Application by Person with Legal Aid
to Change SolicitorI was wondering what paper trial there should be about how Dr Vincent Tabak had changed Solicitors and why Paul Cook dropped or was given leave of his duties by Dr Vincent Tabak....
I remember Kelcey Halls statement about a Platinum Service.. which would not happen on legal aid.... I believe that it is important to know 'When" the change over too place... And whenand how Dr Vincent Tabak instructed William Clegg to be his new solicitor...
1. Give the information asked for in PART 1 and then send the form to the NEW
solicitors you want to represent you. You can attach extra pages if there is not
enough room but make sure you write your name and case number on the
attached sheets. If you fill out the form on a computer the boxes will expand to fit
your content. If you wish to email the form you can sign it electronically.
2. The new solicitors have to give the information in PART 2 and then send copies to
the court AND to your present solicitors.
3. Your present solicitors have to respond to the application by providing the
information in PART 3 and send a copy to you AND to the court.
4. The court will make a decision and inform the Legal Aid Agency. SOLICITORS
PLEASE NOTE: it is essential that the solicitor’s account number and MAAT
number are on the form or a new representation order cannot be produced.
Did Dr Vincent Tabak sign the waiver...???
Legal Professional Privilege: Conversations and letters between you and your
present solicitors about the case are private between you. This is called “Legal
Professional Privilege”. It means that when your present solicitors are asked about
your reasons for the change they cannot refer to any information that is private
between you unless you give your permission. If you give permission by ticking the
box below that is called “Waiver of Legal Professional Privilege”. This waiver is for
the purposes of this application only.
If you do not give permission then the court may think that your reasons would not
have stood up to examination if you had given permission.
This I believe is mighty important... If Dr Vincent Tabak didn't sign a waiver or even fill out a form, then the information collected by Paul Cook would stay with Paul Cook.... Meaning that William Clegg would have to start the Investigations into Dr Vincent Tabak Case from scratch....
When did Clegg take on Dr Vincent Tabak Case???
Now I find this slightly confusing.... When Clegg took over Dr Vincent Tabaks case wouldn't he apply for a change of date for the trial??
Now we have to add into the mix CJ.... I would say this because even though he was not charged he was still on bail until the 7th March 2011.... Was Clegg already Dr Vincent Tabak's solicitor by that time?? Wouldn't the fact that someone was still on police bail for this crime change the defence tactic as to maybe apportioning blame elsewhere?? (Unsure if that is a tatic that is used)..
I don't understand how Clegg had enough time to prepare Dr Vincent Tabak's Case?? I can only use Colin Stagg as an example and he spent the best part of a year in prison... yet Dr Vincent Tabak was in prison from 22nd January 2011 until the start of trial on 4th October 2011... barely anytime at all if you take into consideration that he changed solicitors also, to have a full Investigation into his case.... (imo)
I keep coming across things that are coincidental.... And need to understand the importance of dates....
* 4th October 2011 was the day after the new legal aid reforms came into place...
How did that effect the defence of Dr Vincent Tabak??? Would he get a full and robust trial?? (Well imo he didn't anyway)
Whilst trying to understand this mine field I have found this table of fees proposal...(image attached)
Description Measures
Overall
Cumulative
Saving
Option 1
Reform fee structures for cases heard in the Crown Court
that were determined in the Magistrates’ Court to be
suitable for summary trial (elected ‘either way’ cases).
Introduce new litigator and advocates fixed fees for either
way cases suitable for summary trial that result in a cracked
trial or a guilty plea; raise Lower and Higher Standard Fees
for either way category 1 cases at the Magistrates’ Court; no
longer pay the committal fees which applies when cases
move from the Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court.
£25 million
Option 2
Reform fee structures for cases which go straight to the
Crown Court (‘indictable only’ cases) and for either way
cases found by the Magistrates’ Court to be unsuitable for
summary trial (committed ‘either way’ cases).
For litigators (solicitors), the fees for cracked cases would
be reduced by 25% across the whole set of fees. For
advocates, an 11% reduction in the AGFS fee for cases that
crackwould apply and harmonisation of all the Prosecution
Pages of Evidence (PPE) fees paid for all cases with PPE
between 1,000 and 10,000 which crack.
£40 million
Option 3a Align the fees paid for murder and manslaughter to the
same level as those paid in serious sexual cases £15 million
Option 3b
Amalgamate two of the fee groups for cases of dishonesty
to form a single group based on the value of the dishonest
act(s) below £100,000
£4 million
Option 4 Align Magistrates’ court fees in London with other major
urban areas £6 million
Option 5 Reduce ancillary payments to advocates (“bolt on”
payments); £9 million
Option 6 Harmonise payments in Very High Cost Cases (VHCC) for
cases expected to take up to 60 days at trial £3 million
So I believe that a reduction in fees payable would differ once the reforms came into effect... Now I am not sure if there is any relation to The Reforms and The Case... I'm no legal expert... But if these fees and reductions were in effect when Dr Vincent Tabak stood for trial it make the case even more strange... I'm sure the cost was supposed to be great for the trial... But if reforms were in then should it have been?? I don't know
"Cracked Case"... Now thats a new term for me.... And this Case should have been a Cracked case as far as i can understand.....
When criminal trials are "cracked"Claim...
A "cracked" trial is one that's dropped because a witness doesn't turn up or withdraws their evidence.
There are other reasons for a case being Classed a Cracked case, but I will stick with the witness's as the reason for my explanation....
If vital witness's did not take the stand then why was this not a cracked case???? I can think of 18 reason why this should have been a cracked case in witness's alone......
(1) * CJ
(2) * Tanja Morson
(3) * Nurse Ruth Booth Pearson (examined Dr Vincent Tabak when he was arrested )
(4) * Daniel Birch ( Dog walker who found Joanna Yeates)
(5) * Samuel Huscroft (Friend Joanna Yeates ) (text received from Joanna Yeates )
(6) * Mathew Wood (Chris Yeates Friend... Joanna Yeates (text Received from Joanna Yeates )
(7) * Sarah Maddox (At Dinner Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended )
(8) * PC Steve Archer ( Was there when Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested )
(9) * Mathew Phillips (Heard a shreik... was at party on Canygne Road )
(10)* Louise Althrope (Attended Party with Dr Vincent Tabak)
(11) * Geofrey Hardyman (Tenant of 44 Canygne Road )
(12) * Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP)
(13) * Shrikart Sharma ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss )
(14) * Glen O'Hare ( Hosted Part Dr Vincent Tabak attended ).
(15) * Anneleise Jackson, (PC... Greg's Phone Call statement )
(16) * Peter Lindsell ( Friends of Joanna Yeates .. at Bristol Mead Station ( Text received from Joanna Yeates )
(17) * Andrew Lillie (Attended a Dinner Party with Dr Vincent Tabak )
(18)* Linda Marland (Attended Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended ) (party was in a bar in Bristol)
16 of those witness's didn't take the stand but had their evidence read out in court... That hearsay evidence was not challenged but allowed.... Why!!!
The 2 most important witness's were not at trial... that being CJ and Tanja Morson.... Two of the most important witness's to this case and there wasn't even a statement available from either of them.... There lack of testimony should have made this trial a 'cracked Trial... (imo).. Did they both withdraw their statements or not make any in the first place????? either way someone should have said that this case is "Cracked" (imo)...
How did this case go to full trial???
How was that even possible???
We have no evidence... no witness's... no nothing, but an unsubstantiated account by the defendant to the crime with no supporting evidence to validate this claim...... Yet the trial was allowed to continue.... How??
What was this case about?? to show us how corrupt the system is?? Because thats how it appears to me if this case continued without any witness's who could confirm or deny anything about Dr Vincent Tabak and his movement and behaviour over the course of time...
This case should go down in the annals of history as the most unlawful case that has taken place...(imo) I cannot understand how this case managed to go to full trial.... It shouldn't.. yet no-one will say anything about it....
What was this case really about?? The poor demise of Joanna Yeates or An example of British Justice at it's worse??
Why wasn't it deemed a Cracked case in May 2011??
A trial will generally be deemed to have “cracked” where a trial date has been set but the defendant pleads guilty on the day, or the prosecution has no evidence to give.
This means that the case is resolved without a trial. But lawyers, judges and witnesses will have prepared for one and booked in the necessary court time—so it’s not an efficient outcome. Cracked trials are a problem.
Apparently Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty, the prosecution had No Evidence..... And Dr Vincent tabak wasn't saying anything... So why wasn't it done and dusted then???
We know the prosecution had no evidence..... They didn't produce any witness's that would put Dr Vincent Tabak anywhere... no-one even put him on Canygne Road on Friday 17th December 2010.. No-one placed him on Longwood lane at anytime....
The prosecutions case consisted of searches on a computer... No Forensic Evidence from Joanna yeates Flat or Dr vincent tabak's Flat was entered into evidence, the DNA and the spot of blood could easily be explained away by a Defence council, so that wouldn't or shouldn't stand up in court...
A computer that didn't get analysed by the defence, that had been used by the defendants girlfriend also... A computer that should have been forensically tested independently, same with the Buro Happold Computers.... But the searches in themselves prove nothing as to what Dr Vincent Tabak actually did or did not do.... I will go back to the 2 searches he couldn't have done on the early morning hours of 18th December 2010.. when Dr Vincent Tabak was not at his residence at that time.... But picking up his girlfriend from her party.....
Did Clegg only read what the prosecution stated?? I can only conclude that is what he did.... ~Is that why Sally Ramages papers have incorrect information within them.... Is that the information that was given to Clegg??
I cannot see why someone like Sally Ramage would get information incorrect.... (imo)... But if Clegg didn't give a robust defence and relied only on the information provided by the prosecution and what he read in the press or what the press told him.... Then I can see why there are discrepancies within the pages that Sally Ramage wrote....
Clegg has already told us how he comes to his decisions with his recent Interview with Fiona Bruce... That shocked me entirely.... As he is supposed to gather evidence before making a judgement as to who killed Rachell Nickell....
Did he apply the same to Dr Vincent Tabak??? Did he just read what the papers said and not investigate this case for his client???
At ever turn I believe that Clegg failed his client, yet nothing is done about this case.... We are all lead to believe that the trial that took place was fair and just... But I have a different take on that.... They turned Dr Vincent Tabak into a monster when there was no evidence to support that claim.... A man that I believe is Innocent of the charges and conviction brought against him....
Even if you all believe that he is still guilty... surely you cannot sit back and allow our Justice system to be made a mockery of, when everything points to an Unfair trial and where this case should have been thrown out long before it came to trial in October 2011....
https://fullfact.org/crime/when-criminal-trials-are-cracked/https://www.insidetime.org/download/publications/legal/legal-aid-criminal-manual-jul-14.pdfhttps://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/rep001-eng.pdf