%age Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 For the most part, this has been an excellent thread with some interesting comments and well thought out considered posts. As with any thread it will drift off and there will be flippant and ridiculous replies and the occasional comic character turning up. I don't mind that and I reckon the forum is all the healthier for it. I am sure most of us accept that as being the way of the forums. It is a pity however, that the thread has lost some credibility by postings being removed and questionable personal agendas appear to be popping up. So as an attempt to steer back on thread: The state of the legal system on the Isle of Man concerns many people and there is a lot that the English Courts would be absolutely astounded at. Aghast. As a starter for ten, promoting a Street advocate straight to 2nd Deemster (High Court Judge +) is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted September 24, 2006 Author Share Posted September 24, 2006 But we still cant get an answer as to why the Local Advocates wont work on the no win no fee system like in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 From what I've been told (and before anyone jumps on me, I know it's word of mouth rather than established fact), the 'no win, no fee' is usually covered by insurance and the premiums ae obviously raised if there are a succession of losses - therefore, lawyers are becoming more cautious about taking on cases that they can't be sure of winning. In turn, this has led to it becoming more difficult for those without the financial backing to obtain legal representation in contentious cases. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could let us know if this is so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 Ditto Lonan's first health warnings, but I thought the 'no win, no fee' arrangements resulted from a change in the rules by the Law Society (obstacle no. 1 as the Manx Bar would have to allow for this) and secondly as Lonan states many 'no win, no fee' arrangements are backed up by insurance. The adverts may say pay no fees, but what they don't say is "pay a (sometimes) substantial premium for the insurance which we will have to take out to cover our fees". This is true of those who advertise that you will receive all of any resulting damages from your case without any deduction of fees. Unfortunately, for the likes of First Accident Group (who famously notified all their employees that they were out of a job by text) unless they are particularly careful aout selecting the cases they will take on, eventually the insurance company will up the premiums to such an extent that the whole thing becomes unviable, or worse, withdraw cover entirely. The other category are those who deduct their fee from the resulting damages, but this limits solicitors to acting in cast iron cases. The 'no win, no fee' lark may seem a great idea but when you dig a bit deeper you will see that it really doesn't do all you expect it should (a bit like the National Health Service!). Far better to review the legal aid rules to make legal representation more accessible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 No win no fee is illegal, I posted that earlier on the thread. We can only recover in costs what we would charge our client under the costs rules. If we charge nothing, no win no fee, we recover nothing. We are not going to do for free. No win no fee ends up with some one paying, the person being sued. Because of the risk of unwinnable cases one successful case has to pay for potential failures. That means the lawyers in no win no fee jurisdictions get huge fees in the cases they win. That puts insurane up for every one. Doctors do not take on patients without checking their claims record. In the Stataes lawyers commonly take 40% of the damages Of course if you are good at working out which cases are winners with no risk and only take them on then you become fabulously wealthy What no win no fee does not do is to increase access to justice. The risky cases do not get taken. We have been waiting for a review of thje whole funding situation. It sat for two yeras and presented its report to Government theree yeras ago neaerly. Government has sat on it for yeras. What's wrong with advocats becoming Deemsters, its better than Attornies General or Government Advocates. The barrister to Judge route is totally normal, world wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 So for an Advocate to bring up in court that the witness was fined £2.12d for playing football in the street some 40 years ago and that he had a serious record of parking fines over 20 years ago before the instant fine system came in is OK Was that all that was revealed? I'm not awrae of the circunmstances. It can happen. If someone puts their honesty and credibility on the line and says, it could not possibly be me I am an honest person, I have never doen anything wrong, then yes it can be allowed for an advocate to challenge tha with the truth. It is in very limited circunmstances Also if you are a party and you cjhallenge the honesty of the other witnesses or partys thyen you open youself up to the revelations. Then they are public, in court and are subject to faisr reporting, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 For the most part, this has been an excellent thread with some interesting comments and well thought out considered posts. As with any thread it will drift off and there will be flippant and ridiculous replies and the occasional comic character turning up. I don't mind that and I reckon the forum is all the healthier for it. I am sure most of us accept that as being the way of the forums. It is a pity however, that the thread has lost some credibility by postings being removed and questionable personal agendas appear to be popping up. So as an attempt to steer back on thread: The state of the legal system on the Isle of Man concerns many people and there is a lot that the English Courts would be absolutely astounded at. Aghast. As a starter for ten, promoting a Street advocate straight to 2nd Deemster (High Court Judge +) is one of them. Who else is there to choose from? All the lawyers are "Street advocates" apart from the High Bailiff and Deputy High Bailiff, and the A-G, aren't they (thieawin can doubtless put me stright on this)? The HB and DHB deal exclusively in criminal matters, while the Deemsters' remit is much broader. Plus I'm not sure that Doyle has put a foot wrong since his appointment, has he? While I disagree with the whole "hard line on drugs" stance, that is policy over here and he implements it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castle Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 The system stinks, stinks, stinks. Why? Why? Why?, be specific, maybe it does, but not just because you say so. Say why? Please. Stink one The Isle of Man Court does not display a Court List. Any court in the UK does. Oh, I nearly forgot. We aren't part of ther UK are we. There are an awful lot of cases going on that 'we' just don't know about. But there again we are only the 'oinks' of the Manx public that the justice system is supposed to be in place for. Stink two The Rules of High Court Forget them. When a deemster can search out an obscure unpublished document that overrides them. What's the point of having High Court Rules in the first place? (Please don't ask for further details yet, laddie). Stink three Advocates who lie in court. In my language, that is lie, lie, lie (please don't patronisingly paraphrase me either ta). But on the Isle of Man this is part of the 'art' of Advocacy it seems, and can be accompanied with a smirkingly* that's ma boy look from the judge, er I mean deemster. A barrister would have his arse kicked from John O'Groats to Lands End in the UK for doing half of what our kiddies in wigs get away with over here. I say again: "Stinks, stinks, stinks" but that is only for poetic rhythmic effect. I can write a whole page full of stinks. * I wanted to use the word 'conspiratorial' in this context, but that word would have opened the flood gates to all manner of accusations of paranoia. You can't beat hard, fast, irrefutable fact can you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Even the High Bailiff who gets so much paper coverage with outrageous remarks from the bench is fundamentally fair in hearing and sentencing What is it with Moyle and his views. You never got all this drivel from Henry Callow. Moyle seems to have some over-the-top opinion on every case he deals with. It makes the courts seem more of a performance than anything about justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.