| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? 09:10 - Jan 2 with 396 views | AnotherJohn |
The High Court has ordered compensation for an Islamist double-killer who was kept apart from the general prison population for his own safety but claims this damaged his mental health. His case depended on ECHR article 8. The prisoner was awarded £7.5K but the taxpayer also paid legal costs of £234K. Looks crazy to me.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/crim
Edit. Re-phased so clear that legal costs were additional to the £7.5K. [Post edited 2 Jan 11:09]
|  | | |  |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 10:17 - Jan 2 with 369 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
Sums up what has happened to the legal system, lawyers interpreting law to bring cases which are beyond reason and they pick up £234,000 in fees! Judges are falling over backwards to allow this nonsense rather than booting out such cases and reprimanding those who bring them to court. |  |
| |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 10:50 - Jan 2 with 350 views | Boundy |
Starmer an ex lawyer and head of the CPS , no link there I'm sure .Only in, as Katie Hopkins would say Batsh*t Crazy Britian. | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 11:15 - Jan 2 with 327 views | max936 |
Thats down to that feckless clown Lamy apparently. |  |
| |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 13:48 - Jan 2 with 268 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 10:17 - Jan 2 by JACKMANANDBOY |
Sums up what has happened to the legal system, lawyers interpreting law to bring cases which are beyond reason and they pick up £234,000 in fees! Judges are falling over backwards to allow this nonsense rather than booting out such cases and reprimanding those who bring them to court. |
It would save a lot of money if terrorist murders were just executed just like in the countries they come from. | |
| |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 19:26 - Jan 2 with 199 views | majorraglan |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 11:15 - Jan 2 by max936 |
Thats down to that feckless clown Lamy apparently. |
That depends on what you mean by it’s down to Lammy.
Lammy signed the cheque but I suspect that’s because he’s picked up a “hospital pass”and has had no choice other than to pay up. There’s a lot more to this story than what’s been said in the newspaper articles.
The act subject to the Court hearing took place between 13.4.22 and the date the case was heard in the High Court which was on the 12th and 13th of July 2023, however some of the evidence and testimony goes back as far as 2020. The judgement from the High Court Judge was issued in September 2024, some 14 months after the case was heard and it was reported on at the time. Lammy was only appointed to his current role as Secretary of State for Justice in September 2025 some 12 months after the judgement was issued, so what has happened in that time? I suspect Lammy has found himself in the unenviable position of having to deal with someone else’s mess. Some of the politicians who were in power when all this was happening back in 2023 are now pointing the finger, when in fact it happened on their watch.
Looking at things in a chronological order, the acts took place under the previous government. The litigation also took place under the previous government, however the verdict was delivered under the current government and Lammy who is know representing the current government has settled the case.
What could Lammy have done differently other than settle the case? Could he have appealed, possibly but I’d have thought that had been looked at and a decision was made to pay up based on the chance (or lack of ) of winning a possible appeal. The honest answer is I’m not sure he had any choice other than to settle as failure to have resolved the case could either have seen a further judgement against the government, bigger fines, more costs etc and even Contempt of Court proceedings which ultimately could lead to imprisonment. It would appear the payout is inline with previous policies and precedents.
What about the previous government’s role in all this? I don’t blame the last government for fighting this in Court (and thereby incurring huge expenditure) because this guy Awale is a piece of scum and must be detained in a manner which keeps the public and prison staff safe - if that means being confined to his cell so be it. The case had to be contested, but at what point do you draw the line if you’ve got no chance of winning? Some Human Rights should be not negotiable, but others should be proportionate and be dependent on one’s behaviour. If you can’t behave then you don’t have a Right to a Private Life it’s as simple as that.
Robert Jenrick has been quite vocal on this and about the EHCR in general and some of the points he makes are valid, but why didn’t he and his party take steps to change the laws to stop this happening when this case was kicking off in 2022 and 2023? By then they’d been power 12 years and this wasn’t the first time we’d had issues with the ECHR. It’s easy to throw mud now, but he and his party had plenty of time to make changes and they didn’t. Enough said.
It galls me that we’ve paid out £7.5k to this monster and £240k to his barristers and solicitors, it’s obscene. Awale used Birnberg Pierce a company of highly reputable solicitors, it’s alumni includes non other than Gareth Pierce who was one of the most highly regarded solicitors and of her generation. Legal aid needs looking at too.
In answer to the original question posed by AJ, I think the answer is yes. It goes without saying changes need to be made to the ECHR and hopefully those changes will start to happen and soon.
I’m no fan of Lammy and I’d rather see him moved on from government, but I don’t think the blame for this can be laid fairly and squarely on his shoulders, there are others who should also be held to account.
[Post edited 2 Jan 23:22]
| | | |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 19:43 - Jan 2 with 173 views | Gwyn737 |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 19:26 - Jan 2 by majorraglan |
That depends on what you mean by it’s down to Lammy.
Lammy signed the cheque but I suspect that’s because he’s picked up a “hospital pass”and has had no choice other than to pay up. There’s a lot more to this story than what’s been said in the newspaper articles.
The act subject to the Court hearing took place between 13.4.22 and the date the case was heard in the High Court which was on the 12th and 13th of July 2023, however some of the evidence and testimony goes back as far as 2020. The judgement from the High Court Judge was issued in September 2024, some 14 months after the case was heard and it was reported on at the time. Lammy was only appointed to his current role as Secretary of State for Justice in September 2025 some 12 months after the judgement was issued, so what has happened in that time? I suspect Lammy has found himself in the unenviable position of having to deal with someone else’s mess. Some of the politicians who were in power when all this was happening back in 2023 are now pointing the finger, when in fact it happened on their watch.
Looking at things in a chronological order, the acts took place under the previous government. The litigation also took place under the previous government, however the verdict was delivered under the current government and Lammy who is know representing the current government has settled the case.
What could Lammy have done differently other than settle the case? Could he have appealed, possibly but I’d have thought that had been looked at and a decision was made to pay up based on the chance (or lack of ) of winning a possible appeal. The honest answer is I’m not sure he had any choice other than to settle as failure to have resolved the case could either have seen a further judgement against the government, bigger fines, more costs etc and even Contempt of Court proceedings which ultimately could lead to imprisonment. It would appear the payout is inline with previous policies and precedents.
What about the previous government’s role in all this? I don’t blame the last government for fighting this in Court (and thereby incurring huge expenditure) because this guy Awale is a piece of scum and must be detained in a manner which keeps the public and prison staff safe - if that means being confined to his cell so be it. The case had to be contested, but at what point do you draw the line if you’ve got no chance of winning? Some Human Rights should be not negotiable, but others should be proportionate and be dependent on one’s behaviour. If you can’t behave then you don’t have a Right to a Private Life it’s as simple as that.
Robert Jenrick has been quite vocal on this and about the EHCR in general and some of the points he makes are valid, but why didn’t he and his party take steps to change the laws to stop this happening when this case was kicking off in 2022 and 2023? By then they’d been power 12 years and this wasn’t the first time we’d had issues with the ECHR. It’s easy to throw mud now, but he and his party had plenty of time to make changes and they didn’t. Enough said.
It galls me that we’ve paid out £7.5k to this monster and £240k to his barristers and solicitors, it’s obscene. Awale used Birnberg Pierce a company of highly reputable solicitors, it’s alumni includes non other than Gareth Pierce who was one of the most highly regarded solicitors and of her generation. Legal aid needs looking at too.
In answer to the original question posed by AJ, I think the answer is yes. It goes without saying changes need to be made to the ECHR and hopefully those changes will start to happen and soon.
I’m no fan of Lammy and I’d rather see him moved on from government, but I don’t think the blame for this can be laid fairly and squarely on his shoulders, there are others who should also be held to account.
[Post edited 2 Jan 23:22]
|
Snowy down with me today. They didn’t grit my road.
I bet it was Lammy or Starmer. | | | |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 21:15 - Jan 2 with 137 views | max936 |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 19:26 - Jan 2 by majorraglan |
That depends on what you mean by it’s down to Lammy.
Lammy signed the cheque but I suspect that’s because he’s picked up a “hospital pass”and has had no choice other than to pay up. There’s a lot more to this story than what’s been said in the newspaper articles.
The act subject to the Court hearing took place between 13.4.22 and the date the case was heard in the High Court which was on the 12th and 13th of July 2023, however some of the evidence and testimony goes back as far as 2020. The judgement from the High Court Judge was issued in September 2024, some 14 months after the case was heard and it was reported on at the time. Lammy was only appointed to his current role as Secretary of State for Justice in September 2025 some 12 months after the judgement was issued, so what has happened in that time? I suspect Lammy has found himself in the unenviable position of having to deal with someone else’s mess. Some of the politicians who were in power when all this was happening back in 2023 are now pointing the finger, when in fact it happened on their watch.
Looking at things in a chronological order, the acts took place under the previous government. The litigation also took place under the previous government, however the verdict was delivered under the current government and Lammy who is know representing the current government has settled the case.
What could Lammy have done differently other than settle the case? Could he have appealed, possibly but I’d have thought that had been looked at and a decision was made to pay up based on the chance (or lack of ) of winning a possible appeal. The honest answer is I’m not sure he had any choice other than to settle as failure to have resolved the case could either have seen a further judgement against the government, bigger fines, more costs etc and even Contempt of Court proceedings which ultimately could lead to imprisonment. It would appear the payout is inline with previous policies and precedents.
What about the previous government’s role in all this? I don’t blame the last government for fighting this in Court (and thereby incurring huge expenditure) because this guy Awale is a piece of scum and must be detained in a manner which keeps the public and prison staff safe - if that means being confined to his cell so be it. The case had to be contested, but at what point do you draw the line if you’ve got no chance of winning? Some Human Rights should be not negotiable, but others should be proportionate and be dependent on one’s behaviour. If you can’t behave then you don’t have a Right to a Private Life it’s as simple as that.
Robert Jenrick has been quite vocal on this and about the EHCR in general and some of the points he makes are valid, but why didn’t he and his party take steps to change the laws to stop this happening when this case was kicking off in 2022 and 2023? By then they’d been power 12 years and this wasn’t the first time we’d had issues with the ECHR. It’s easy to throw mud now, but he and his party had plenty of time to make changes and they didn’t. Enough said.
It galls me that we’ve paid out £7.5k to this monster and £240k to his barristers and solicitors, it’s obscene. Awale used Birnberg Pierce a company of highly reputable solicitors, it’s alumni includes non other than Gareth Pierce who was one of the most highly regarded solicitors and of her generation. Legal aid needs looking at too.
In answer to the original question posed by AJ, I think the answer is yes. It goes without saying changes need to be made to the ECHR and hopefully those changes will start to happen and soon.
I’m no fan of Lammy and I’d rather see him moved on from government, but I don’t think the blame for this can be laid fairly and squarely on his shoulders, there are others who should also be held to account.
[Post edited 2 Jan 23:22]
|
He's the head of department so to speak, but I do agree with your comments, but with such a high profile case I guess he was heavily involved or should have been.
You'll always have previous governments up on their high horses pointing the finger, that useless oaf Jenerick is a classic example. [Post edited 2 Jan 21:36]
| |
| |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 19:26 - Jan 3 with 63 views | AnotherJohn |
The latest on this case is that Awale was represented by the husband of Sarah Sackman, the Justice Minister. He works at Matrix Chambers which is a rival to Birnberg Peirce in the HR field.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news
Sometimes I think you couldn't make it up. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 19:36 - Jan 3 with 59 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 19:26 - Jan 3 by AnotherJohn |
The latest on this case is that Awale was represented by the husband of Sarah Sackman, the Justice Minister. He works at Matrix Chambers which is a rival to Birnberg Peirce in the HR field.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news
Sometimes I think you couldn't make it up. |
There's a whole network of lawyers including Blair and Starmer who seem to think that the law is there to be interpreted rather than upheld. | |
| |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 20:33 - Jan 3 with 48 views | Luther27 |
The legal system is wrong . Change the law no matter what it take to prevent the leaches in this fraternity from exploiting it. | | | |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 00:19 - Jan 4 with 5 views | majorraglan |
| Have human rights for murderers gone too far? on 19:26 - Jan 3 by AnotherJohn |
The latest on this case is that Awale was represented by the husband of Sarah Sackman, the Justice Minister. He works at Matrix Chambers which is a rival to Birnberg Peirce in the HR field.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news
Sometimes I think you couldn't make it up. |
Matrix Chambers and Birnberg Pierce aren’t rivals, the former are barristers and the latter are solicitors. In this particular case, Birnberg Pierce who were representing Awale instructed Matrix Chambers to act for them /Awale.
Sackman’s husband Dan Squires who represented Awale is a highly regarded band 1 barrister and a KC, he’s also a Deputy High Court Judge. Matrix Chambers are 1 of the 3 very highly regarded HR public law Chambers in London, so if you’re looking to take a case like this to Court and want to win Matrix and Squires are the types you’d be looking for in your corner.
Fees vary, but a top Kings Council Barrister will typically earn between £500 and £1500 + VAT per hour and the real top end will earn more again for private work. Awale is unlikely to have been able to pay for this himself unless he’s being bankrolled by a third party or “do gooders.” Assuming that’s not the case and that this case is funded by Legal Aid, then the fees for Legal Aid work are pre set by the government and are substantially lower than private rates. To get a KC te act on your behalf in legal aid cases, the KC must have special permission from the Legal Aid Agency to be instructed in a legally aided case. This is usually only granted in cases of exceptional complexity or public importance, in criminal law cases (which are no longer that well paid in comparison to other types of work) KC’s are usually used in your murder and other very serious cases. Legal Aid rates are capped and much lower coming in between £225 and £275 an hour. (Plus the obligatory VAT)
Given that this case had been heard in the High Court a year before Labour came to power, it stands to reason that the approval would have been given for Squires to act in this case would be nothing to do with Sackman, she wasn’t even an MP when her husband took this case on. What is of real concern is the size of the settlement, we’ve no idea on how that brakes down in terms of solicitors, barristers, fees, case workers etc but it’s a huge sum.
It’s worth pointing out that Sackman is also a qualified barrister and that she has practiced out of Matrix Chambers. There’s no evidence or information to suggest Sarah Sackman has acted in appropriately.
For many years, Westminster has been totally over represented by members of the legal profession. In 2019 over 30% of the MP’s came from a legal background, but they only make up 0.37% of society ! We need to pull that back and make it a much smaller proportion, we need to have more candidates drawn from different walks of life. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
