Keep quiet and we'll quash your conviction.......
Discussion
Magistraates are not all idiots. It like calling all BMW drivers as aggressive -
Perhaps the problem is they take too much notice of the court clerk and not go by theirown judgement of what is right and wrong or fair.
Agnostic - To what extent does the clerk advice you on the law, how much notice do you have to take, do you go by your gut feelings?
Look forward to your insight on the inside !
Perhaps the problem is they take too much notice of the court clerk and not go by theirown judgement of what is right and wrong or fair.
Agnostic - To what extent does the clerk advice you on the law, how much notice do you have to take, do you go by your gut feelings?
Look forward to your insight on the inside !
SuperlightR
As you say, the Clerk is supposed to keep their advice to strictly the letter of the law and to previous case history that may suggest a precedent.
When starting out it is often difficult to know when to take advice and when to leave it as you only learn this part by experience. Some Clerks view of their role in the Court is very different from others and varies according to their experience, confidence and general presence.
I learned fairly quickly that you do need to make up your own mind and also that the evidence of people that should be without question is sometimes far from it!
As everything has to been said openly in Court so that each party hears any advice given, you must also give reasons why you have deviated from that advice, again so that there is no mis-understanding, this is also recorded on the verdict/sentencing reasons form for future appeals etc.
There are lots of occasions where advice given is sketchy and also occasions where Magistrates have made wrong decisions, people are fallible. I would however rather have any case of mine tried before three magistrates than a DJ! I still fervently support our legal system as the best compromise possible at the moment.
A
As you say, the Clerk is supposed to keep their advice to strictly the letter of the law and to previous case history that may suggest a precedent.
When starting out it is often difficult to know when to take advice and when to leave it as you only learn this part by experience. Some Clerks view of their role in the Court is very different from others and varies according to their experience, confidence and general presence.
I learned fairly quickly that you do need to make up your own mind and also that the evidence of people that should be without question is sometimes far from it!
As everything has to been said openly in Court so that each party hears any advice given, you must also give reasons why you have deviated from that advice, again so that there is no mis-understanding, this is also recorded on the verdict/sentencing reasons form for future appeals etc.
There are lots of occasions where advice given is sketchy and also occasions where Magistrates have made wrong decisions, people are fallible. I would however rather have any case of mine tried before three magistrates than a DJ! I still fervently support our legal system as the best compromise possible at the moment.
A
Agnostic said:
Instead of trying to provoke a response to your flipant comment why do you not do as asked and explain your reasoning?
like i said; nice to meet the exception that proves the rule. ive already conceeded you are not an idiot. the 2 magistrates i know are, if not actually idiots, not nearly as clever as they think they are which makes them idiots in my book. they are also quite breath takingly self righteous. my 'flipant' comment was just that. relax.
Agnostic,
Do you come to a decision on guilt/sentence and then take the clerk's advice, or does the clerk advise before verdict and/or sentence?
If it's the former, how often is your common sense at odds with the advice?
I ask, because a lot of cases (reported in the media) seem to display a paucity of common sense, especially in sentencing. Is the law/precedent/case history getting in the way?
Paul
Do you come to a decision on guilt/sentence and then take the clerk's advice, or does the clerk advise before verdict and/or sentence?
If it's the former, how often is your common sense at odds with the advice?
I ask, because a lot of cases (reported in the media) seem to display a paucity of common sense, especially in sentencing. Is the law/precedent/case history getting in the way?
Paul
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff