Mr Loophole

[thirdcrank]

In the personal finance section of today's Sunday Telegraph, there's a profile of Nick Freeman. Here are some excerpts which I offer without comment.

After I'd qualified, I got a job working as a prosecutor for (the police.) ... I was prosecuting a straightforward drink drive case and thought I had it in the bag ... but I lost it on a tiny point ... I realised it was an area of the law where knowing an enormous amount of detail would be a great advantage. It's an area riddled with loopholes - you just have to know where to find them. When I left the police ... I developed a speciality in road traffic cases...

Asked if he feels bad earning money by getting dangerous drivers of the hook:

I'm not letting drivers "get away with it." We have a presumption of innocence in criminal law. And if the prosecution or the police haven't done their job properly by following the correct legal legal procedures, it is their responsibility if defendants are acquited on a technicality."

And so on.

The endless supplements which pad out the Telegraph every weekend don't seem to be available online or I'd just have linked to the whole article.

[mercalia]

well thats a lawyer talking aint it, justifying making lots of dosh without a conscience. He is going straight to hell I think

[bovlomov]

He's right though, just like the CEOs of the tax avoiding corporations are right when they say that they operate within the law.

If the law is badly drafted and/or the police and CPS are inept, then that is what needs to be addressed. As with tax avoidance, motoring laws aren't badly applied by accident. It reflects the priorities of the state.

All the same, it's a grubby way to earn a living.

[thirdcrank]

I've no problem with lawyers representing their client: it's their job. In this case, it seems it was only as the result of losing a case when his client was a police force (presumably pre-CPS) that he recognised the benefits of a detailed knowledge of law and procedure and went private.

The basic idea is dead easy whichever side you are on: check the evidence in the light of the legislation carefully.

I do wonder how he's made the big money implied in the article because with one notable exception, most of the loopholes are a one-off. eg There was a lot off publicity a while ago when a speeding prosecution failed because the reply to the notice requiring the driver's ID had not been signed. The result was that the notices were printed with a warning that an unsigned reply would be treated as an offence, so anybody making now a simple error gets no leeway. IIRC, that example involved a footballer and the article from which I quoted NF admits he was lucky when he successfully defended Sir Alex Ferguson when he was accused of driving on the hard shoulder of a motorway. This type of free publicity from the media has been the key.

It would be an unwise solicitor who said anything which might be interpreted as an encouragement to lie, especially one with a big client base and a high profile. I fancy a lot of people may believe the myth that he can get anybody off and then find he cannot do so. I've not checked but I'd be surprised if he operates on a no-win, no-fee basis when defending criminal cases.

The notable exception is in advancing special reasons to avoid a totting-up ban, when the impression is that any specious twaddle may be successful.

There's a wider issue about traffic prosecutions which seem to be in a mess. I also suspect that there are plenty of D-I-Y loophole merchants and those convicted of perverting justice may only form the tip of yet another iceberg.

[reohn2]

He's right though, just like the CEOs of the tax avoiding corporations are right when they say that they operate within the law.

If the law is badly drafted and/or the police and CPS are inept, then that is what needs to be addressed. As with tax avoidance, motoring laws aren't badly applied by accident. It reflects the priorities of the state.

All the same, it's a grubby way to earn a living.

That's the problem,if there are loopholes they need closing.
The question is why are there loopholes in the first place and why aren't they being closed ?

[Tangled Metal]

Is it beyond the wit of lawmakers to craft laws without the possibility of loopholes? Say a catch-all regulation or similar?

[reohn2]

Is it beyond the wit of lawmakers to craft laws without the possibility of loopholes? Say a catch-all regulation or similar?

Only if they're determined to......

[thirdcrank]

Loophole is a meaningless expression, or at least, one with so many different meanings as to be meaningless.

There are only a few broad defences to a criminal prosecution: I didn't do what's alleged; what's alleged doesn't amount to an offence; the evidence was wrongly obtained; there was a procedural irregularity. Establishment of the CPS seems to have highlighted the point that the earlier system with police officers conducting many prosecutions for traffic offences could not continue just be replacing them with solicitors but no decisive action was taken to introduce an alternative. Fixed penalties were introduced for the people who wanted a quick resolution but the old system remains for anybody else and the CPS decided that they were not interested in a strong line on traffic offences. Greater priority being given to other types of offence meant that traffic enforcement bore the brunt.

The European model seems to achieve better cycling conditions, but it's a no-no here.

[[XAP]Bob]

Is it beyond the wit of lawmakers to craft laws without the possibility of loopholes? Say a catch-all regulation or similar?

I'm often surprised that breathing isn't beyond the wit of those who make laws.
I'm sure they are paid by the word.

[merseymouth]

Hello there, Be very careful what you say or write about the infamous Man of Law?
He has applied for and been granted a "Trade Mark" designation on his nickname, so he may be as litigious as the famous fast food chain with the "Golden Arches"! Caveat. MM

[thirdcrank]

... I'm often surprised that breathing isn't beyond the wit of those who make laws.
I'm sure they are paid by the word.

AFAIK, all learned friends used to be paid on that basis which is why they said everything at least twice: last will and testament; heirs and assigns and so many more examples.

[[XAP]Bob]

I should have said ‘still’

[thirdcrank]

By coincidence, the next field day for our learned friends has been announced today in the form of a streamlining of the breath-testing procedure which is being spun as cutting all the ritual at the police station with a definitive roadside breath test.

Anybody like to define the police's new power eg totally random testing or similar to now? If random, by what definition? What provision should be made for people claiming to be incapable of blowing? Etc.

Part of the rationale here is said to be reducing the possibility of somebody sobering up a bit by the time they get back to the police station, but I'm not convinced that happens much and in any case, alcohol continues to be absorbed from the gut for some time after somebody stops drinking.

It's just over 50 years since breath-testing was introduced and the interpretation of just about every word has been the subject of appeals. The original glass tubes have long been replaced by electronic screening gadgets and the expensive, time consuming taking of blood samples for analysis has largely been scrapped with the introduction of the definitive machines at police stations.

Sorry for the Daily Mail link. The rehashed media release it's based on seems to be exclusive to all newspapers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l?ITO=1490

[Cyril Haearn]

Maybe they could lurk in the hedges near pub car parks

[[XAP]Bob]

Maybe they could lurk in the hedges near pub car parks

There aren’t enough police officer to have any of them waiting anywhere.

Maybe we need electronic ignition control, with a smart card license and in built breath analyser.