Why engage a solicitor for a motoring offence?
Discussion
I add that Mills was assisted at the hearing by three Mckenzie Friends, namely her sister, Fiona Mills, Mr David Rosen, a solicitor-advocate, and Mr Michael Shilub, an American attorney.
Some extracts from the judgment -
Some extracts from the judgment -
Mr Justice Bennett said:
13. Many of the issues of fact involve a head on conflict between the evidence of the wife and the husband, in which I shall also have to examine the relevant and important documents. It is therefore appropriate that I should briefly say something at this stage about the evidence of each of the parties.
14. The wife is a strong willed and determined personality. She has shown great fortitude in the face of, and overcoming, her disability. I refer to the loss of her left leg below the knee. As I shall show she is a kindly person and is devoted to her charitable causes. She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination.
15. The husband's evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest.
16. But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife's evidence. Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case) I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall she was a less than impressive witness.
...
191. I accept that since April 2006 the wife has had a bad press. She is entitled to feel that she has been ridiculed even vilified. To some extent she is her own worst enemy. She has an explosive and volatile character. She cannot have done herself any good in the eyes of potential purchasers of her services as a TV presenter, public speaker and a model, by her outbursts in her TV interviews in October and November 2007. Nevertheless the fact is that at present she is at a disadvantage.
192. The wife would say she is at a severe disadvantage. I think she overplays her hand. ...
...
230. These items in her budget which I have touched upon above, illustrate generally speaking, how unreasonable (even generously interpreted) are the claimed needs of the wife. In the absence of any sensible proposal by the wife as to her income needs I must do the best I can on the material I have. If the wife feels aggrieved about what I propose she only has herself to blame. If, as she has done, a litigant flagrantly over-eggs the pudding and thus deprives the court of any sensible assistance, then he or she is likely to find that the court takes a robust view and drastically prunes the proposed budget.
...
307. I have searched, too, through the wife's skeleton argument of 6 February 2008 and her closing submissions for assistance. But I have to say I found very little. This may seem rather harsh upon a litigant in person, until it is remembered that the wife has had the benefit of assistance and advice from 2 lawyers, one of them an English lawyer, as her Mackenzie friends, in addition to the assistance and advice from her former solicitors and counsel from August 2006 until early November 2007.
14. The wife is a strong willed and determined personality. She has shown great fortitude in the face of, and overcoming, her disability. I refer to the loss of her left leg below the knee. As I shall show she is a kindly person and is devoted to her charitable causes. She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination.
15. The husband's evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest.
16. But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife's evidence. Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case) I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall she was a less than impressive witness.
...
191. I accept that since April 2006 the wife has had a bad press. She is entitled to feel that she has been ridiculed even vilified. To some extent she is her own worst enemy. She has an explosive and volatile character. She cannot have done herself any good in the eyes of potential purchasers of her services as a TV presenter, public speaker and a model, by her outbursts in her TV interviews in October and November 2007. Nevertheless the fact is that at present she is at a disadvantage.
192. The wife would say she is at a severe disadvantage. I think she overplays her hand. ...
...
230. These items in her budget which I have touched upon above, illustrate generally speaking, how unreasonable (even generously interpreted) are the claimed needs of the wife. In the absence of any sensible proposal by the wife as to her income needs I must do the best I can on the material I have. If the wife feels aggrieved about what I propose she only has herself to blame. If, as she has done, a litigant flagrantly over-eggs the pudding and thus deprives the court of any sensible assistance, then he or she is likely to find that the court takes a robust view and drastically prunes the proposed budget.
...
307. I have searched, too, through the wife's skeleton argument of 6 February 2008 and her closing submissions for assistance. But I have to say I found very little. This may seem rather harsh upon a litigant in person, until it is remembered that the wife has had the benefit of assistance and advice from 2 lawyers, one of them an English lawyer, as her Mackenzie friends, in addition to the assistance and advice from her former solicitors and counsel from August 2006 until early November 2007.
It is a complete waste of money to engage a solicitor.
Do it yourself it makes no difference to the fine or points if you are pleading guilty.
If not guilty get free advice online or over the internet many solicitor firms do that to try and get you to engage them.
if you are found not guilty and have a solicitor you still end up paying out £200 to £600 for the solicitor due to legal costs now being restricted to about £400.
The solicitor will want between £600 and £1000 for a not guilty plea 1 morning in court less the £400 he can claim back from the court.
Solicitors for motoring offences is now a dead duck either way guilty or not guilty you now have to pay money out no matter what.
Do it yourself it makes no difference to the fine or points if you are pleading guilty.
If not guilty get free advice online or over the internet many solicitor firms do that to try and get you to engage them.
if you are found not guilty and have a solicitor you still end up paying out £200 to £600 for the solicitor due to legal costs now being restricted to about £400.
The solicitor will want between £600 and £1000 for a not guilty plea 1 morning in court less the £400 he can claim back from the court.
Solicitors for motoring offences is now a dead duck either way guilty or not guilty you now have to pay money out no matter what.
I think it completely depends on the reason you are there.
If the telling off is justified technically then I don't think you need one at all. Be polite, organised and honest. Only answer the question directed at you and remember they are humans.
The guy who went in for 110 in a 60 before me got a larger fine, a lengthier ban and a telling off by the judge. When we chatted before going in he had a fair few excuses and was unhappy about where he was caught. I got a small ban, a relatively small fine and the judge was courteous and pleasant throughout. I held my hands up, explained how I knew the speed and conditions I was driving in and told the truth, I took the car for a bit of a run.
I see it like this, Judges and court appointed people must get a lot of scummy complainers with no respect coming through their doors. Give them an easy time and be pleasant and it will help the process I think.
Or hope he is getting his oats, every little helps.
Dave!
If the telling off is justified technically then I don't think you need one at all. Be polite, organised and honest. Only answer the question directed at you and remember they are humans.
The guy who went in for 110 in a 60 before me got a larger fine, a lengthier ban and a telling off by the judge. When we chatted before going in he had a fair few excuses and was unhappy about where he was caught. I got a small ban, a relatively small fine and the judge was courteous and pleasant throughout. I held my hands up, explained how I knew the speed and conditions I was driving in and told the truth, I took the car for a bit of a run.
I see it like this, Judges and court appointed people must get a lot of scummy complainers with no respect coming through their doors. Give them an easy time and be pleasant and it will help the process I think.
Or hope he is getting his oats, every little helps.
Dave!
Edited by Howitzer on Monday 30th October 10:20
Butter Face said:
I’ve paid for advice in a matter I’m dealing with at the moment as frankly I’ve never been in trouble before, never had to attend (or in my case, not attend but enter a plea) to a court.
I wanted to speak to someone who knew what to do/day and could help me to get the best outcome.
I was in the same situation and got representation. In hindsight the Solicitor did nothing I couldn't have done myself but as someone who'd never seen the inside of a court and facing a possible ban, I wanted to get the best chance.I wanted to speak to someone who knew what to do/day and could help me to get the best outcome.
In the end I got 6pts + £400 for 101 in a 60 (Solicitor cost around £1,000), whether I'd have fared worse without a Solicitor I'll never know...
My experience was that the magistrates demonstrably did not understand the charge, and the clerk gave them no instruction.
The wording of their verdict was incompatible with the charge.
I appealed at crown court and was awarded full costs - don't remember how much but was well over £1000. That was about 6 years ago.
I would use a motoring solicitor again.
The wording of their verdict was incompatible with the charge.
I appealed at crown court and was awarded full costs - don't remember how much but was well over £1000. That was about 6 years ago.
I would use a motoring solicitor again.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff