Re: Official Redknapp Case Trial Thread

[Dnmac4]

This is the most insane case I've seen in a long time.

London spent 8 Million Pounds on a case about a guy stealing 30,000 pounds.

I'm pretty sure the people in charge knew it would be a long / expensive drawn out process (if they didn't they should be flogged) and just wanted to get there names in the paper.

How on earth do you take this case to trial if your not 100% sure of a conviction especially with the facts listed above.

Some people need to get fired over wasting the tax payers money to get there face in the paper and there 15 minutes of fame.

Oh and BTW the "I'm an idiot" defense is pretty much the standard defense people take when getting investigated or on trial for tax purposes.

While from a practical stand point you make a good point that's not how the legal system works I'm afraid. If it was 100% sure then there wouldn't be a trial, the whole point of the case was that it wasn't 100% clear.

Yes but the people in charge of the legal system decide which cases to take to trial and which cases not to or even just issue the person a fine (which happens in most tax cases BTW)

For a normal tax payer the price of a trial would be no where near 8 million pounds so a trial if they wanted to would be much less of a burden on the tax payers.

In this case they must have known it was going to be very expensive and that the people involved in it would make a name for themselves win or lose off of Harry Redknapp's name, which is what they did.

In most tax cases 90% of them settle out of court or before they ever go to court or like I said before they just pay a fine. With that being said for the prosecution to take a case like this to court over 30,000 pounds which in the grand scheme of things is nothing compared to what he pays in taxes yearly is crazy unless they had an air tight case.

For him to be found completely not guilty it is very obvious that the case was never that strong and that they just wanted to get famous off of 'Arry and they used the tax payers money to do it.

It's disgusting, not to mention they dragged "arry threw the mud and he probably paid way more then 30k on his defense and he was innocent BTW.

[Zealous]

30,000 while not a lot relatively is still 30,000 that could have potentially taken unlawfully. Even if it were 30 pounds from a moral standpoint it would be taken to court if it could. This is more of a ethical issue.

The fact that that it was taken to court meant that there was always the chance that Harry would win the case. That's just how legal proceedings work, sure this particular case could have been settled before hand but so could the hundreds of other cases that don't make the news. Which brings me to the point of motivation for bringing it to court. No one "gets famous" out of these things unless the man on trial is Al Capone. It was brought to court because it was the job of those responsible.

The case was based on a dispute, nothing more nothing less. Again practically speaking I agree with you about wasting time but you can't just ignore the ethical side of these proceedings it sends out the wrong message.

I also agree with you on the "Harry paying more than 30,000 in the end" part.

(Btw I'd be more careful about the use of percentages when it comes to this. More often that not they are not accurate unless you're using a source )

[Dnmac4]

30,000 while not a lot relatively is still 30,000 that could have potentially taken unlawfully. Even if it were 30 pounds from a moral standpoint it would be taken to court if it could. This is more of a ethical issue.

The fact that that it was taken to court meant that there was always the chance that Harry would win the case. That's just how legal proceedings work, sure this particular case could have been settled before hand but so could the hundreds of other cases that don't make the news. Which brings me to the point of motivation for bringing it to court. No one "gets famous" out of these things unless the man on trial is Al Capone. It was brought to court because it was the job of those responsible.

The case was based on a dispute, nothing more nothing less. Again practically speaking I agree with you about wasting time but you can't just ignore the ethical side of these proceedings it sends out the wrong message.

I also agree with you on the "Harry paying more than 30,000 in the end" part.

(Btw I'd be more careful about the use of percentages when it comes to this. More often that not they are not accurate unless you're using a source )

If the courts took a moral stand then there would be a line out the court house and all the way through the streets of London especially in Tax cases where a lot of people fib/cheat.

And that is what I would call it a fib or cheating a little on your taxes as like I said before in the grand scheme of things 30k is nothing compared to what he pays in taxes and it would be a totally minor offense and if convicted would have ended up in paying a fine or some probation but no jail time so why not just fine him in the first place and save the people of London 8 million pounds plus jamming up the court house with this case and all the attention and media coverage on it.

It just makes no sense unless you were positive you were going to win and in doing so send a message that no one is above the law and the rich and famous can't cheat on there taxes and will be held accountable just like everyone else blah blah blah or at least if you didn't win outright get some kind of charge or fine to stick.

To be totally not guilty is really embarassing for the court and most cases are settled way before going to trial and I'm sure if they gave him a little slap on the wrist or fine he would have gladly paid it instead of all this which is how they treat most cases BTW so it's pretty obvious that they were just trying to get there name in the paper.

Not to mention if they jammed up there jail system with minor tax offenders they would build jails all year round so again from that aspect it makes no sense again.

And one final thing, yes prosecutors do get famous off of these types of trials. I pulled up one article on the trial and John Black the prosecutors name was all over it plus he was mentioned in numerous interviews. Here in the states Marsha clark is now a "Legal expert" after losing the OJ trial and is on TV which she gets paid for to comment on other public trials, and Mark Furman the racist cop has his own show and I could go on and on.

[Sponsored content]