Around a week ago I went to my employer to tell them I stole £40,000
from them over last couple of years and have been balancing the
accounts ever since, nobody had a clue.
They called the police and I admitted exactly the same to them. I am
now on bail for 11 weeks.
I am due to get married on saturday and my fiance, who also had no idea
is standing by me, I have a son and have no previous. I have a gambling
problem which I have now discussed with people and have started to
attend GA.

What will happen to me?

Can my partner become liable for the debt?

I should have, technically, a final salary due which taking into
account commission, basic and accrued holiday would be around £9000
gross. Where do I stand with this? Do they legally have to pay me? If
they don't, which they won't, can this be taken into account as some
repayment towards theft?

If I make an offer of repayment in court what happens then?

Regards my employement, I have no confirmation from them that I have
been sacked, where do I stand here...obviously I have been sacked but I
need some kind of confirmation of this. They called the police and had
me arrested at work in the middle of the day...2 days after I had told
them everything.

With a prison sentence, does this than mean that employer will have to
pursue civil case against me for recovery or can this still be ordered
by criminal court...if it goes civil case, does this lead to bailiffs
coming and taking my wifes car and stuff like that?

Any help would be great, I have put myself and my family in a terrible
situation and need some kind of advice on what is going to happen to us
all now. Thanks




-- 
stucknow

stucknow wrote:
> Around a week ago I went to my employer to tell them I stole £40,000
> from them over last couple of years and have been balancing the
> accounts ever since, nobody had a clue.
> They called the police and I admitted exactly the same to them. I am
> now on bail for 11 weeks.
> I am due to get married on saturday and my fiance, who also had no
> idea is standing by me, I have a son and have no previous. I have a
> gambling problem which I have now discussed with people and have
> started to attend GA.
>
> What will happen to me?

First, well done for admitting what you have done.  It's the best way to 
minimise any punishment that may be handed out, though some has to be 
expected.

Have you any prospect of being able to repay the amount you stole?  If you 
have, you should try to discuss the matter with your employer, setting out 
how much you can repay and when.  If they are satisfied that you're acting 
in good faith and that they might get back more than they would if you 
suddenly could not work and/or went bankrupt, then they might, just might, 
tell the police that they don't wish to have them proceed against you.  But 
it will take some grovelling and you can't expect them to be too happy.  It 
may, unfortunately for you, become a matter of principle for them.

> Can my partner become liable for the debt?

No.

> I should have, technically, a final salary due which taking into
> account commission, basic and accrued holiday would be around £9000
> gross. Where do I stand with this? Do they legally have to pay me? If
> they don't, which they won't, can this be taken into account as some
> repayment towards theft?

If they don't pay it, and you can hardly expect them to in the 
circumstances, then it's perfectly reasonable in my view, to regard it as 
reducing the debt you owe them.


> If I make an offer of repayment in court what happens then?

I think your best bet is to make any offer you can before the matter gets to 
court.  It will then be a mitigating factor, but it won't get you off the 
hook, and you can still expect a criminal record and a sentence if it gets 
that far.  That's why you should do everything in your power to try to 
placate your employer and get him to call off the police, if you can.  I 
doubt if the police would proceed without his support.


> Regards my employement, I have no confirmation from them that I have
> been sacked, where do I stand here...obviously I have been sacked but
> I need some kind of confirmation of this. They called the police and
> had me arrested at work in the middle of the day...2 days after I had
> told them everything.

> With a prison sentence, does this than mean that employer will have to
> pursue civil case against me for recovery or can this still be ordered
> by criminal court...

I think a Court can order you to repay, but this is obviously worthless if 
you have insufficient assets to do so.

>if it goes civil case, does this lead to bailiffs
> coming and taking my wifes car and stuff like that?

No, they can only take your property.

> Any help would be great, I have put myself and my family in a terrible
> situation and need some kind of advice on what is going to happen to
> us all now. Thanks

You really need a solicitor as a matter of urgency to advise you.  This is 
far too serious a matter for a newsgroup.  I hope it works out for you, 
however.

Norman Wells wrote:
> stucknow wrote:
>> Around a week ago I went to my employer to tell them I stole £40,000
>> from them over last couple of years and have been balancing the
>> accounts ever since, nobody had a clue.
>> They called the police and I admitted exactly the same to them. I am
>> now on bail for 11 weeks.
>> I am due to get married on saturday and my fiance, who also had no
>> idea is standing by me, I have a son and have no previous. I have a
>> gambling problem which I have now discussed with people and have
>> started to attend GA.
>>
>> What will happen to me?
>
> First, well done for admitting what you have done.  It's the best way
> to minimise any punishment that may be handed out, though some has to
> be expected.
>
> Have you any prospect of being able to repay the amount you stole? If you 
> have, you should try to discuss the matter with your employer,
> setting out how much you can repay and when.  If they are satisfied
> that you're acting in good faith and that they might get back more
> than they would if you suddenly could not work and/or went bankrupt,
> then they might, just might, tell the police that they don't wish to
> have them proceed against you.  But it will take some grovelling and
> you can't expect them to be too happy.  It may, unfortunately for
> you, become a matter of principle for them.
>> Can my partner become liable for the debt?
>
> No.
>
>> I should have, technically, a final salary due which taking into
>> account commission, basic and accrued holiday would be around £9000
>> gross. Where do I stand with this? Do they legally have to pay me? If
>> they don't, which they won't, can this be taken into account as some
>> repayment towards theft?
>
> If they don't pay it, and you can hardly expect them to in the
> circumstances, then it's perfectly reasonable in my view, to regard
> it as reducing the debt you owe them.
>
>
>> If I make an offer of repayment in court what happens then?
>
> I think your best bet is to make any offer you can before the matter
> gets to court.  It will then be a mitigating factor, but it won't get
> you off the hook, and you can still expect a criminal record and a
> sentence if it gets that far.  That's why you should do everything in
> your power to try to placate your employer and get him to call off
> the police, if you can.  I doubt if the police would proceed without
> his support.
>
>> Regards my employement, I have no confirmation from them that I have
>> been sacked, where do I stand here...obviously I have been sacked but
>> I need some kind of confirmation of this. They called the police and
>> had me arrested at work in the middle of the day...2 days after I had
>> told them everything.
>
>> With a prison sentence, does this than mean that employer will have
>> to pursue civil case against me for recovery or can this still be
>> ordered by criminal court...
>
> I think a Court can order you to repay, but this is obviously
> worthless if you have insufficient assets to do so.
>
>> if it goes civil case, does this lead to bailiffs
>> coming and taking my wifes car and stuff like that?
>
> No, they can only take your property.
>
>> Any help would be great, I have put myself and my family in a
>> terrible situation and need some kind of advice on what is going to
>> happen to us all now. Thanks
>
> You really need a solicitor as a matter of urgency to advise you. This is 
> far too serious a matter for a newsgroup.  I hope it works
> out for you, however.

Good advice.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:10:09 +0100, stucknow
 wrote:

>What will happen to me?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section15/chapter_p_16_20.html


-- 
Peter Parry
Hemel Hempstead

Norman Wells stucknow wrote:


Around a week ago I went to my employer to tell them I stole £40,000 from them over last couple of years and have been balancing the accounts ever since, nobody had a clue.  They called the police and I admitted exactly the same to them. I am now on bail for 11 weeks.  I am due to get married on saturday and my fiance, who also had no
idea is standing by me, I have a son and have no previous. I have a gambling problem which I have now discussed with people and have started to attend GA. What will happen to me? 



Here is some URL'S with mostly the same advice in the form of law forums

www.swarb.co.uk/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=40888&sid=9fda4343a0b7e4d9ff1105c91618fbb0

http://www.i-resign.com/UK/discussion/new_topic.asp?t=2437

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2004/jan/31/changingjobs.workandcareers

http://www.workplacesafetyadvice.co.uk/dealing-with-employee-theft.html

http://www.glosgrapevine.co.uk/rough_guide_work


Dismissal 
If you do something serious i.e. hit a supervisor or steal from your employer you can be dismissed without notice. Otherwise, you should be given one weeks notice or pay instead, if you have worked for longer than a month. After 2 years your minimum entitlement is 2 weeks, after 3 years it is 3 weeks and so on up to 12 weeks. If you do not give the required notice, your employer cannot deduct pay that you are owed.



Rob

I need to see a solicitor but I am going away for 2 weeks tomorrow and
this hangs heavy...as you can imagine!

Sentencing guidelines for over £20k is 1-3 years with starting point of
2 years and while I can find record of many who have had custodial
sentence, I have also found many who have not.

I have not profited from this in any way and have not funded a lavish
lifestyle...we have a £2,000 car and live in social housing...haven't
been on holiday for 18 months so I hope that the circumstances and
reasons will be taken into account.

My assumption is that I will be going to prison but I can live in hope.




-- 
stucknow

stucknow wrote:

> 
> I need to see a solicitor but I am going away for 2 weeks tomorrow and
> this hangs heavy...as you can imagine!
> 
> Sentencing guidelines for over �20k is 1-3 years with starting
> point of 2 years and while I can find record of many who have had
> custodial sentence, I have also found many who have not.
> 
> I have not profited from this in any way and have not funded a lavish
> lifestyle...we have a �2,000 car and live in social
> housing...haven't been on holiday for 18 months so I hope that the
> circumstances and reasons will be taken into account.
> 
> My assumption is that I will be going to prison but I can live in
> hope.

You have profited though havent you , by the sum of £40000 .

I hope the court takes into account  not only the fact that you have
owned up but also the any problems your dishonesty has put your ex
employer in.

Its not unkown in these situations that dishonesty like yours has
caused companies to collapse , with the knock on effects not only to
the owners and other employees lossing thier jobs and often thier homes
but  companes they trade with .

I really do hope they give you a nice long sentence 

--

stucknow wrote:
> I need to see a solicitor but I am going away for 2 weeks tomorrow and
> this hangs heavy...as you can imagine!
>
> Sentencing guidelines for over £20k is 1-3 years with starting point
> of 2 years and while I can find record of many who have had custodial
> sentence, I have also found many who have not.
>
> I have not profited from this in any way and have not funded a lavish
> lifestyle...we have a £2,000 car and live in social housing...haven't
> been on holiday for 18 months so I hope that the circumstances and
> reasons will be taken into account.
>
> My assumption is that I will be going to prison but I can live in
> hope.

It is imperative that you get yourself a solicitor and try as hard as you 
can to sort it out with your employer.  He holds the key to whether you are 
prosecuted and what happens to you.

I think your attitude stinks. The guy owned up and is prepared to face the 
consequences of his actions. Addiction to gambling could be regarded as a 
'disease', and given that the OP is seeking help in that area, I would 
consider it some sort of mitigation.

Yes, stealing from a company may not be a victim-less crime, and it's a 
serious one that shouldn't be glossed over.

But to hope that the guy gets a long sentence is mean-spirited, and IMHO 
inappropriate. By all means take the view that he deserves a long sentence, 
but have the good grace not to express it. The guy came for advice, not for 
us to pass judgement.

Personally, I hope justice is appropriately served; so that he is 
proportionately punished, both punitively and as a deterrent, but taking 
into account his good faith in owning up and seeking help.

I also hope he has a long and fulfilling marriage.



"steve robinson"  wrote in message 
news:xn0fss6bw23dbmn000@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
stucknow wrote:

You have profited though havent you , by the sum of £40000 .

I hope the court takes into account  not only the fact that you have
owned up but also the any problems your dishonesty has put your ex
employer in.

Its not unkown in these situations that dishonesty like yours has
caused companies to collapse , with the knock on effects not only to
the owners and other employees lossing thier jobs and often thier homes
but  companes they trade with .

I really do hope they give you a nice long sentence

--

On Jul 17, 9:00 am, "steve robinson" wrote:

> I hope the court takes into account  not only the fact that you have
> owned up but also the any problems your dishonesty has put your ex
> employer in.

They didn't even notice. Although resultant problems are implicit in
the theft, I think the employer woulf find it hard to prove that they
were major problems.

steve robinson wrote:
>
> I really do hope they give you a nice long sentence

Yes, folks, this is how to get yourself removed from the autopost list.

In article ,
stucknow   wrote:
>I need to see a solicitor but I am going away for 2 weeks tomorrow and
>this hangs heavy...as you can imagine!

Do you absolutely have to go away ?  If I were you I would be
expecting to cancel the trip and trying to use the time mitigate the
mess your life is in.

The advice about grovelling to the employer is very good.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

stucknow wrote:
> I need to see a solicitor but I am going away for 2 weeks tomorrow

Has this been agreed with the police / bail court? Your sudden 
'disappearance' could be misconstrued otherwise. And I think you need to 
see a solicitor immediately rather than sooner.

> My assumption is that I will be going to prison but I can live in hope.

I'm afraid that sustained theft from one's employer, including the 
subsequent concealment, and breach of trust, does not leave a lot of 
hope for a completely non-custodial sentence even in today's lenient 
times. Sites such as

http://users.macunlimited.net/markbarnsley/mark/preparong.html
and
http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/adviceandsupport/prison_life/

might help prepare you somewhat.

IANAL.

Owain

stucknow  wrote in
news:stucknow.2c442b7@legalbanter.co.uk: 

> 
> I need to see a solicitor but I am going away for 2 weeks tomorrow and
> this hangs heavy...as you can imagine!
> 
> Sentencing guidelines for over £20k is 1-3 years with starting point
> of 2 years and while I can find record of many who have had custodial
> sentence, I have also found many who have not.
> 
> I have not profited from this in any way and have not funded a lavish
> lifestyle...we have a £2,000 car and live in social housing...haven't
> been on holiday for 18 months so I hope that the circumstances and
> reasons will be taken into account.
> 
> My assumption is that I will be going to prison but I can live in
> hope. 

On the basis of what you've said and assuming that what you've said is
fundamentally true (and forgive me for putting it that way) an immediate
custodial sentence is not necessarily the only option available to the
court. 

You actually have a lot of mitigation, an awful lot and it strikes me
that a combination order of a suspended prison sentence (you go to
prison if you put a foot wrong but otherwise stay out) combined with
some form of order dealing with the gambling addiction is a not to
unrealistic proposition. 

The amount stolen will mean that the matter if charged will be dealt
with at the crown court - the magistrates will say no to hearing a case
of this size actually works in your favour as it means you'll get a
barrister to argue your case for you. And with apologies to any
solicitors listening they are much, much better in court (as a rule)
than Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne. As a matter of urgency though you do
need to speak with Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne so they can start work
on your mitigation and in due course instruct and properly brief a
council. 

-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

Owain  wrote in 
news:v8SdncPpdMnj5uLVnZ2dnUVZ8sninZ2d@posted.plusnet:

>> I need to see a solicitor but I am going away for 2 weeks tomorrow
> 
> Has this been agreed with the police / bail court? Your sudden 
> 'disappearance' could be misconstrued otherwise.

Possibly but if bail is unconditional then there are no legal problems 
whatsoever.

> And I think you need to 
> see a solicitor immediately rather than sooner.

two weeks trip vs several years inside ... several years inside vs two week 
trip. Not a very hard decision is it? As you suggest I'd put the trip on 
the back burner if I was the OP.

-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

Periander;544035 Wrote: 
> Owain owain47125@stirlingcity.coo.uk wrote in 
> news:v8SdncPpdMnj5uLVnZ2dnUVZ8sninZ2d@posted.plusnet:
> -[color=green][i]
> I need to see a solicitor but I am going away for 2 weeks tomorrow-
> 
> two weeks trip vs several years inside ... several years inside vs two
> week 
> trip. Not a very hard decision is it? As you suggest I'd put the trip
> on 
> the back burner if I was the OP.
> 
> -- 
> 
> I wonder if this is a wind up. Going away for 2 weeks and hence not
> reading any replies, seeking legal opinions and/or taking action seems
> rather relaxed given the circumstances.




-- 
Grapet1

In message , Periander 
 writes

>The amount stolen will mean that the matter if charged will be dealt
>with at the crown court - the magistrates will say no to hearing a case
>of this size actually works in your favour as it means you'll get a
>barrister to argue your case for you. And with apologies to any
>solicitors listening they are much, much better in court (as a rule)
>than Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne.

Your honour, I object!

First, no it does not mean that he *will* get a barrister to argue his 
case. Apart from the fact that many solicitors do their own Crown Court 
advocacy these days, we also have a growing number of barristers who are 
not prepared to work for the fees on offer from legal aid. I remember 
hearing of one from the provinces, when the current fee schemes came in, 
who was most distressed that it would reduce his earnings from about 
£200,000 a year to only £70,000.

Secondly, I have seen crap barristers, and I have seen excellent 
solicitor advocates. And vice versa. I don't think there is anything 
close to a general rule that barristers will be better.

>As a matter of urgency though you do
>need to speak with Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne so they can start work
>on your mitigation and in due course instruct and properly brief a
>council.
>

He certainly does need to see a solicitor urgently. The case will 
automatically qualify for legal aid in the Crown Court.
-- 
Richard Miller

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:45:57 +0100, Grapet1 wrote:

> Periander;544035 Wrote:
>> Owain owain47125@stirlingcity.coo.uk wrote in
>> news:v8SdncPpdMnj5uLVnZ2dnUVZ8sninZ2d@posted.plusnet: -[color=green][i]
>> I need to see a solicitor but I am going away for 2 weeks tomorrow-
>> 
>> two weeks trip vs several years inside ... several years inside vs two
>> week
>> trip. Not a very hard decision is it? As you suggest I'd put the trip
>> on
>> the back burner if I was the OP.
>> 
>> 
> I wonder if this is a wind up. Going away for 2 weeks and hence not
> reading any replies, seeking legal opinions and/or taking action seems
> rather relaxed given the circumstances.

Didn't he start off saying he was getting married 'this weekend', hence 
the two weeks away would be his honeymoon - and possibly the last relaxed 
time they get to spend together for a while...

Richard Miller  wrote in
news:+sUfS5BHgChIFw3V@seasalter0.demon.co.uk: 

> In message , Periander 
>  writes
> 
>>The amount stolen will mean that the matter if charged will be dealt
>>with at the crown court - the magistrates will say no to hearing a
>>case of this size actually works in your favour as it means you'll get
>>a barrister to argue your case for you. And with apologies to any
>>solicitors listening they are much, much better in court (as a rule)
>>than Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne.
> 
> Your honour, I object!
> 
> First, no it does not mean that he *will* get a barrister to argue his
> case. Apart from the fact that many solicitors do their own Crown
> Court advocacy these days,

Praise the lord! :-) I know, but of all the HCAs I know there is but one
I would trust to defend me. Whereas I can think of several barristers I
would crawl over hot coals to reach if I could get them to appear for me
– not that the need will ever arise of course, but hypothetically
speaking. 

> we also have a growing number of barristers who are 
> not prepared to work for the fees on offer from legal aid. I remember 
> hearing of one from the provinces, when the current fee schemes came
> in, who was most distressed that it would reduce his earnings from
> about £200,000 a year to only £70,000.

LOL a week or two ago and *very pretty* leggy, blond barrister was
buying us Champagne at £45 a pop as though it was going out of fashion.
So I have to agree, they couldn’t get by on £70k a year, just not
practicable. If I'm going to be kept in Champagne then barristers are
going to have to be well paid, otherwise I'll go thirsty because no
other bugger will buy me any. :-) 

> Secondly, I have seen crap barristers, and I have seen excellent 
> solicitor advocates. And vice versa. I don't think there is anything 
> close to a general rule that barristers will be better.

A serious point for a moment, barristers are trained from the off to be
advocates, yes some go in to commercial work, some go to the cps but
nevertheless the main thrust of their training is to present and argue
cases in court. Against that background solicitors in the main simply
don’t stand a chance. A shark may be a big frightening thing when at sea
but on dry land it’s simply so much meat. Granted there are exceptions,
folks who are naturally good in court for instance and I say this with
all lack of humility I have never lost an application or a case I've
personally presented to a court, magistrates or crown (although of
course I am not a lawyer of any description), but would I have to ask
myself, would I ever seek to defend myself, of course not, and if I did
need representation in court who would I go to - a good firm of
solicitors (there are some, much as it pains me to say so) but I'd do so
clutching a list of barristers to instruct. 

-- 
Regards,

Periander

"Periander"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9AE5E8306607Bulmbritwarcouk@193.42.231.152...
> Richard Miller  wrote in
> news:+sUfS5BHgChIFw3V@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:
>
>> In message , Periander
>>  writes
>>
>>>The amount stolen will mean that the matter if charged will be dealt
>>>with at the crown court - the magistrates will say no to hearing a
>>>case of this size actually works in your favour as it means you'll get
>>>a barrister to argue your case for you. And with apologies to any
>>>solicitors listening they are much, much better in court (as a rule)
>>>than Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne.
>>
>> Your honour, I object!
>>
>> First, no it does not mean that he *will* get a barrister to argue his
>> case. Apart from the fact that many solicitors do their own Crown
>> Court advocacy these days,
>
> Praise the lord! :-) I know, but of all the HCAs I know there is but one
> I would trust to defend me. Whereas I can think of several barristers I
> would crawl over hot coals to reach if I could get them to appear for me
> - not that the need will ever arise of course, but hypothetically
> speaking.
>
>> we also have a growing number of barristers who are
>> not prepared to work for the fees on offer from legal aid. I remember
>> hearing of one from the provinces, when the current fee schemes came
>> in, who was most distressed that it would reduce his earnings from
>> about £200,000 a year to only £70,000.
>
> LOL a week or two ago and *very pretty* leggy, blond barrister was
> buying us Champagne at £45 a pop as though it was going out of fashion.
> So I have to agree, they couldn't get by on £70k a year, just not
> practicable. If I'm going to be kept in Champagne then barristers are
> going to have to be well paid, otherwise I'll go thirsty because no
> other bugger will buy me any. :-)
>
>> Secondly, I have seen crap barristers, and I have seen excellent
>> solicitor advocates. And vice versa. I don't think there is anything
>> close to a general rule that barristers will be better.
>
> A serious point for a moment, barristers are trained from the off to be
> advocates, yes some go in to commercial work, some go to the cps but
> nevertheless the main thrust of their training is to present and argue
> cases in court. Against that background solicitors in the main simply
> don't stand a chance. A shark may be a big frightening thing when at sea
> but on dry land it's simply so much meat. Granted there are exceptions,
> folks who are naturally good in court for instance and I say this with
> all lack of humility I have never lost an application or a case I've
> personally presented to a court, magistrates or crown (although of
> course I am not a lawyer of any description), but would I have to ask
> myself, would I ever seek to defend myself, of course not, and if I did
> need representation in court who would I go to - a good firm of
> solicitors (there are some, much as it pains me to say so) but I'd do so
> clutching a list of barristers to instruct.

I am willing to believe that there are some excellent solicitor advocates. 
I have never seen solicitor advocates in action, but I have seen many, many 
barristers in action and have often been surprised at how adept they are at 
finding a way of arguing their client's case in the face of what seems the 
most damning evidence.  Very rarely, I have seen a bad barrister.  Like you, 
I think I'd know which barristers I'd want to represent me in a variety of 
possible scenarios.

In message , Periander 
 writes
>Richard Miller  wrote in
>news:+sUfS5BHgChIFw3V@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:
>
>> In message , Periander
>>  writes
>>
>>>The amount stolen will mean that the matter if charged will be dealt
>>>with at the crown court - the magistrates will say no to hearing a
>>>case of this size actually works in your favour as it means you'll get
>>>a barrister to argue your case for you. And with apologies to any
>>>solicitors listening they are much, much better in court (as a rule)
>>>than Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne.
>>
>> Your honour, I object!
>>
>> First, no it does not mean that he *will* get a barrister to argue his
>> case. Apart from the fact that many solicitors do their own Crown
>> Court advocacy these days,
>
>Praise the lord! :-) I know, but of all the HCAs I know there is but one
>I would trust to defend me. Whereas I can think of several barristers I
>would crawl over hot coals to reach if I could get them to appear for me
>– not that the need will ever arise of course, but hypothetically
>speaking.

Whereas I know a lot of solicitors I would trust implicitly, any one of 
whom I would be delighted to have fighting for me, a fair few of the 
barristers I know are arrogant stuffed shirts who are far more 
interested in the money than their clients, and whom I wouldn't want 
anywhere near my case.

>
>> we also have a growing number of barristers who are
>> not prepared to work for the fees on offer from legal aid. I remember
>> hearing of one from the provinces, when the current fee schemes came
>> in, who was most distressed that it would reduce his earnings from
>> about £200,000 a year to only £70,000.
>
>LOL a week or two ago and *very pretty* leggy, blond barrister

 From your spelling of "blond", I understand that said pretty barrister 
was male. :-)

> was
>buying us Champagne at £45 a pop as though it was going out of fashion.
>So I have to agree, they couldn’t get by on £70k a year, just not
>practicable. If I'm going to be kept in Champagne then barristers are
>going to have to be well paid, otherwise I'll go thirsty because no
>other bugger will buy me any. :-)

Traditionally, their friends in Government have looked after them very 
well.
>
>
>> Secondly, I have seen crap barristers, and I have seen excellent
>> solicitor advocates. And vice versa. I don't think there is anything
>> close to a general rule that barristers will be better.
>
>A serious point for a moment, barristers are trained from the off to be
>advocates, yes some go in to commercial work, some go to the cps but
>nevertheless the main thrust of their training is to present and argue
>cases in court. Against that background solicitors in the main simply
>don’t stand a chance.

I fundamentally disagree. Criminal solicitors are in court day in day 
out arguing cases, and know how to pull them all together, identify what 
evidence is needed, go out and get it, as well as being able to argue 
the case when they get there. There are very few cases that really need 
a particular advocate with particular skills, but an experienced defence 
solicitor will be good enough for most.

Moreover, many barristers have good legal and analytical skills in order 
to advise on cases but are poor on their feet. Their training cannot do 
anything when it is battling against a lack of natural aptitude as a 
performer, which is not an uncommon trait IME.
-- 
Richard Miller

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:10:09 +0100, stucknow
 wrote:

>
>Around a week ago I went to my employer to tell them I stole £40,000
>from them over last couple of years and have been balancing the
>accounts ever since, nobody had a clue.


I am aware of a very similar case.

The amount was 40k, the person had gambling debts, and owned up before
they were caught!!

He  has been through magistrates - pleading guilty - next visit is
Crown(?) Court for sentencing -  the advice from his  solicitor is
that he is looking at a year to be  actually served inside.

(He cannot pay back  any of the money)

I will report back when I know sentence.

"Peter Parry"  wrote in message 
news:1lrs741645gdsom9skd2i62dlll48b5g8u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:10:09 +0100, stucknow
>  wrote:
>
>>What will happen to me?
>
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section15/chapter_p_16_20.html

Phew, no wonder the prisons are full!