|
LoonR1
12,445 posts
46 months
|
Why is there no mention of another vehicle in the article from the Halifax Courier?
My thoughts are that the OPs friend is the driver of the Corsa. However she can disprove this with a copy of the summons showing her friends first name and the surname redacted.
|
|
|
Efbe
Original Poster
4,862 posts
35 months
|
oldsoak said: No way of raising any money AND not entitled to legal aid?
Something somewhere isn't right...I would have expected if one didn't fall into the legal aid bracket you would have ample means at your disposal paying for someone to defend your case already... I agree. taken from somewhere on the internet: "A calculation will be done to assess your "disposable income" which – after deductions for tax, national insurance and child support – cannot be more than £8,796 a year (£733 a month). " £8796 disposable income a year is not a lot if you have large debts, children, a wife at college
|
|
|
Efbe
Original Poster
4,862 posts
35 months
|
Devil2575 said: 2: The other drivers speed is not relevant. Speeding in itself does not consititute negligence. I could do with finding something to put into his case about this. Does anyone have a link to anywhere legal-related that states this?
|
|
|
Devil2575
4,390 posts
57 months
|
Efbe said: Devil2575 said: 2: The other drivers speed is not relevant. Speeding in itself does not consititute negligence. I could do with finding something to put into his case about this. Does anyone have a link to anywhere legal-related that states this? I was told this by the legal department of my insurance company. I assumed it to be correct.
|
|
|
elanfan
1,104 posts
96 months
|
In my unqualified view this case should be easily winable by your friend representing himself.
On the question of him speeding it cannot be proved and would be inadmissable. If he was going that much faster than the driver behind him then he'd have been out of sight in no time! Is the other driver willing to admit in court they were speeding too? In any case even if here was doing 75mph it does not give the TP the right to pull out on him.
I'd get your insurers to release the original statement to you. Then in court i'd go through the 'revised' statement asking at each point - is this correct? which they will confirm. then I'd produce the 'original' statement and ask is this the statment you gave on the day/ Would it be fair to say that your memory of events is likely to be much clearer on the day rather than 4 months later/ Agaimn go through each point asking if this is correct and it will be soon obvious to the magistrate that the person has adjusted the truth to suit them. Finally show a diagram (with copies) to all parties including the magistrate showing that the imact to the vehicle was on the opposite side from what actually happened and produce photos to prove. The case will fall apart.
I'd also be tempted to say to the magistrate that the person had deliberately lied to try and get your friend into trouble and had in your view perverted the course of justice hope fully retribution would follow.
Nearer the court date maybe Tonker could add a few relevant questions to ask - he's great at getting a witness to hang themselves??
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
covboy
1,341 posts
43 months
|
elanfan said: In my unqualified view this case should be easily winable by your friend representing himself.
On the question of him speeding it cannot be proved and would be inadmissable. If he was going that much faster than the driver behind him then he'd have been out of sight in no time! Is the other driver willing to admit in court they were speeding too? In any case even if here was doing 75mph it does not give the TP the right to pull out on him.
I'd get your insurers to release the original statement to you. Then in court i'd go through the 'revised' statement asking at each point - is this correct? which they will confirm. then I'd produce the 'original' statement and ask is this the statment you gave on the day/ Would it be fair to say that your memory of events is likely to be much clearer on the day rather than 4 months later/ Agaimn go through each point asking if this is correct and it will be soon obvious to the magistrate that the person has adjusted the truth to suit them. Finally show a diagram (with copies) to all parties including the magistrate showing that the imact to the vehicle was on the opposite side from what actually happened and produce photos to prove. The case will fall apart.
I'd also be tempted to say to the magistrate that the person had deliberately lied to try and get your friend into trouble and had in your view perverted the course of justice hope fully retribution would follow.
Nearer the court date maybe Tonker could add a few relevant questions to ask - he's great at getting a witness to hang themselves?? One of the main points of the OP's post is the fact that the friend would not be capable of representing himself in court due to his lack of communication skills. I can fully understand that, as a friend of mine although a great chap and good company, as soon as he has to express himself in a "formal" environment, gets completely tongue tied and flustered. What may seem a fairly easy task to many of us can in fact be a complete nightmare to others.
|
|
|
Efbe
Original Poster
4,862 posts
35 months
|
elanfan, thanks for that. covboy is right, he can't articulate anything whatsoever, under pressure or not!.
because of this I'm just going to try and help him write out a good statement he can read in court, or even submit beforehand.
I wasn't sure if he even really needs to mention speeding, but have put a very short paragraph in there to mention bascally what you said about it.
The main point for me is the guys second statement is completely contradicted by the photographic evidence and police statement.
The summons says that the two witnesses will not be present at court on the day. would this make cross-examining the evidence harder/easier?
|
|
|
elanfan
1,104 posts
96 months
|
I'd have thought that the case could not proceed without witnesses to cross examine. However if this is the case you only need to prove part of their evidence to be incorrect to show it cannot be trusted and case dismissed.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
Who canrepresent you at Magistrates court?
Does it HAVE to be a lawyer, or are you allowed a friend more articulate than yourself?
And surely if you are to question the evidence the witnesses would HAVE to be present.
May be worth OP's friend making an appointment to see a lawyer, many offer a half hour consult for free at certain times (mine does Sat morning half hour consults for free for new cases (i.e. not something you have asked about before)).
May also be worth asking a few lawyers if they would do an installment plan. Again the chap I use allows me to pay him 'on the drip' if the bill gets too big.
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,445 posts
46 months
|
Devil2575 said: I was told this by the legal department of my insurance company. I assumed it to be correct. FFS people. When will you all grasp the simple concept that insurance liability and a police prosecution are completely separate issues? Devil2575 is correct that speed is not necessarily a relevant aspect when assessing liability for insurance purposes which is a civil matter. However, speed may be wholly relevant when applied to the DWDCA aspect which is a criminal matter. The two aspects are completely different so instead of arguing the toss over this I'd suggest forgetting it as it a red herring.
|
|
|
10 Pence Short
27,579 posts
86 months
|
Not only that. They're not asking whether the speed was above or below the posted limit; they want to know was the speed appropriate and/or contributory. A witness may not be able to say the car was doing 32.5mph, but they can say that in their opinion it was being driven far too fast for that moment, or much faster than other vehicles around it, for example.
|
|
|
kaf
323 posts
16 months
|
10 Pence Short said: Not only that. They're not asking whether the speed was above or below the posted limit; they want to know was the speed appropriate and/or contributory. A witness may not be able to say the car was doing 32.5mph, but they can say that in their opinion it was being driven far too fast for that moment, or much faster than other vehicles around it, for example. True, being below the speed limit does not make it safe............same argument as many here give that being over the limit is not automatically dangerous. Speed limit is an arbitrary number, 'safe speed' is however a concept that too many drivers cannot get their head around.
|
|
|
Efbe
Original Poster
4,862 posts
35 months
|
well actually the second witness has not said he was driving too fast for the conditions, just that he was doing 55 in a 40
|
|
