Representing yourself in court - motoring. Yes or no?
Discussion
I am currently embroiled in an investigation into Dangerous Driving. I have been interviewed by the Police and the paperwork is pending CPS decision, however I suspect they will run it. Given the opportunity, I suspect my better chance of 'survival' as such will actually lie at Crown Court.
I am in a trade union and have legal cover, and they have appointed a solicitor on my behalf, however i'm unsure as to how good he actually is. (I've a feeling they'll just tell me to roll over and take it. Least amount of hassle, as they are being paid by my company, not me, so who's interests are really at their heart?)
I know you can represent yourself in court, but how ill-advised is this? There's some issues I have with the evidence (albeit i've not seen all of it), primarily being that some of it may prove to be doubtful, and there are certain mitigating factors.
I think that putting points across myself, will be doing it in the way I want it put across. After all, I was there, and I know what happened. Would this work in my favour, addressing the magistrates (or even judge/jury) myself, giving it a more realistic and personal feel, rather than them listening to someone who gets paid to twist words and might rub the court up the wrong way.
I'm not just going to go in and say "I aint dun it bruv" or anything stupid like that. I understand the law, the points to prove, associated caselaw and so forth, and have a good understanding of how courts work, the evidence giving procedure, the etiquette, and the judicial process... (read into this what you will).
I'm assuming it's still a bad idea, but any experiance or knowledge would be appreciated.
I am in a trade union and have legal cover, and they have appointed a solicitor on my behalf, however i'm unsure as to how good he actually is. (I've a feeling they'll just tell me to roll over and take it. Least amount of hassle, as they are being paid by my company, not me, so who's interests are really at their heart?)
I know you can represent yourself in court, but how ill-advised is this? There's some issues I have with the evidence (albeit i've not seen all of it), primarily being that some of it may prove to be doubtful, and there are certain mitigating factors.
I think that putting points across myself, will be doing it in the way I want it put across. After all, I was there, and I know what happened. Would this work in my favour, addressing the magistrates (or even judge/jury) myself, giving it a more realistic and personal feel, rather than them listening to someone who gets paid to twist words and might rub the court up the wrong way.
I'm not just going to go in and say "I aint dun it bruv" or anything stupid like that. I understand the law, the points to prove, associated caselaw and so forth, and have a good understanding of how courts work, the evidence giving procedure, the etiquette, and the judicial process... (read into this what you will).
I'm assuming it's still a bad idea, but any experiance or knowledge would be appreciated.
Edited by un1corn on Wednesday 24th September 23:30
The Legal system is the pretty much the last closed shop. With a (very) few exceptions, they don't like the idea of whatever practises and processes they've worked out for themselves (sometimes for that town alone) being ruffled in any way.
Believe it or not, I don't entirely mean that as a criticism; more an observation of how it works.
It is exceptionally unlikely that any lay person could produce anything more likely to get the desired result than their lawyer could. If the lawyer's advice is to roll over and take it, then either do that, or pay for a very expensive "loophole" lawyer who might in any case advise the same.
If you're attempting to nit-pick on evidence rather than denying that what is alleged happened at all, you're on a sticky wicket in any case.
Believe it or not, I don't entirely mean that as a criticism; more an observation of how it works.
It is exceptionally unlikely that any lay person could produce anything more likely to get the desired result than their lawyer could. If the lawyer's advice is to roll over and take it, then either do that, or pay for a very expensive "loophole" lawyer who might in any case advise the same.
If you're attempting to nit-pick on evidence rather than denying that what is alleged happened at all, you're on a sticky wicket in any case.
Edited by V8forweekends on Wednesday 24th September 23:46
My experience as a police officer is that a certain degree of leniency is allowed someone defending themselves in magistrates court.
In the pre-CPS days police used to prosecute their own offences and the clerk of the court would then assist the defendant. I much preferred to go up against a defence brief.
If you wish to defend yourself then it might be useful if you went to a magistrates court for a few days and saw how things went.
If you go down that route, try and chat with the clerk beforehand and discuss your defence with him/her. They might give you some pointers.
In the pre-CPS days police used to prosecute their own offences and the clerk of the court would then assist the defendant. I much preferred to go up against a defence brief.
If you wish to defend yourself then it might be useful if you went to a magistrates court for a few days and saw how things went.
If you go down that route, try and chat with the clerk beforehand and discuss your defence with him/her. They might give you some pointers.
Derek Smith said:
My experience as a police officer is that a certain degree of leniency is allowed someone defending themselves in magistrates court.
In the pre-CPS days police used to prosecute their own offences and the clerk of the court would then assist the defendant. I much preferred to go up against a defence brief.
If you wish to defend yourself then it might be useful if you went to a magistrates court for a few days and saw how things went.
If you go down that route, try and chat with the clerk beforehand and discuss your defence with him/her. They might give you some pointers.
He's said he is looking at Crown Court. In the pre-CPS days police used to prosecute their own offences and the clerk of the court would then assist the defendant. I much preferred to go up against a defence brief.
If you wish to defend yourself then it might be useful if you went to a magistrates court for a few days and saw how things went.
If you go down that route, try and chat with the clerk beforehand and discuss your defence with him/her. They might give you some pointers.
I'm not sure when you were a Police Officer - but my experience if the clerk asks if you are represented and if you say no offers to get a duty solicitor to speak to you. They don't like giving out advice. But that might have been because they didn't like me.
un1corn said:
I am currently embroiled in an investigation into Dangerous Driving. I have been interviewed by the Police and the paperwork is pending CPS decision, however I suspect they will run it. Given the opportunity, I suspect my better chance of 'survival' as such will actually lie at Crown Court.
I am in a trade union and have legal cover, and they have appointed a solicitor on my behalf, however i'm unsure as to how good he actually is. (I've a feeling they'll just tell me to roll over and take it. Least amount of hassle, as they are being paid by my company, not me, so who's interests are really at their heart?)
I know you can represent yourself in court, but how ill-advised is this? There's some issues I have with the evidence (albeit i've not seen all of it), primarily being that some of it may prove to be doubtful, and there are certain mitigating factors.
I think that putting points across myself, will be doing it in the way I want it put across. After all, I was there, and I know what happened. Would this work in my favour, addressing the magistrates (or even judge/jury) myself, giving it a more realistic and personal feel, rather than them listening to someone who gets paid to twist words and might rub the court up the wrong way.
I'm not just going to go in and say "I aint dun it bruv" or anything stupid like that. I understand the law, the points to prove, associated caselaw and so forth, and have a good understanding of how courts work, the evidence giving procedure, the etiquette, and the judicial process... (read into this what you will).
I'm assuming it's still a bad idea, but any experiance or knowledge would be appreciated.
Only a lunatic would defend himself in the crown court if charged with a serious matter such as dangerous driving. You question the competence of your trade union appointed solicitor - it's very likely that your solicitor will instruct counsel. As you appear to have identified, given the choice of venue, you are far more likely to be acquitted after trial before a jury.I am in a trade union and have legal cover, and they have appointed a solicitor on my behalf, however i'm unsure as to how good he actually is. (I've a feeling they'll just tell me to roll over and take it. Least amount of hassle, as they are being paid by my company, not me, so who's interests are really at their heart?)
I know you can represent yourself in court, but how ill-advised is this? There's some issues I have with the evidence (albeit i've not seen all of it), primarily being that some of it may prove to be doubtful, and there are certain mitigating factors.
I think that putting points across myself, will be doing it in the way I want it put across. After all, I was there, and I know what happened. Would this work in my favour, addressing the magistrates (or even judge/jury) myself, giving it a more realistic and personal feel, rather than them listening to someone who gets paid to twist words and might rub the court up the wrong way.
I'm not just going to go in and say "I aint dun it bruv" or anything stupid like that. I understand the law, the points to prove, associated caselaw and so forth, and have a good understanding of how courts work, the evidence giving procedure, the etiquette, and the judicial process... (read into this what you will).
I'm assuming it's still a bad idea, but any experiance or knowledge would be appreciated.
agtlaw said:
Only a lunatic would defend himself in the crown court if charged with a serious matter such as dangerous driving.
I find that remark deeply insulting, as I am sure many others would also. Many individuals highly successfully defend themselves in court. In actual fact my experience in Scotland has shown that it's a damn site easier defending yourself in the upper courts than it is in mags or JP courts. The Sheriffs will accept technical arguments much more readily and clearly have a greater understanding of legal arguments than those on the bench in the lower courts. As Derek states the courts tend to make allowances for party defenders.
You have to remember that the offence of dangerous driving has to be proven on opinion of what is or is not dangerous. Whilst that makes it difficult to prosecute, it also means there are many ways to defend it using reason and logic.
I find myself always having to remind solicitors that they don't have autonomy on the law: it's there for all of us to use.
J
OP - surely your union don't just 'appoint a solicitor' on your behalf i.e. any old solicitor - surely they have a contract with a fairly large law firm and within that there should be motoring specialists? If this exactly what they've done then I should go back to them and insist on a specialist being used. This is after all a serious charge.
When you have spoken to a specialist there will be some technical/complicated stuff you want to get across to the jury so you ensure that when questioning you in court he asks you the questions that allow you to make your point(s). This way you get the benefit of a court room professional and you get to have your say.
As has been mentioned I should leave off the mitigation until the verdict.
When you have spoken to a specialist there will be some technical/complicated stuff you want to get across to the jury so you ensure that when questioning you in court he asks you the questions that allow you to make your point(s). This way you get the benefit of a court room professional and you get to have your say.
As has been mentioned I should leave off the mitigation until the verdict.
jith said:
agtlaw said:
Only a lunatic would defend himself in the crown court if charged with a serious matter such as dangerous driving.
I find that remark deeply insulting, as I am sure many others would also. I did exactly this by 'twisting words' as you put it - what a solicitor/barrister gets paid to do, that's part of the job!
However, there is no way on this earth I would defend myself at Crown Court, especially against a charge which can be potentially life changing.
OP - you are going to be cross-examined by barristers, and you are likely going to have a hostile witness to cross examine yourself. Once the evidence is put forward, there is further argument needed on whether it meets the standard to convict.
I would pay for a solicitor, and who in turn would employ a barrister for court.
If you are getting this for free, I agree, you would be mad to turn this down.
Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 25th September 11:27
jith said:
I find that remark deeply insulting, as I am sure many others would also.
See my quote in the first response to this thread.I don't do DIY either. When something goes wrong I turn to an expert to resolve it for me. It's ways worked out better that way. Maybe not cheapest but certainly best.
JustinP1 said:
jith said:
agtlaw said:
Only a lunatic would defend himself in the crown court if charged with a serious matter such as dangerous driving.
I find that remark deeply insulting, as I am sure many others would also. I did exactly this by 'twisting words' as you put it - what a solicitor/barrister gets paid to do, that's part of the job!
However, there is no way on this earth I would defend myself at Crown Court, especially against a charge which can be potentially life changing.
OP - you are going to be cross-examined by barristers, and you are likely going to have a hostile witness to cross examine yourself. Once the evidence is put forward, there is further argument needed on whether it meets the standard to convict.
I would pay for a solicitor, and who in turn would employ a barrister for court.
If you are getting this for free, I agree, you would be mad to turn this down.
Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 25th September 11:27
He had been stopped by 2 traffic officers on the motorway. Their case was based on the fact that he had overtaken someone on the inside lane, and it had been raining heavily at the time. The Fiscal had precignosed everyone involved and it was clear from the witness statements that the driver of the vehicle he had passed was deliberately obstructing following traffic. I also smelled a rat about the way the case was being put together and wanted to probe deeper into this individual driving the other vehicle.
About 4 weeks before the trial the guy's girlfriend who was in the car with him got really jittery and wanted some heavy representation at his trial. I asked about and was put onto a solicitor who recommended a silk in Edinburgh. She was a woman of outstanding arrogance with little or no concept of technical equipment, traffic police procedure or an understanding of driving principles. At no time did she interview me and only spoke to me the day before the trial despite the fact that I had accrued massive amounts of evidence that would have cast serious doubt on the prosecution case, but clearly required considerable study to present; certainly more than 24 hours!
At the trial she failed to cross examine the senior officer in the car, didn't even call me to give evidence and failed to grasp the concept of what is or is not dangerous in a motor vehicle. The lad was found guilty, lost his licence for a year and was fined hundreds of pounds. She took 2K off him for the privilege.
After the trial it transpired that the police had wiped the video evidence from the tape in the car, the chief "witness", i.e. the idiot in the other car, was a solicitor who frequently worked for the Fiscal's office, and the statement I had provided from the Met Office showing that in actual fact it was dry at the locus at the time of the offence hadn't even been read out in court.
I'm sorry I would rather trust my future to my own intelligence and integrity in cases like this.
J
jith - whilst I take your point on one, single experience, I don't think it's fair to represent that every barrister is lazy, incompetent and expensive.
What I would take from your story is that Joe Bloggs is certainly not equipped to go into battle against such odds. It's one thing if the OP is deciding on spending £2000 or not - but he's getting represented for free!
Surely, surely it is not the case that as a forum we are saying that the OP is better off representing himself at Crown Court rather than being represented by a solicitor and barrister?
What I would take from your story is that Joe Bloggs is certainly not equipped to go into battle against such odds. It's one thing if the OP is deciding on spending £2000 or not - but he's getting represented for free!
Surely, surely it is not the case that as a forum we are saying that the OP is better off representing himself at Crown Court rather than being represented by a solicitor and barrister?
ETA although the last one's a given.jith said:
Justin, several years ago a PHer on here contacted me to help defend him on a dangerous driving charge. He was a Londoner but was charged and summonsed to appear up here.
He had been stopped by 2 traffic officers on the motorway. Their case was based on the fact that he had overtaken someone on the inside lane, and it had been raining heavily at the time. The Fiscal had precignosed everyone involved and it was clear from the witness statements that the driver of the vehicle he had passed was deliberately obstructing following traffic. I also smelled a rat about the way the case was being put together and wanted to probe deeper into this individual driving the other vehicle.
About 4 weeks before the trial the guy's girlfriend who was in the car with him got really jittery and wanted some heavy representation at his trial. I asked about and was put onto a solicitor who recommended a silk in Edinburgh. She was a woman of outstanding arrogance with little or no concept of technical equipment, traffic police procedure or an understanding of driving principles. At no time did she interview me and only spoke to me the day before the trial despite the fact that I had accrued massive amounts of evidence that would have cast serious doubt on the prosecution case, but clearly required considerable study to present; certainly more than 24 hours!
At the trial she failed to cross examine the senior officer in the car, didn't even call me to give evidence and failed to grasp the concept of what is or is not dangerous in a motor vehicle. The lad was found guilty, lost his licence for a year and was fined hundreds of pounds. She took 2K off him for the privilege.
After the trial it transpired that the police had wiped the video evidence from the tape in the car, the chief "witness", i.e. the idiot in the other car, was a solicitor who frequently worked for the Fiscal's office, and the statement I had provided from the Met Office showing that in actual fact it was dry at the locus at the time of the offence hadn't even been read out in court.
I'm sorry I would rather trust my future to my own intelligence and integrity in cases like this.
J
What do you do for a living if people are contacting you to help them with a criminal trial? Do you have any relevant skills, or just a busybody? He had been stopped by 2 traffic officers on the motorway. Their case was based on the fact that he had overtaken someone on the inside lane, and it had been raining heavily at the time. The Fiscal had precignosed everyone involved and it was clear from the witness statements that the driver of the vehicle he had passed was deliberately obstructing following traffic. I also smelled a rat about the way the case was being put together and wanted to probe deeper into this individual driving the other vehicle.
About 4 weeks before the trial the guy's girlfriend who was in the car with him got really jittery and wanted some heavy representation at his trial. I asked about and was put onto a solicitor who recommended a silk in Edinburgh. She was a woman of outstanding arrogance with little or no concept of technical equipment, traffic police procedure or an understanding of driving principles. At no time did she interview me and only spoke to me the day before the trial despite the fact that I had accrued massive amounts of evidence that would have cast serious doubt on the prosecution case, but clearly required considerable study to present; certainly more than 24 hours!
At the trial she failed to cross examine the senior officer in the car, didn't even call me to give evidence and failed to grasp the concept of what is or is not dangerous in a motor vehicle. The lad was found guilty, lost his licence for a year and was fined hundreds of pounds. She took 2K off him for the privilege.
After the trial it transpired that the police had wiped the video evidence from the tape in the car, the chief "witness", i.e. the idiot in the other car, was a solicitor who frequently worked for the Fiscal's office, and the statement I had provided from the Met Office showing that in actual fact it was dry at the locus at the time of the offence hadn't even been read out in court.
I'm sorry I would rather trust my future to my own intelligence and integrity in cases like this.
J
Not saying that this is you, but if I'm the OIC for something at court and I find out that the defendant is representing themselves I usually look forward to it. I'm sure you'll be very capable and competent at defending yourself but 100% of my experience of this has been absolutely hilarious. Especially when the 'defence' starts trying to intimidate me in the box having seen too many court room dramas. I have even seen magistrates wiping tears from their eyes because they've laughing so much. Admittedly it's never been at Crown, only ever Mags which can be a bit of a circus anyway. My favourite exchange from a motorist who went through numerous red lights while I was behind him:-
Defendant - Officer, are you colour blind?
Me - No
D - Are you sure?
Me - Erm, quite sure yes.
D - Officer I put it to you that you are colour blind and therefore you couldn't have known that it was a red light I was going through.
Me - But I'm not colour blind. (Now getting raised eyebrows from the Magistrates, clerk has taken her glasses off and seems incredulous and the CPS Bloke's shoulders are going as he tries not to laugh out loud)
D - but how can you be sure?
Me - because the medical I had two weeks ago said I wasn't.
D - well maybe you were at the time of the alleged offence (I was struggling nasty straight faced by now)
Me - I'm not sure it works like that but even if I were then I could still recognise that the top light in the sequence is the one you stop for.
At this point the Clerk put a stop to things, reminding the defendant that they had all just watched the video from my car which clearly showed the offences. It seemed that with no foundation whatsoever he had decided to try and get the court to believe I was colour blond and therefore unable to prosecute for red light offences.
He got a ban.
Defendant - Officer, are you colour blind?
Me - No
D - Are you sure?
Me - Erm, quite sure yes.
D - Officer I put it to you that you are colour blind and therefore you couldn't have known that it was a red light I was going through.
Me - But I'm not colour blind. (Now getting raised eyebrows from the Magistrates, clerk has taken her glasses off and seems incredulous and the CPS Bloke's shoulders are going as he tries not to laugh out loud)
D - but how can you be sure?
Me - because the medical I had two weeks ago said I wasn't.
D - well maybe you were at the time of the alleged offence (I was struggling nasty straight faced by now)
Me - I'm not sure it works like that but even if I were then I could still recognise that the top light in the sequence is the one you stop for.
At this point the Clerk put a stop to things, reminding the defendant that they had all just watched the video from my car which clearly showed the offences. It seemed that with no foundation whatsoever he had decided to try and get the court to believe I was colour blond and therefore unable to prosecute for red light offences.
He got a ban.
jith said:
Justin, several years ago a PHer on here contacted me to help defend him on a dangerous driving charge. He was a Londoner but was charged and summonsed to appear up here.
He had been stopped by 2 traffic officers on the motorway. Their case was based on the fact that he had overtaken someone on the inside lane, and it had been raining heavily at the time. The Fiscal had precignosed everyone involved and it was clear from the witness statements that the driver of the vehicle he had passed was deliberately obstructing following traffic. I also smelled a rat about the way the case was being put together and wanted to probe deeper into this individual driving the other vehicle.
About 4 weeks before the trial the guy's girlfriend who was in the car with him got really jittery and wanted some heavy representation at his trial. I asked about and was put onto a solicitor who recommended a silk in Edinburgh. She was a woman of outstanding arrogance with little or no concept of technical equipment, traffic police procedure or an understanding of driving principles. At no time did she interview me and only spoke to me the day before the trial despite the fact that I had accrued massive amounts of evidence that would have cast serious doubt on the prosecution case, but clearly required considerable study to present; certainly more than 24 hours!
At the trial she failed to cross examine the senior officer in the car, didn't even call me to give evidence and failed to grasp the concept of what is or is not dangerous in a motor vehicle. The lad was found guilty, lost his licence for a year and was fined hundreds of pounds. She took 2K off him for the privilege.
After the trial it transpired that the police had wiped the video evidence from the tape in the car, the chief "witness", i.e. the idiot in the other car, was a solicitor who frequently worked for the Fiscal's office, and the statement I had provided from the Met Office showing that in actual fact it was dry at the locus at the time of the offence hadn't even been read out in court.
I'm sorry I would rather trust my future to my own intelligence and integrity in cases like this.
J
Schoolboy error to discover those matters after the trial. what was the outcome of the appeal againsf conviction?He had been stopped by 2 traffic officers on the motorway. Their case was based on the fact that he had overtaken someone on the inside lane, and it had been raining heavily at the time. The Fiscal had precignosed everyone involved and it was clear from the witness statements that the driver of the vehicle he had passed was deliberately obstructing following traffic. I also smelled a rat about the way the case was being put together and wanted to probe deeper into this individual driving the other vehicle.
About 4 weeks before the trial the guy's girlfriend who was in the car with him got really jittery and wanted some heavy representation at his trial. I asked about and was put onto a solicitor who recommended a silk in Edinburgh. She was a woman of outstanding arrogance with little or no concept of technical equipment, traffic police procedure or an understanding of driving principles. At no time did she interview me and only spoke to me the day before the trial despite the fact that I had accrued massive amounts of evidence that would have cast serious doubt on the prosecution case, but clearly required considerable study to present; certainly more than 24 hours!
At the trial she failed to cross examine the senior officer in the car, didn't even call me to give evidence and failed to grasp the concept of what is or is not dangerous in a motor vehicle. The lad was found guilty, lost his licence for a year and was fined hundreds of pounds. She took 2K off him for the privilege.
After the trial it transpired that the police had wiped the video evidence from the tape in the car, the chief "witness", i.e. the idiot in the other car, was a solicitor who frequently worked for the Fiscal's office, and the statement I had provided from the Met Office showing that in actual fact it was dry at the locus at the time of the offence hadn't even been read out in court.
I'm sorry I would rather trust my future to my own intelligence and integrity in cases like this.
J
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff