Scottish criminal case, what a farce!
Discussion
Decided to shorten my post, my partner and i have been harassed and slandered by a convicted pervert for the last 5 years, we took him to court but lawyers took no account of any harassment over the last 5 years, just what happened on the one day i got the guy charged?? Isn't life a b
h, and please may i receive more abuse on here to add to the stress i have endured in life 'before' the court date, and the stress cancelled court dates, and the court case itself caused as well, thanks!
P. S, I hope a convicted pervert turns up shouting at your house with an iron bar when your wife's/partners are in alone. Thanks so far for the couple of genuine replies, and up yours to the typical Pistonhead 2018 replies.
h, and please may i receive more abuse on here to add to the stress i have endured in life 'before' the court date, and the stress cancelled court dates, and the court case itself caused as well, thanks!P. S, I hope a convicted pervert turns up shouting at your house with an iron bar when your wife's/partners are in alone. Thanks so far for the couple of genuine replies, and up yours to the typical Pistonhead 2018 replies.
Edited by robbocop33 on Tuesday 10th July 13:06
To summarise
1. Lots of bad blood between OP and another bloke.
2. OP reports other bloke to the Police.
3. Police arrest other bloke. Bloke gets taken to Court.
4. OP suffers hard time under cross examination.
5. Court find case "Not proven" (somewhere between Not Guilty and Guilty).
5. OP not happy with prosecution.
I studied Scottish as part of my degree.
1. Lots of bad blood between OP and another bloke.
2. OP reports other bloke to the Police.
3. Police arrest other bloke. Bloke gets taken to Court.
4. OP suffers hard time under cross examination.
5. Court find case "Not proven" (somewhere between Not Guilty and Guilty).
5. OP not happy with prosecution.
I studied Scottish as part of my degree.
Back story:
February - "How to drop charges, and not appearing at court": https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=17...
March - "Taking guy to court but he keeps being conveniently ill": https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=17...
May - "Can I find out why guy I'm taking to court avoids going?": https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=17...
February - "How to drop charges, and not appearing at court": https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=17...
March - "Taking guy to court but he keeps being conveniently ill": https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=17...
May - "Can I find out why guy I'm taking to court avoids going?": https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=17...
The most useful training exercise I had imposed on me while I was in the police was how to answer questions in court. I was subjected to it after my first appearance at the Old Bailey when I turned out to be one of the best defence witnesses due to the offender's brief twisting what I was saying.
There's a book that aspirant lawyers use, 'How to ensure the truth doesn't come out in court', so with a bit of experience you can avoid the traps they set.
One good thing about having lots of civilian witnesses in a trial is that the briefs tend to go for them.
The worst case to be a witness for the prosecution is one that is cut and dried, with no real defence available. You have no idea what the briefs will attack and the look of confusion on the face of a police officer. who's thinking 'what on earth is this idiot on about', doesn't help the case.
Apart from the basics, such as tell the truth, if you don't know admit it, and if you only think something, say it firmly, I was told not to let them put words in my mouth, not to get upset but to react normally, ie they think they're special but don't take no st from them, and if they say something that distorts the truth in the form of a question then turn to the magistrate, correct the error, pointing out where they were wrong, then go back to the brief and say, 'I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?' They then have to work out whether to repeat the misleading bit, or lose any impact by leaving it out. Most lawyers fail in the quick thinking stakes.
Whilst one can stand back from many cases and treat them as a bit of a farce, with the truth not being of concern, when it comes to a serious case, such as rape, then it is difficult to walk out of the court with any respect left for those who see releasing a rapist back into the population via trickery a good day's work.
There's a book that aspirant lawyers use, 'How to ensure the truth doesn't come out in court', so with a bit of experience you can avoid the traps they set.
One good thing about having lots of civilian witnesses in a trial is that the briefs tend to go for them.
The worst case to be a witness for the prosecution is one that is cut and dried, with no real defence available. You have no idea what the briefs will attack and the look of confusion on the face of a police officer. who's thinking 'what on earth is this idiot on about', doesn't help the case.
Apart from the basics, such as tell the truth, if you don't know admit it, and if you only think something, say it firmly, I was told not to let them put words in my mouth, not to get upset but to react normally, ie they think they're special but don't take no s
t from them, and if they say something that distorts the truth in the form of a question then turn to the magistrate, correct the error, pointing out where they were wrong, then go back to the brief and say, 'I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?' They then have to work out whether to repeat the misleading bit, or lose any impact by leaving it out. Most lawyers fail in the quick thinking stakes.Whilst one can stand back from many cases and treat them as a bit of a farce, with the truth not being of concern, when it comes to a serious case, such as rape, then it is difficult to walk out of the court with any respect left for those who see releasing a rapist back into the population via trickery a good day's work.
Derek Smith said:
The most useful training exercise I had imposed on me while I was in the police was how to answer questions in court. I was subjected to it after my first appearance at the Old Bailey when I turned out to be one of the best defence witnesses due to the offender's brief twisting what I was saying.
There's a book that aspirant lawyers use, 'How to ensure the truth doesn't come out in court', so with a bit of experience you can avoid the traps they set.
One good thing about having lots of civilian witnesses in a trial is that the briefs tend to go for them.
The worst case to be a witness for the prosecution is one that is cut and dried, with no real defence available. You have no idea what the briefs will attack and the look of confusion on the face of a police officer. who's thinking 'what on earth is this idiot on about', doesn't help the case.
Apart from the basics, such as tell the truth, if you don't know admit it, and if you only think something, say it firmly, I was told not to let them put words in my mouth, not to get upset but to react normally, ie they think they're special but don't take no st from them, and if they say something that distorts the truth in the form of a question then turn to the magistrate, correct the error, pointing out where they were wrong, then go back to the brief and say, 'I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?' They then have to work out whether to repeat the misleading bit, or lose any impact by leaving it out. Most lawyers fail in the quick thinking stakes.
Whilst one can stand back from many cases and treat them as a bit of a farce, with the truth not being of concern, when it comes to a serious case, such as rape, then it is difficult to walk out of the court with any respect left for those who see releasing a rapist back into the population via trickery a good day's work.
hi whats the name of that book?There's a book that aspirant lawyers use, 'How to ensure the truth doesn't come out in court', so with a bit of experience you can avoid the traps they set.
One good thing about having lots of civilian witnesses in a trial is that the briefs tend to go for them.
The worst case to be a witness for the prosecution is one that is cut and dried, with no real defence available. You have no idea what the briefs will attack and the look of confusion on the face of a police officer. who's thinking 'what on earth is this idiot on about', doesn't help the case.
Apart from the basics, such as tell the truth, if you don't know admit it, and if you only think something, say it firmly, I was told not to let them put words in my mouth, not to get upset but to react normally, ie they think they're special but don't take no s
t from them, and if they say something that distorts the truth in the form of a question then turn to the magistrate, correct the error, pointing out where they were wrong, then go back to the brief and say, 'I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?' They then have to work out whether to repeat the misleading bit, or lose any impact by leaving it out. Most lawyers fail in the quick thinking stakes.Whilst one can stand back from many cases and treat them as a bit of a farce, with the truth not being of concern, when it comes to a serious case, such as rape, then it is difficult to walk out of the court with any respect left for those who see releasing a rapist back into the population via trickery a good day's work.
I've come up against lawyers in my profession, as a professional witness. 1% of the time they have a valid argument, 99% of the time it's "This paperwork is dated the 1st of January 2018, when in reality it was filled out on the 2nd of January 2018. THERE IS NO TRACE-ABILITY. CASE DISMISSED."
KAgantua said:
hi whats the name of that book?
Thanks for asking. PH mods have told me off, or at least one of them did, for advertising so you have mail. There's a bit about the word kerfuffle in #2 Court Old Bailey. Sort of sums it up.Anyone else can link to the book, but not me.
Derek
Jonno02 said:
I've come up against lawyers in my profession, as a professional witness. 1% of the time they have a valid argument, 99% of the time it's "This paperwork is dated the 1st of January 2018, when in reality it was filled out on the 2nd of January 2018. THERE IS NO TRACE-ABILITY. CASE DISMISSED."
In my last two years in the job I was my force's identification officer and gave evidence about 35 times. Bewilderingly, what got to me was the stupid questions on procedure.They obviously hadn't done their homework. I was told that I had opted for video film identification for a parade (old CoPs). I pointed out that it was beyond my authority to do so. The brief, all 8 stone of him, threw a fit, and threw his file on the desk in front of him, revealing report I'd sent to the OIC explaining to him that he could, if he felt it necessary (and he did - 10 year old kids who'd been penetrated) opt for a VFI.After a couple of minutes we got to my sending a report to the OIC. I was asked what was on it. I said I had a copy in my briefcase (with me) but there was one on his desk.
Fair enough, he was new at his trade, but at least read the file for heaven's sake. Every defendant deserves that.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff