No matter what the crime, however heinous the actions of the criminal, if we wish to live in a civilised society, we must allow the criminal to have a properly supported defence. That defence doesn't have to sympathise with the criminal, merely to ensure that he is treated fairly under the law.
If Abu Hamza wasn't allowed to have solicitors working on his behalf, he could claim, rightly or wrongly, that he'd been unfairly treated. He would become a "victim" or a "martyr". But since he has had proper representation, it cannot be credibly claimed that he had an unfair deal.
Those solicitors did their proper duty. The only criticism I would level at them is the enormous cost. But of course if the government and police had done their job more thoroughly and consistently the case would not have dragged on for so long.
Solicitors are legally obliged to represent someone providing there is no conflict of interest and they themselves would not be violating the law in doing so. The solicitor is paid to do a job and that job isn't to judge people or allow personal feeling/opinion to interfere with his work.
Everyone, including Mr Hamza, has a right to a fair trial and the right to the presumption of innocence until so otherwise proven in a Court of Law.
If a solicitor is approached by the defendant in a criminal case and asked to act for them, they are not allowed to turn them away. This is known as the 'cab-rank' principle amongst lawyers, and is intended to make sure anyone who needs to can get a defence lawyer. 'Naming and shaming' is not a sensible approach to a case like this, Abu Hamza's lawyers were acting entirely ethically on behalf of their client.
The solicitors rules say that they would have to represent him to the best of their ability, they cannot refuse to act even if they morally disagree
Gareth Pierce, she is a woman solicitor who also worked to free Gerry Maguire, after she proved that the police had fabricated statements from him in an investigation into IRA bombs.
What did Hamzah actually do? i know he did some ranting for sure, but he's not the first.
Is Hamzah actually some sort of pantomime baddy?
There is more to this than we are being allowed to know.
At the very best, all we ever get from the media is only half the story. The half that we are given is always the bad half.
They must act for their client. the people I blame are the judges who ruled in his favour time after time.We should have elected judges. Anyway it was a barrister
have you never heard of the concept, innocent til proven guilty
are you really saying that only the people who we think are innocent should have a solicitor and them we are not sure about and who the press have condemned should get no legal representation
It wouldn't surprise me one little bit that "Cherie Blair "hasn't had her grubby little snout in the trough !
Why can't we name and shame the solicitors who worked on behalf of Abu Hamzah. I can't get my head around, apart from the money aspect, why any self-respecting Solicitor would act on his behalf; the firm should be named and shamed.
It seems that neither Abu nor his lawyers have any shame. Good point.
you dont understand the legal system, do your research.
