This weeks bloody outrage

The sickening arm of the law.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ler-family.html

What can you say? Its disgusting the way they were treated, but it has always been this way and I don't see it getting any better without lots of changes to the law.

Phil

Jeffrey Samuels describes himself as a smooth operator" (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories...15875-23225105/)
He is also the one who got barry George off. I think that says it all. One of the lower forms of slime.
Apparently (surprisingly) he's even against the normal rules of barristers (I quote from http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-...s-court-conduct) :

Under the Barristers' Code of Conduct there are limits to what a barrister can and cannot ask in court:

Conduct in Court

708. A barrister when conducting proceedings in Court:

(a) is personally responsible for the conduct and presentation of his case and must exercise personal judgement upon the substance and purpose of statements made and questions asked;

[...]

(g) must not make statements or ask questions which are merely scandalous or intended or calculated only to vilify insult or annoy either a witness or some other person;

[...]

(i) must not by assertion in a speech impugn a witness whom he has had an opportunity to cross-examine unless in cross-examination he has given the witness an opportunity to answer the allegation;

(j) must not suggest that a victim, witness or other person is guilty of crime, fraud or misconduct or make any defamatory aspersion on the conduct of any other person or attribute to another person the crime or conduct of which his lay client is accused unless such allegations go to a matter in issue (including the credibility of the witness) which is material to the lay client's case and appear to him to be supported by reasonable grounds.

The barrister must thereby have a good basis for the question to be asked of any witness. If there is no good basis, the barrister can face both a complaint (which can be made by any person) to the Bar Council and professional sanctions, including being disbarred from practice. This is in addition to the judge in the case being able to intervene and prevent any inappropriate questioning at the time.

As regards the privacy rights of witnesses, the assumption behind the Code of Conduct appears to be that if there is a good basis for the question, then any interference with personal privacy would be legitimate and proportional in the interests of ensuring that there is a fair trial.