome. Derrrrrr... Edited January 11, 2011 by Tweek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I wonder how much that late plea change will cost the tax payer...hopefully no sentencing discount because of it and that any sentence runs consecutively Yes...just think how much it would save the taxpayer if people didn't get a chance to fight their case and just all admitted guilt, regardless. In fact why bother with courts at all, surely a couple of coppers could decide the outcome. Derrrrrr... The defendant is, of course, entitled to a plea change but the difference is £25K and on the eve of the trial. On that basis I would have thought that the prosecution would have a strong case for costs in the event of a successful conviction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Defendants change their pleas "On the eve of his trial, former business tycoon Trevor Baines has admitted stealing more than £900,000. The 71-year-old, of Woodbourne Road in Douglas. had initially denied taking £925,000 while his wife Wendy denied obtaining £45,000 by deception. Both have now pleaded guilty to the charges." Is this in addition to the £700k it was reported he admitted to December? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweek Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I wonder how much that late plea change will cost the tax payer...hopefully no sentencing discount because of it and that any sentence runs consecutively Yes...just think how much it would save the taxpayer if people didn't get a chance to fight their case and just all admitted guilt, regardless. In fact why bother with courts at all, surely a couple of coppers could decide the outcome. Derrrrrr... The defendant is, of course, entitled to a plea change but the difference is £25K and on the eve of the trial. On that basis I would have thought that the prosecution would have a strong case for costs in the event of a successful conviction. The difference between a guilt or innocence plea can be half a sentence. Those pleading their innocence rarely get paroled early. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I wonder how much that late plea change will cost the tax payer...hopefully no sentencing discount because of it and that any sentence runs consecutively Yes...just think how much it would save the taxpayer if people didn't get a chance to fight their case and just all admitted guilt, regardless. In fact why bother with courts at all, surely a couple of coppers could decide the outcome. Derrrrrr... A late guilty plea - which often arises when faced with very strong / overwhelming evidence which Defendants have hitherto refused to face up to - is nothing to be encouraged and sentencing practice stresses that early guilty pleas are those which attract discount. If and when there is strong / overwhelming evidence, why give a sentencing discount on a late guilty plea when prosecution, defence and Court have all prepared at public expense....? There's a difference between a) providing public funding to defend those accused of serious crimes as an important principle of justice c.f. b) ensuring that those provided with such funding aren't encourage to take the piss by defending to the door of the Court and then caving in when finally facing up to the reality. You seem to confuse the two different principles to suggest that I want all to plead guilty which shows your own lack of understanding; perhaps you ought to read your newspapers more carefully before pronouncing on things. Alternatively, see if you can understand paragraphs 31 to 40 of the attached judgment http://www.judgments.im/content/J1024.htm which sets out the point I was making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In fact . . . Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Guilty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) no specific Ms Holt threads allowed it would seem?? anyway, bit of a poor defense really so maybe she was only as good as she made out? the young lawyer, inexperienced sympathy line seems to be getting played a lot, but you don't study and qualify and spend a few years on the job training to not know what you are doing. as bainsy seems to have needed 400k upfront for lawyers fees it would seem remiss to leave it to someone who wasn't upto the job? how much does a suitable lawyer cost from them then? to be fair she was probably swept along into at best a grey area for her by someone with a silver tongue ( or maybe she thought she was safe cos of who was who ? ), or maybe those higher up realised it was going tits up and left her dangling. do her bosses have to give back the stolen money they were paid with?? that would leave a nasty taste. Edited January 25, 2011 by WTF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.