Why engage a solicitor for a motoring offence?
Discussion
Firstly, apologies to any PH solicitors, this post is not trying to undermine the excellent job I'm sure you all do...
However:-
Following on from the 124mph in a 50 thread, and others of a similar nature,....the general advice seems to be get the best solicitor you can afford.
My question is what is the point?
I'm sure all you can reasonably do is have a decent shower, don best suit and shoes, sound contrite, grovel to the judge/magistrate, explain how very very sorry you are, it was a bright dry clear day, it's your first offence etc, you need your licence because you have a wife and three kids at home, and to lose your job would be catastrophic.
What more could a good solicitor do, other than try to get you off on a technicality Nick Freeman style?
What you save on a brief, might pay for your hefty fine.
I understand in a divorce case a good solicitor could be worth their weight in gold in certain circumstances, but we are talking about speeding here.
Opinions.......
However:-
Following on from the 124mph in a 50 thread, and others of a similar nature,....the general advice seems to be get the best solicitor you can afford.
My question is what is the point?
I'm sure all you can reasonably do is have a decent shower, don best suit and shoes, sound contrite, grovel to the judge/magistrate, explain how very very sorry you are, it was a bright dry clear day, it's your first offence etc, you need your licence because you have a wife and three kids at home, and to lose your job would be catastrophic.
What more could a good solicitor do, other than try to get you off on a technicality Nick Freeman style?
What you save on a brief, might pay for your hefty fine.
I understand in a divorce case a good solicitor could be worth their weight in gold in certain circumstances, but we are talking about speeding here.
Opinions.......
Wacky Racer said:
...but we are talking about speeding here.
Not necessarily, in that Scottish 124-in-50 (if real...)Up there, that's more likely to be charged as Dangerous, and possibility of jail time.
THAT is worth a brief. Even if it's the difference between substantial ban and no ban (or shorter ban) plus bigger fine, perhaps it's worth it, if it means keeping your job/business?
I was unjustly given 3 points a few years ago, magistrates upheld the points and increased the fine.
I appealed at Crown Court with a specialist in motoring law, the points were removed and I was awarded costs.
Justice is often only served if you have proper representation. They have experience of the situation, are better able to navigate the law / courts, and will give you an idea of how it is likely to pan out.
I appealed at Crown Court with a specialist in motoring law, the points were removed and I was awarded costs.
Justice is often only served if you have proper representation. They have experience of the situation, are better able to navigate the law / courts, and will give you an idea of how it is likely to pan out.
The legal profession - like many, if not all others - is a bit up its own backside and quite a few judges take it as an affront to their perceived power and seriousness if a layman turns up to do a 'how hard can it be?'
I remember the judge who gave McCartney's wife a far lower payout admitting he also did so as he was peed off she felt she could teach the profession a thing or two.
To be fair, there is also quite a chance that the more serious the offence the more an unrepresented person can dig a hole for themselves, simply by not knowing the correct procedures or language to use.
I remember the judge who gave McCartney's wife a far lower payout admitting he also did so as he was peed off she felt she could teach the profession a thing or two.
To be fair, there is also quite a chance that the more serious the offence the more an unrepresented person can dig a hole for themselves, simply by not knowing the correct procedures or language to use.
I have never seen any indication of a Judge taking the view that you describe. On the contrary, Judges tend in my experience to be accommodating towards unrepresented litigants, and complimentary to those who argue their cases well. Do you have a source for the statement you attribute to Mr Justice Bennett (the judge in the McCartney divorce)?
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.
My case is next Monday so we’ll see how it worked out!
I wanted to speak to someone who knew what to do/day and could help me to get the best outcome.
My case is next Monday so we’ll see how it worked out!
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.
My case is next Monday so we’ll see how it worked out!
Be interested to hear how you get on.I wanted to speak to someone who knew what to do/day and could help me to get the best outcome.
My case is next Monday so we’ll see how it worked out!
I'm considering getting legal advice from the professionals in the near future.
I'm just waiting on a decision and if it goes in my favour the 'organisation' I have the grievance with have told me I can then proceed with a compensation claim.
This is an ongoing thing for just over 3 years now, fortunately an outside body has recently been involved and since their involvement the 'organisation' have sent me a written apology and a consolatory payment.
If things continue to move in the right direction I will then look into legal advice as to what I do next to ensure the right outcome. I have no idea how I will go about this, but am pretty certain I'll start here.
I agree. Solicitors are not worth the chash for a speeding case.
I had court last year for 110 on motorway. Researched what I need to do myself, wrote a letter, provided letter from employer covering what I need to cover, Magistrates read this and I was given 6 points rather than a ban. Was in the actual court room for 5 mins.
It's really simple to just brush up, look smart and research what you need to do.
More than happy to provide my letter I drafted free of charge for people to use. (Minus bits personal to me)
I had court last year for 110 on motorway. Researched what I need to do myself, wrote a letter, provided letter from employer covering what I need to cover, Magistrates read this and I was given 6 points rather than a ban. Was in the actual court room for 5 mins.
It's really simple to just brush up, look smart and research what you need to do.
More than happy to provide my letter I drafted free of charge for people to use. (Minus bits personal to me)
Don't forget the Clerk of the Court. They were very helpful when I was in front of magistrates.
They're not going to represent you but they can help if you have any questions. Mine, for example told me what I would be looking at as a fine and points and what would the outcome likely to be and what I should expect during proceedings.
They're not going to represent you but they can help if you have any questions. Mine, for example told me what I would be looking at as a fine and points and what would the outcome likely to be and what I should expect during proceedings.
jondude said:
The legal profession - like many, if not all others - is a bit up its own backside and quite a few judges take it as an affront to their perceived power and seriousness if a layman turns up to do a 'how hard can it be?'
If I was a Mag and Mr Loophole was defending I'd assume the defendant must be guilty.Breadvan72 said:
I have never seen any indication of a Judge taking the view that you describe. On the contrary, Judges tend in my experience to be accommodating towards unrepresented litigants, and complimentary to those who argue their cases well. Do you have a source for the statement you attribute to Mr Justice Bennett (the judge in the McCartney divorce)?
I’m sure jondude is busy checking his back catalogue of Hello for confirmation. 
ks", one of the most frequently cited sources on PH.Gavia said:
Breadvan72 said:
I have never seen any indication of a Judge taking the view that you describe. On the contrary, Judges tend in my experience to be accommodating towards unrepresented litigants, and complimentary to those who argue their cases well. Do you have a source for the statement you attribute to Mr Justice Bennett (the judge in the McCartney divorce)?
I’m sure jondude is busy checking his back catalogue of Hello for confirmation. Gargamel said:
Gavia said:
Breadvan72 said:
I have never seen any indication of a Judge taking the view that you describe. On the contrary, Judges tend in my experience to be accommodating towards unrepresented litigants, and complimentary to those who argue their cases well. Do you have a source for the statement you attribute to Mr Justice Bennett (the judge in the McCartney divorce)?
I’m sure jondude is busy checking his back catalogue of Hello for confirmation. 
But OK, must be fair and correct it - it was McCartney's wife who said this had happened. The judge was accused by her of deliberately cutting her payout as she had represented herself.So yes, I was wrong to attribute those comments to the judge.
Good article here which outlines some of the difficulties of representing yourself, as she did:
http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2008/02/10/heather-m...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff