Why is Andy moving number 10

fillyboy said:
No bail was granted and restrictions on her communications were imposed during detention. Advice by the duty Solicitor has been described as 'poor' by Barristers.

This is all a matter of record.
Click to expand...
It was indeed poor and by the time she had decent representation, she had proved the prosecution case by following the poor advice of the duty Solicitor.
 
blup said:
Yes
Click to expand...
according to some reports, the unnamed duty solicitor conducted a brief rushed telephone call with Connolly who told them that she had made a mistake and deleted her tweet. The unnamed duty solicitor advised that she explained this to the police, with the hope that they would take no further action, which she did. That was terrible advice for the following reasons:

Cooperating with the police during the interview enabled them to establish both intent and a hate motive, via careful questioning. She was answering questions about her beliefs and feelings without any understanding of the consequences.
A proper analysis of the tweet, could have enabled her to suggest she was actually ambivalent "for all I care" about what was going on and on further reflection having slept on it decided to delete it.

It is for this reason that Duty Sols advise those less articulate or resistant to careful questioning to go with a "no comment" responses - It leaves the CPS with the difficult task of proving the offence.

Unfortunately following the advice she got, she handed herself on a plate
 
motorbiking said:
according to some reports, the unnamed duty solicitor conducted a brief rushed telephone call with Connolly who told them that she had made a mistake and deleted her tweet. The unnamed duty solicitor advised that she explained this to the police, with the hope that they would take no further action, which she did. That was terrible advice for the following reasons:

Cooperating with the police during the interview enabled them to establish both intent and a hate motive, via careful questioning. She was answering questions about her beliefs and feelings without any understanding of the consequences.
A proper analysis of the tweet, could have enabled her to suggest she was actually ambivalent "for all I care" about what was going on and on further reflection having slept on it decided to delete it.

It is for this reason that Duty Sols advise those less articulate or resistant to careful questioning to go with a "no comment" responses - It leaves the CPS with the difficult task of proving the offence.

Unfortunately following the advice she got, she handed herself on a plate
Click to expand...

Also it would appear she pleaded guilty to an A1 charge rather than A2 not having been briefed on the difference, A1 being far more serious as 'intent' is shown.

Bit of a stitch up in some ways, there was talk about her taking action against the Police etc but doesn't seem to have come to anything. I expect she's just glad to be out.
 
We covered all of this at the time and I find it quite boring going over it again; there is no point currently trying to exculpate Lucy... but the day will come! It was a stitch-up, concocted by Hermer and Starmer for the discouragement of others.

Peter Lynch was also a victim of the Starmer /Hermer regime. A previously innocent and old man, not in good health; he was jailed for protesting and died in his cell. We must not forget him, his day will come too.
 
motorbiking said:
according to some reports, the unnamed duty solicitor conducted a brief rushed telephone call with Connolly who told them that she had made a mistake and deleted her tweet. The unnamed duty solicitor advised that she explained this to the police, with the hope that they would take no further action, which she did. That was terrible advice for the following reasons:

Cooperating with the police during the interview enabled them to establish both intent and a hate motive, via careful questioning. She was answering questions about her beliefs and feelings without any understanding of the consequences.
A proper analysis of the tweet, could have enabled her to suggest she was actually ambivalent "for all I care" about what was going on and on further reflection having slept on it decided to delete it.

It is for this reason that Duty Sols advise those less articulate or resistant to careful questioning to go with a "no comment" responses - It leaves the CPS with the difficult task of proving the offence.

Unfortunately following the advice she got, she handed herself on a plate
Click to expand...
The court of appeal decision suggests the duty solicitor did nothing unprofessional. Her tweet was a clear incitement to violence, so deleting it and going for an apology was worth a try on but was never going to work. The court preferred the solicitors evidence over Connolly. As I said politically maybe a wrong call but not legally.
 
fillyboy said:
Also it would appear she pleaded guilty to an A1 charge rather than A2 not having been briefed on the difference, A1 being far more serious as 'intent' is shown.

Bit of a stitch up in some ways, there was talk about her taking action against the Police etc but doesn't seem to have come to anything. I expect she's just glad to be out.
Click to expand...
Utter waffle.
 
blup said:
The court of appeal decision suggests the duty solicitor did nothing unprofessional.
Click to expand...
If you have access to the court of appeal judgment, I'd suggest you read paragraph 41. There was no such assessment.
By the time she got to Mr Muir she had already handed herself on a plate.
 
Last edited:
blup said:
The court of appeal decision suggests the duty solicitor did nothing unprofessional. Her tweet was a clear incitement to violence, so deleting it and going for an apology was worth a try on but was never going to work. The court preferred the solicitors evidence over Connolly. As I said politically maybe a wrong call but not legally.
Click to expand...
Correct
 
noseall said:
Correct
Click to expand...
Nosenout gets it wrong ...again:

41. At the police station, and at the time of her brief appearance before a magistrates’ court, the applicant was legally represented by solicitors other than Mr Muir; but it is not
suggested that any advice given by those representatives is material to the issue before the court.

(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
These 10 men.
2
Replies
19
Views
2K
Bodd
B
H
February
Replies
3
Views
807
conny
C
B
Mobile phones - keeping existing number
Replies
6
Views
1K
bishboshbash
B
E
why have cracks appeared?
Replies
2
Views
2K
coggy
C
F
How to get a good deal on a new contract?? Will it work??
Replies
5
Views
778
flyingsparks
F
Back
Top