topic Re: He should be Paid Back. in The Round Table

He should be Paid Back.

tommy.irene — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 05:49:20 GMT

Pay back my £130,000 legal bill, says Deputy Speaker after being cleared of **bleep** as he blasts 'callous witch-hunt' and admits he contemplated suicide

Former Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans wants prosecution to pay
Since he was cleared of all charges he says 'time to stop the witch hunts'
He now wants to campaign for a time limit on historic allegations
Also wants a ban on Crown Prosecution Service in UK pursuing cases unless there's a greater chance of a guilty verdict

Re: He should be Paid Back.

al**bear — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 06:34:10 GMT

He should be happy he got away with it

Re: He should be Paid Back.

paulwyb123 — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 07:14:58 GMT

So he is down £130,000 and found not guilty of **bleep** and sexual assault

and his reputation is ruined forever and he should be happy?

Can you please explain that?

Re: He should be Paid Back.

bankhaunter — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 07:54:18 GMT

I wouldn't agree about historic accusations but he certainly has a point about his costs.

Re: He should be Paid Back.

al**bear — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 08:39:54 GMT

I still say, If he had been accused of the same things against females, he would have been found guilty

Re: He should be Paid Back.

paulwyb123 — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:51:56 GMT

Based on what?

Re: He should be Paid Back.

cee-dee — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:09:53 GMT

I think juries are becoming aware of the situation where the "evidence" is purely accusatory without anything else to back it up.

The "balance of probabilities" doesn't figure in criminal cases and although you may "think" one of these high-flying defendents is "probably" guilty of something, there's absolutely no evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

What someone says isn't evidence, it's only a pointer to real evidence which not only proves what they say is true, it also proves the guilt of the accused. If there's no other evidence then it's high time the CPS stopped wasting Public Money on such cases which are doomed to fail.

If we go down the road of just accepting that what an accuser says is true and accept that it "proves" the guilt of the defendent, there's no real hope for justice.

Re: He should be Paid Back.

tommy.irene — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:30:40 GMT

£130,000 is a lot of money to pay out and then not get anything back... I hope he wins his case and gets the money. Going back around 50 years ago shouldnt be allowed either..

Re: He should be Paid Back.

saasher2012 — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:59:06 GMT

I hope that isn't the case, the accused in this & other high profile cases were found not guilty either by lack of evidence or other means. & the vast majority of the accusers were in fact women!.
IMO , it matters not which sex, both should carry the full force of punishment if proven guilty, sex crimes against male & female are equally disgusting & should not be allowed to go unpunished.

Re: He should be Paid Back.

lhasa.two — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 14:18:48 GMT

Evans could take the view that his money paid for the best defense which as a result the jury came back with a not guilty verdict. Had he had a lesser defense maybe that would not have been the result... I know losing his savings must be hard but better that and be a free man than having to spend time in prison (possibly). At least he's cleared his name. He may have lost his job as deputy speaker but he's still an MP with an income. Many people lose the roof over their heads - and more - defending themselves.

I don't think he should be reimbursed his costs, that would open the flood gates for everyone else who had a "not guilty" verdict. It's our taxes that support the legal aid process and I don't want my money going back to people who can afford to pay for their own defense. Legal aid is there to represent people who can't pay and so it should be.

Like many people who have experienced difficulties in their lives he needs to take time to recover and put it behind him and think about his future. He could stop drinking for a start as that seems to be his achilles heel.

Re: He should be Paid Back.

tommy.irene — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:00:18 GMT

@lhasa.one wrote:
Evans could take the view that his money paid for the best defense which as a result the jury came back with a not guilty verdict. Had he had a lesser defense maybe that would not have been the result... I know losing his savings must be hard but better that and be a free man than having to spend time in prison (possibly). At least he's cleared his name. He may have lost his job as deputy speaker but he's still an MP with an income. Many people lose the roof over their heads - and more - defending themselves.

I don't think he should be reimbursed his costs, that would open the flood gates for everyone else who had a "not guilty" verdict. It's our taxes that support the legal aid process and I don't want my money going back to people who can afford to pay for their own defense. Legal aid is there to represent people who can't pay and so it should be.

I agree ..but if your found not guilty you should get back you legal fee,s..

Re: He should be Paid Back.

aernethril — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 19:04:23 GMT

The reason he was faced with having to incur those costs was because the CPS used a top barrister to attempt to win and he could not rely on whatever (and inevitably lesser) representation that would have been provided if he'd used the legal aid service he could have used.

The other aspect of this trial which is really quite disturbing is that only 2 of those witnesses came forward to make a complaint. The others were identified and approached by the police to be asked to give 'evidence' against him.

Surely, if the complaints of the original two were sound and sufficient, then the charges could have stood with them alone, without the police having to go rustling up more people to add to the complaint. It's like something out of a Dickens novel.

The police have messed up with so many cases in leading the evidence and statements and it's really now long overdue that their role in attempting to secure a conviction at any cost has to be reviewed.

Whilst no-one would be happy to think of an abuser or criminal going free, the sad fact is that these high profile cases are doing scant good to help with all the possibly thousands of cases where the victims remain too scared to come forward.

Re: He should be Paid Back.

cee-dee — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 19:17:29 GMT

You're right, it's bound to put off some people from complaining.

What should come over loud and clear is to complain at the time, not years later.

Re: He should be Paid Back.

joe_bloggs* — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 21:58:00 GMT

As someone commented in the Guardian:

The Tories have slashed legal aid and passed a law that denies an acquitted defendant his costs... A tax on innocence... Now the sheep bleat because one of their own has lost his life savings.... Evans chaired the debate on the legal aid reforms... You couldn't make it up... We have a bunch of venal shysters running this country who only give a damn when their laws impinge on them....

Re: He should be Paid Back.

i-am-legion-too — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 23:19:29 GMT

What gross hypocrisy from a man who has never spoken out against the policies of his own party on the subject, when amongst other sweeping changes, they passed this ammendment to the 1985 Legal Aid Act.

... until now of course.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/schedule/7/enacted

Except in very few circumstances, this stopped defence costs being refunded to anyone not legally aided, Nigel Evans' case is certainly not one of those exceptions.

Sweet irony that Evans was the chair when this was being debated in the Commons in 2011.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110629/debtext/110629-0002.htm

Regardless of political beliefs, I don't think many could argue that the changes in legislation have left the vast majority who, guilty or innocent, find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to finance a defence in a criminal trial in a poorer position. Whether complainant or defendant, the same(if not more so) applies in civil cases.

The only ones unaffected are the very rich to whom the money doesn't matter. The very poor are still eligible to free representation, but their choice of counsel has been severely restricted.

Afaics, the rest of us only have 3 choices.

1. Find the money from somewhere and pay for the team we can afford.

2. Represent ourselves(something Ken Clarke said should be encouraged in 2012).

3. Cut out all costs by pleading guilty at earliest opportunity!

In reply to, Should he be paid back his £130k?

Unless the same is applied after every not guilty verdict, then no ***bleep*** way!

Re: He should be Paid Back.

al**bear — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 05:41:38 GMT

@paulwyb123 wrote:

Based on what?

The evidence against Him

(not including the **bleep** charge though)

Re: He should be Paid Back.

paulwyb123 — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 06:24:47 GMT

What evidence?

If it was credible he would have been found guilty..

Just being accused doesn't make someone guilty it just makes them

accused

Re: He should be Paid Back.

lhasa.two — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:03:13 GMT

Excellent post legion!

I was only thinking along similar lines this morning after hearing his pleas yet again on the morning news.

One could also add that he, like many others - in both governments - are nowhere to be seen standing up for the rights of all those who lost money in the last five years who would, no doubt, be delighted to be reimbursed for their losses in their innocence...

This government has been accused of not being in "touch" with ordinary people, so this is his chance to experience that from a first hand perspective.

Re: He should be Paid Back.

upthecreekyetagain — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 03:07:48 GMT

@cee-dee wrote:
I think juries are becoming aware of the situation where the "evidence" is purely accusatory without anything else to back it up.

The "balance of probabilities" doesn't figure in criminal cases and although you may "think" one of these high-flying defendents is "probably" guilty of something, there's absolutely no evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

What someone says isn't evidence, it's only a pointer to real evidence which not only proves what they say is true, it also proves the guilt of the accused. If there's no other evidence then it's high time the CPS stopped wasting Public Money on such cases which are doomed to fail.

If we go down the road of just accepting that what an accuser says is true and accept that it "proves" the guilt of the defendent, there's no real hope for justice.

Before the advent of in car video successful prosecutions based on witness testimony alone was a daily occurrence in cases of careless and dangerous driving. Still fairly common today.

Re: He should be Paid Back.

al**bear — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 04:54:38 GMT

@paulwyb123 wrote:
What evidence?
If it was credible he would have been found guilty..
Just being accused doesn't make someone guilty it just makes them
accused

The evidence put forward by Officials and witnesses from inside the House of Commons, these were the People who reported Him to the Police