John Terry's car has a tracking device – oooh!

[tonym911]

Motoring lawyer to the stars Nick 'Mr Loophole' Freeman tried to get John Terry off a 77 in a 50 by 'discovering' a tracking device under his car. This clearly showed that he was not only being pursued by paparazzi, but that he was also being bugged by them:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-137343...

I might be reading this wrong but I wonder if any of the judges asked Mr Loophole whether it was in fact a tracking device that Mr Terry had had installed himself, for the normal anti-theft reasons?

[Shaw Tarse]

Or installed by Mrs Terry? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2831364/...

[Magog]

Shaw Tarse said:

Or installed by Mrs Terry? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2831364/...

I suspect that's the most likely explanation.

[tonym911]

If Freeman actually thought he could get away with this tall tale then what does it say about the motoring knowledge of the average judge?

[10 Pence Short]

tonym911 said:

If Freeman actually thought he could get away with this tall tale then what does it say about the motoring knowledge of the average judge?

As far as I'm aware a guilty plea was entered and therefore the representation in court was mitigation against sentence, rather than trying to 'get away' with something.

[Elroy Blue]

Freeman in dubious defence shocker!

[Mermaid]

Elroy Blue said:

Freeman in dubious defence shocker!

& why not?

[tonym911]

10 Pence Short said:

As far as I'm aware a guilty plea was entered and therefore the representation in court was mitigation against sentence, rather than trying to 'get away' with something.

Still not seeing how valid it is to exploit a judge's ignorance, in mitigation or otherwise.

[Magog]

tonym911 said:

10 Pence Short said:

As far as I'm aware a guilty plea was entered and therefore the representation in court was mitigation against sentence, rather than trying to 'get away' with something.

Still not seeing how valid it is to exploit a judge's ignorance, in mitigation or otherwise.

Surely if it was a barefaced lie, both Freeman and Terry would be leaving themselves open to potential PCoJ charges, even if it's only said in mitigation.(Actually hasn't Freeman been accused of PCoJ before?)

[tonym911]

Don't quite understand the relevance of mitigation as if it's somehow a bit less wrong to try it on at the 'getting your excuses in' stage. A lie's a lie, whatever the circs, surely? Maybe I'm out of touch with the modern legal system.

[Funk]

Mermaid said:

Elroy Blue said:

Freeman in dubious defence shocker!

& why not?

Indeed; they will prosecute on a technicality, ergo we should be prepared to defend on one.

[10 Pence Short]

tonym911 said:

10 Pence Short said:

As far as I'm aware a guilty plea was entered and therefore the representation in court was mitigation against sentence, rather than trying to 'get away' with something.

Still not seeing how valid it is to exploit a judge's ignorance, in mitigation or otherwise.

The brief for the Defence is to make sure that upon a guilty plea or being found guilty, mitigation should be used to make the sentence as lenient as possible.

If they lie in mitigation, then they're perjuring themelves. Do you think John Terry fancies jail time for that, or do you think that they were simply pointing out a mitigating factor to explain why he was going the speed that he was?

If for one second you think JPs or Magistrates haven't heard every excuse in the book and don't look at every piece of mitigation with a suspicious eye, I'd say you were being naive.

[Milky Joe]

10 Pence Short said:

If they lie in mitigation

Isn't it prefixed with "My client tells me...."

[davepoth]

Milky Joe said:

Isn't it prefixed with "My client tells me...."

Usually. Lawyers are I think exempt from PCoJ (except for where malfeasance can be proven I suppose) on account of the fact that they do often have to defend someone they know is guilty for money.