Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
kestral said:
Did any PH other than Milkround attend the trial?
Are you suggesting he's not real, and is in fact the product of a Macedonian troll factory sponsored by the russian state, who made up the story to sew the seeds of decent against western democracy among a few random people, then mocked up the cctv, loaded the files with malware payloads and shared them with some people claiming to solicitors and / or serving police officers who might have access to documents of some value.How dare you!
milkround said:
Many aspects of it I was unhappy with. The solicitor who turned up had only been given the case the night before. She got stuck in traffic so was 2 and a half hours late. She hadn't been given a copy of my partners statement. She didn't have the CCTV so I needed to show it on my laptop. In the end she had to ask the CPS to use their CCTV throughout. Even ended up asking me if there was anything that had been missed when she was cross examining the guy who I'm now guilty of attacking. Felt like she did her best - but it all just went to rubbish. The mags got annoyed at the lateness, especially when she asked for an early lunch so she could go over the stuff.
Is that the solicitor who was acting for you? If so, either you weren't paying for an experienced advocate or you've been very poorly represented.milkround said:
I don't think the system is fair. But then it's the best system we have. In the end the mags said they didn't find me and my partner convincing because we would be able to discuss it. They also said I had failed to prove I needed to use self defence - this was a bit daft as it's for the crown to disprove it to the criminal standard. Ultimately none of that matters as I lost.
You've discovered the hard way that Mags are a lottery. Most, if not all, have no legal training.They rely on an experienced official for advice and guidance - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/409163/resp...
kestral said:
Did your solicitor cross examine the SG properly?
Did your solicitor say in any shape or form that you were being attacked and recite the law
regarding arrest under PACE sec 24b?
Can you give more detail as to where you think it went wrong and what the magistrates said at the end of the case.
Are you going to appeal?
I don't know enough to know if the cross examination was done properly. But the magistrates legal advisor did end up saying 'whats the relevance of this?'. And I personally feel many things were missed. That being said who am I to say what should have been included? I felt that the solicitor wasn't prepared. But that wasn't her fault. She only got the papers the night before. The legal advisor kept snapping at my solicitor over lots of things. Did your solicitor say in any shape or form that you were being attacked and recite the law
regarding arrest under PACE sec 24b?
Can you give more detail as to where you think it went wrong and what the magistrates said at the end of the case.
Are you going to appeal?
She did say I was being pushed. The problem was the close up footage I'd provided wasn't served on the CPS. She never saw it before I showed it to her. She didn't have any CCTV and had to ask the CPS lady to play her copy over and over. She didn't even have my partners statement.
Didn't recite the law. Just said he was acting unlawfully etc. She didn't really go into PACE etc. I think her and the prosecutor discussed it before.
Mags said that they found the guard and witness more convincing. And didn't believe me and my partner as much as we would have been able to talk about it together. Said I had not proven that self defence was applicable and therefore did not think self defence was valid here. Also said that they felt the gaurd had probably not pushed me.
IF all the evidence had been put to the court. And the witnesses had really been challenged I'd be okay with losing a lot more. The witness claimed I never fell over. And said he saw me punching the gaurd when I was standing shoulder to shoulder with my partner. The problem was the SG said I punched him when my partner was a good 30ft away. The solicitor didn't pick up on this.
The guard said he never kicked me. This was clear on the CCTV. She didn't push that. Then the witness said he did kick me! But this wasn't mentioned in the closing speech.
I'm going to have to think about an appeal. I'd only countenance it if I felt I could afford a direct access barrister who I was confident in. I have little faith in solicitors atm. Sounds arrogant but I genuinely felt I could have done a better job of representing myself.
elanfan said:
Sounds to me like you were very badly let down by your solicitors. Complaint to senior partner. They should fund the appeal!
This. You have a strong case that they've put you in this predicament. You pay good money for their services and skill set. You wouldn't pay a car wash for washing half your car, so say your piece. And s
t man, not the result you wanted (or I suspect the fair one) but respect for always keeping your cool in the face of antagonism from some on here (especially early on) and for seeing it through to conclusion. You come across as one of the good ones. Red 4 said:
Roman Rhodes said:
The oddest thing is that you think that I'm "obsessed with the homophobic angle". What conclusion did your wondering lead you to?
As I said before, you seem to have lost touch with reality. Arguing against someone who observed that the OP's behaviour wasn't pragmatic isn't very rational.
You are obsessed with the homophobic angle.As I said before, you seem to have lost touch with reality. Arguing against someone who observed that the OP's behaviour wasn't pragmatic isn't very rational.
That is all you ( bizarrely ) keep going on about.
I haven't reached any conclusion about why you keep going on about it - other than you come across as a bit odd/ obsessive/ have an issue with the op.
For the avoidance of doubt ( I'll spell it out in simple words that you can understand ) I haven't said that the op's actions were the best course of action on the day.
That does not mean that he has broken the law though.
It isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Look forward to your detailed analysis of how the court has got it all wrong and he’ll win on appeal
I hope you don’t give legal advice for a living, chump!
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 9th December 22:16
"I think I could have done better myself"
I have lost count of the cases in magistrates courts where the solicitors were not worth paying in buttons. The majority of them have no idea how to cross examine at all.
If you are considering an appeal go down to your local crown court and watch a barrister in comparison to a solicitor.
Some solicitors don't even understand the golden rule of cross examination...lead,lead and lead.
The issue of interference of liberty should have been gone into in depth by your solicitor pointing out you are at liberty unless lawfully arrested. Also that the SG had to meet the proper critera for arrest.
The solicitor has approached this issue by the sounds of it as a who's telling the truth issue rather than using the issue of was the law implemented correctly, by what amounts to nothing other than a member of the public (SG).
The correct proceedure would have been to rag the SG to bits making him say things that showed that he did not carry out a lawful arrest and that he did not have the correct state of mind as requried by law to arrest/detain you. Then submit a no case to answer before you presented any defence.
I have lost count of the cases in magistrates courts where the solicitors were not worth paying in buttons. The majority of them have no idea how to cross examine at all.
If you are considering an appeal go down to your local crown court and watch a barrister in comparison to a solicitor.
Some solicitors don't even understand the golden rule of cross examination...lead,lead and lead.
The issue of interference of liberty should have been gone into in depth by your solicitor pointing out you are at liberty unless lawfully arrested. Also that the SG had to meet the proper critera for arrest.
The solicitor has approached this issue by the sounds of it as a who's telling the truth issue rather than using the issue of was the law implemented correctly, by what amounts to nothing other than a member of the public (SG).
The correct proceedure would have been to rag the SG to bits making him say things that showed that he did not carry out a lawful arrest and that he did not have the correct state of mind as requried by law to arrest/detain you. Then submit a no case to answer before you presented any defence.
kestral said:
The solicitor has approached this issue by the sounds of it as a who's telling the truth issue
Kestral, I'll be honest, but every single post of yours I read makes me think you're a complete single-issue lunatic. This edited section above, which I know you'll see through a very different viewpoint, probably encapsulates the different way we see the world. For many of us, an impartial assessment of who's telling the truth from a member of our own ranks, ie a non-legally trained JP, who - unlike all of us here -has access to all the evidence and both sides of the story, is the absolute key to justice and to right and wrong.
johnwilliams77 said:
You guys have lost your mind. Give it to a charity more deserving.
Disagree. MR has shared his story (I wont use the Cowell-esq 'journey') with us all throughout the year, with grace. Happy to tip a little to 'one of the team' in return, if it helps him get a fair result. And we do give to charities of our choice, but it need not be exclusive. Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Disagree. MR has shared his story (I wont use the Cowell-esq 'journey') with us all throughout the year, with grace. Happy to tip a little to 'one of the team' in return, if it helps him get a fair result. And we do give to charities of our choice, but it need not be exclusive.
Beggars belief.There is 2 chances of a 'fair result' now: fat chance and no chance. Forget it.
johnwilliams77 said:
Beggars belief.
There is 2 chances of a 'fair result' now: fat chance and no chance. Forget it.
I remain fairly convinced in milkrounds accounts,but I suspect the financial costs to do it properly and the stress probably don't warrant an appeal unless the criminal record would seriously impact future employment.There is 2 chances of a 'fair result' now: fat chance and no chance. Forget it.
Bitter pill to swallow though.
CharlesdeGaulle said:
Kestral, I'll be honest, but every single post of yours I read makes me think you're a complete single-issue lunatic. This edited section above, which I know you'll see through a very different viewpoint, probably encapsulates the different way we see the world.
For many of us, an impartial assessment of who's telling the truth from a member of our own ranks, ie a non-legally trained JP, who - unlike all of us here -has access to all the evidence and both sides of the story, is the absolute key to justice and to right and wrong.
The court proceedure.For many of us, an impartial assessment of who's telling the truth from a member of our own ranks, ie a non-legally trained JP, who - unlike all of us here -has access to all the evidence and both sides of the story, is the absolute key to justice and to right and wrong.
The first thing to establish is has the law been broken by the defendant.
In this case his defence is he was not arrested lawfully. That is established during the first part of the trial when the prosecution present their case. If it is established that the law has not been broken because the SG acted within the critera for arresting a person under PACE 84 sec 24b. Then the case goes ahead.
If the SG has not met the critera the case is dismissed without the defendant or the defence giving any eveidence. So therfore there is no issue regarding who is telling the truth as only the prosecution have given evidence.
It appears you think that both the prosecution and the defence give their evidence and then the truth is decided on by the magistrates.That only happens if the prosecution have established at the first part of the trial there is a case to answer. That's the part the defence need to destroy usually by using the law as there is no truth or lies to believe at that point.
Also the court system in the UK is an adversarial system unless you get a solicitor who does not know or wish to apply such values on the day.
Hope that helps you understand my posts.
kestral said:
CharlesdeGaulle said:
Kestral, I'll be honest, but every single post of yours I read makes me think you're a complete single-issue lunatic. This edited section above, which I know you'll see through a very different viewpoint, probably encapsulates the different way we see the world.
For many of us, an impartial assessment of who's telling the truth from a member of our own ranks, ie a non-legally trained JP, who - unlike all of us here -has access to all the evidence and both sides of the story, is the absolute key to justice and to right and wrong.
The court proceedure.For many of us, an impartial assessment of who's telling the truth from a member of our own ranks, ie a non-legally trained JP, who - unlike all of us here -has access to all the evidence and both sides of the story, is the absolute key to justice and to right and wrong.
The first thing to establish is has the law been broken by the defendant.
In this case his defence is he was not arrested lawfully. That is established during the first part of the trial when the prosecution present their case. If it is established that the law has not been broken because the SG acted within the critera for arresting a person under PACE 84 sec 24b. Then the case goes ahead.
If the SG has not met the critera the case is dismissed without the defendant or the defence giving any evidence. So therfore there is no issue regarding who is telling the truth as only the prosecution have given evidence.
It appears you think that both the prosecution and the defence give their evidence and then the truth is decided on by the magistrates.That only happens if the prosecution have established at the first part of the trial there is a case to answer. That's the part the defence need to destroy usually by using the law as there is no truth or lies to believe at that point.
Also the court system in the UK is an adversarial system unless you get a solicitor who does not know or wish to apply such values on the day.
Hope that helps you understand my posts.
It's very difficult to remain objective when you're the one on the end of the system. I know because I've been there.
Milkround has indeed been reasonable and I'm sure he believes he acted within the law throughout.
It doesn't help that magistrates can be somewhat of a lottery and they don't always find the right result.
On balance, considering all the thread has thrown up, I think MR probably (by the letter of the law) did assault the security guard. A conditional discharge illustrates the court's position that the offence was commited, but the level of harm and intent was minimal.
Pragmatism is sometimes hard to come by, but a little goes an awful long way.
Thanks to MR for updating the thread.
Milkround has indeed been reasonable and I'm sure he believes he acted within the law throughout.
It doesn't help that magistrates can be somewhat of a lottery and they don't always find the right result.
On balance, considering all the thread has thrown up, I think MR probably (by the letter of the law) did assault the security guard. A conditional discharge illustrates the court's position that the offence was commited, but the level of harm and intent was minimal.
Pragmatism is sometimes hard to come by, but a little goes an awful long way.
Thanks to MR for updating the thread.
Without rereading the entire thread and going into and over the minutiae of the various stated cases/powers of arrest, I think milkround at least deserves credit for updating the thread. Only he can decide whether or not it is worth (financially or otherwise) him appealing against the conviction. Comments from one or two posters in response to the updates are rather unnecessary and unpleasant, in my opinion. milkround went with what he thought was right and took legal advice, although from his description, it didn’t sound like it was much help to him today. It makes a bit of a change for the defence not to have served items on the CPS, it’s often the other way round.
Whatever milkround decides to do about an appeal, I think we can recognise he’s learnt to at least consider other options should he be faced with a similar situation in future - he’s said as much in this thread. Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing and I’m sure we’ve all dealt with situations one way, then reflected on them later and thought “I wish I’d don/not done said/not said x, y or z”.
Being “right” isn’t always the same as what’s “legal”.
Whatever milkround decides to do about an appeal, I think we can recognise he’s learnt to at least consider other options should he be faced with a similar situation in future - he’s said as much in this thread. Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing and I’m sure we’ve all dealt with situations one way, then reflected on them later and thought “I wish I’d don/not done said/not said x, y or z”.
Being “right” isn’t always the same as what’s “legal”.
kestral said:
The court proceedure.
The first thing to establish is has the law been broken by the defendant.
In this case his defence is he was not arrested lawfully. That is established during the first part of the trial when the prosecution present their case. If it is established that the law has not been broken because the SG acted within the critera for arresting a person under PACE 84 sec 24b. Then the case goes ahead.
If the SG has not met the critera the case is dismissed without the defendant or the defence giving any eveidence. So therfore there is no issue regarding who is telling the truth as only the prosecution have given evidence.
It appears you think that both the prosecution and the defence give their evidence and then the truth is decided on by the magistrates.That only happens if the prosecution have established at the first part of the trial there is a case to answer. That's the part the defence need to destroy usually by using the law as there is no truth or lies to believe at that point.
Also the court system in the UK is an adversarial system unless you get a solicitor who does not know or wish to apply such values on the day.
Hope that helps you understand my posts.
Not being arrested lawfully, is not a defence to assault. It would mean that, self defence may be valid, even if the security guard had used what would, otherwise, have been reasonable force. The first thing to establish is has the law been broken by the defendant.
In this case his defence is he was not arrested lawfully. That is established during the first part of the trial when the prosecution present their case. If it is established that the law has not been broken because the SG acted within the critera for arresting a person under PACE 84 sec 24b. Then the case goes ahead.
If the SG has not met the critera the case is dismissed without the defendant or the defence giving any eveidence. So therfore there is no issue regarding who is telling the truth as only the prosecution have given evidence.
It appears you think that both the prosecution and the defence give their evidence and then the truth is decided on by the magistrates.That only happens if the prosecution have established at the first part of the trial there is a case to answer. That's the part the defence need to destroy usually by using the law as there is no truth or lies to believe at that point.
Also the court system in the UK is an adversarial system unless you get a solicitor who does not know or wish to apply such values on the day.
Hope that helps you understand my posts.
Just because you are being arrested unlawfully, doesn't mean you automatically get to use force and certainly not as much force as you like. You have to be reasonable in the circumstances or, failing that, reasonable in the circumstances that you honestly believed them to be. It has to be reasonable and necessary, to use force and, then reasonable and necessary, to use the amount of force that you did.
I have seen people represent themselves even in the crown court on appeal and they have been found not guilty. No fancy words they just stuck to the facts.
Some time ago I realised that it is best not to get involved in the legal system at all.
It does not work as it should unless you are prepared to spend lots of money to get a representative that concentrates on your case and your case only. Not half a dozen cases at once.
Then you still end up out of pocket when you are found not guilty!
It's a silly system that can bring you before a court even when you are not guilty and you end up having to pay out money.
Is there any wonder people plead guilty.
Some time ago I realised that it is best not to get involved in the legal system at all.
It does not work as it should unless you are prepared to spend lots of money to get a representative that concentrates on your case and your case only. Not half a dozen cases at once.
Then you still end up out of pocket when you are found not guilty!
It's a silly system that can bring you before a court even when you are not guilty and you end up having to pay out money.
Is there any wonder people plead guilty.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff