Because I believe that everyone should get legal representation, innocent or guilty.
From that article though; the problem the judge had with the notices was that they were too vague. The fact they didn't classify the "chalet type structures" and didn't specify fences gates and other built structures seems like the notices were badly drafted.
I also agree that claiming you can do "anything that is reasonably necessary" is far too wide for a legal document.

If you're doing something this high profile you have to be accurate and specific. Otherwise it gets picked apart in court. That's not a loophole. The fact it wasn't caused this delay, and the people at fault for that are the council and their legal team. Otherwise the judge would have dismissed it all.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 17:11, 1 reply, 14 years ago)

It's always easy to criticise anything that's written down after the fact.
These are tiny points which are not going to change the fact that these people are still most likely to be evicted.

If they were still protesting the original question of whether or not their applications were wrongly rejected I would be more on your side, but they aren't they are delaying the inevitable.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 26 Sep 2011, 17:32, Reply)