Shall we count the ways in which this story by The Mirror is terrible? Yes, let’s. [THREAD]
2. For a start, Worboys was not “given legal aid”. He received not a penny in his hand. The legal aid payment would have been made directly to his solicitors, barristers and any expert witnesses.
3. That headline legal aid figure of £166k includes VAT. The government requires lawyers to charge VAT, which is then paid by us back to the treasury. So you can knock a chunk off that figure.
4. As the report acknowledges halfway through, Worboys’ criminal proceedings took place between 2008/9. Since then, enormous legal aid cuts have removed criminal legal aid from defendants in Crown Court trials. Worboys would not qualify any more. This story is meaningless.
5. As for comparing the non-availability of legal aid for civil proceedings against the (long-obsolete) criminal legal aid, I reheat this thread from last year:
6. Important highlights include this part:
7. I also challenge the reporter to address these basic questions:
8. And these:
9. Why does this type of story, on which The Mirror is a repeat offender, upset me so much? Why waste a train journey trying to dispel the myths, yet again? I depressingly have the answer lined up from tweets past.
10. The Mirror, self-appointed left-leaning paper of the people, enables through its rhetoric the ideological massacring of one of our most vital public services relied upon predominantly by society’s most vulnerable - the criminal justice system.
11. Savage cuts to legal aid, CPS and courts is one of the primary reasons that the justice system is in utter crisis. Articles like this are the reason the government evades scrutiny for its vandalism.

Shame on The Mirror.



• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with The Secret Barrister

The Secret Barrister Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BarristerSecret

Sep 25, 2018
There has been quite a lot of anger at this story. I understand why - it instinctively feels as if the bar is being set even higher for victims of serious sexual offences to get justice. As if we’re giving up on them.

But if I may offer a counterpoint from my book [1/6]
Something missing from the reporting and commentary is the fact that independent reviews have shown that, in Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO) cases, the CPS misapply the evidential test more often than in non-sex cases. (Report here:…) [2]
This is partly because of (understandable) eagerness to amend for an historically appalling indifference by police and prosecuting authorities towards often vulnerable victims of sexual abuse.

But it’s wrong to assume that prosecuting weak cases is without human cost. [3]
Read 6 tweets
Sep 18, 2018
Wouldn’t have been prosecuted in the US, of course. They have a constitutional right to bear-arms.
The replies to this tweet show Twitter at its most hateful and vengeful. You people need to shut up and appreciate good comedy.
Read 4 tweets
Sep 13, 2018
Protecting the Protectors is a noble and important aim.

Here’s why this new law does not achieve it. [THREAD]
Obviously assaults on emergency workers are unacceptable. That is so obvious as to be trite, but for the avoidance of doubt, that is my starting point. Anything we can do to offer protection to emergency workers should be seriously considered. But this new law is not serious.
It seeks to do two things:

1) Create a new offence of “assault against an emergency worker in the exercise of their functions”.

2) Create a “statutory aggravating factor” for more serious assaults.

Let’s break this down.
Read 15 tweets
Sep 12, 2018
It’s a reasonable question (although the answer would be easily discoverable to a journalist):

Because all defendants sentenced to a standard determinate custodial term are automatically released on licence after serving half of their sentence (s244 Criminal Justice Act 2003).
There are certain offences and situations where, if a judge believes a defendant to be “dangerous” (defined as presenting a significant risk of causing serious harm), a defendant can be detained beyond the halfway point of their sentence. HOWEVER...
...It is worth reading the remarks of Mr Justice Holroyde, who sentenced Choudary. He indicated a clear view that Choudary was dangerous, and would continue to “spread his message”. But the offence of which Choudary was convicted was not one to which the dangerous laws apply.
Read 5 tweets
Sep 3, 2018
These stories are becoming increasingly popular with the media. Criminal steals big wodge of money, soft judge only makes them pay a fraction of it back.

A brief thread is in order. [THREAD]
When someone financially benefits from a crime, the Crown Court has the power to make what is called a “confiscation order”. It has two parts: (1) The “benefit” - ie what has the person had. (2) The “available amount” - what assets does the person currently have.
The court makes a confiscation order in the lower of those two figures. A person will only be ordered to pay what they can actually afford, as failure to pay can mean the person is imprisoned, and it’s not very fair to imprison people for not paying what they haven’t got. BUT.
Read 7 tweets
Aug 30, 2018
Gather round, folks! It’s time for another round of What Is Andrew Pierce Wrong About This Time?

[SPOILER: Everything]
“No other sanction”. Well that’s a lie right off the bat. The news report is here. And we can see that the court imposed a community order, a restraining order and costs. There would also be “requirements” to the community order, such as unpaid work or a rehabilitation programme.
It’s important to note that there are few facts given. The charges aren’t even specified (“assault” is not an offence), and no information is given about the reasons given by the court for passing that sentence.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!