Subpoena Ad Test

[Steve Benson]

Hello,

A little advise please.

I have been served a Subpoena Ad Test to appear in court in Northern Ireland (Belfast) in relation to a Motorsport accident which happened some 10ish years ago.

Someone was injured by flying debris during an accident and as far as I can make out they want me to be a witness to what happened.

They want me there for 3 days but I am in the US on business.

Questions;
1) Can they force me to attend?
2) It says reasonable cost will be reimbursed and have enclosed a cheque for £100 to get me started. What are reasonable costs? Travel, food, cabs and three nights in a hotel?
3) Can I claim for loss of earnings as I don't want to take holidays for something I don't want to do?
4) I really don't want to give evidence, the case is against the MSA and it can only be bad news for the sport which I still am active and compete in. Can I refuse or just act dumb (not difficult)
5) Can I submit evidence by a phone interview to avoid the travel?

I have not spoken to the Barrister handling the case yet as she has left for the day but any advise prior to her calling on Monday would be very gratefully received.

Many thanks in advance.


Steve

[anonymous-user]

1) Can they force me to attend?

In principle, yes. Failure to appear could be a contempt of court. Subpoena is Latin for "under penalty".

2) It says reasonable cost will be reimbursed and have enclosed a cheque for £100 to get me started. What are reasonable costs? Travel, food, cabs and three nights in a hotel?

Piece of string.

3) Can I claim for loss of earnings as I don't want to take holidays for something I don't want to do?

IIRC you can only claim a token sum.

4) I really don't want to give evidence, the case is against the MSA and it can only be bad news for the sport which I still am active and compete in. Can I refuse or just act dumb (not difficult)

Why not just tell the truth? Having said that, none but a fool calls a witness who isn't a willing witness.

5) Can I submit evidence by a phone interview to avoid the travel?

You could offer to attend a deposition, and evidence can sometimes by given by video link, subject to court approval.

Talk to the solicitors what have obtained the subpoena and see what you can agree.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 5th September 17:25

[LoonR1]

10 years ago. I'm assuming it was a child that was hit. I'd struggle to remember what happened 10 months ago unless it was hugely memorable, let alone 10 years.

[anonymous-user]

Darling, I will always recall those precious ten minutes we shared. Well, OK, it was more like ten seconds, but, hey, it's not all about how long it is.

I suppose that the claim could have been issued at the end of six years from the incident and then meandered through the not very modernised NI court system for four more.

[LoonR1]

10 seconds? Did we do it twice? I'm quite good now and can do it really fast.

It's three (and a bit) years for injury though, so seven years meandering would be excessive

[anonymous-user]

True that, but maybe some daft third party complexities or appeal shenanigans have let the thing drag on, and as suggested above the NI courts are a bit old fashioned and slow. Or, as you suggest , the claimant was a kid at the time of the prang.

[Steve Benson]

No kids involved.

It was a camera man that was hit by a flying gate after a crash on a rally.

Of course I will tell the truth, just feel uneasy that some lawyer has it's claws into the governing body, and others, of a sport that I am still active in. No good is going to come out of this except for the claimant and the lawyers. Potentially it could be damaging to the sport and if nothing else will add cost due to insurance premiums rising.

In my opinion it was a pure accident, nobody could foresee where the gate was going to fly and the camera man was just in the unlucky place.

Thanks for your help, I will see what the barrister has to say on Monday.

[anonymous-user]

Requiring those who organise sports to take reasonable care for the safety of spectators hasn't closed down any sport. If no one was at fault, no one will be held liable.

You will probably be speaking to the solicitor in the case rather than the barrister, or to both together. Barristers don't usually interview witnesses without the solicitor being involved.

[Martin4x4]

Steve Benson said:

No kids involved.

It was a camera man that was hit by a flying gate after a crash on a rally.

Of course I will tell the truth, just feel uneasy that some lawyer has it's claws into the governing body, and others, of a sport that I am still active in. No good is going to come out of this except for the claimant and the lawyers. Potentially it could be damaging to the sport and if nothing else will add cost due to insurance premiums rising.

In my opinion it was a pure accident, nobody could foresee where the gate was going to fly and the camera man was just in the unlucky place.

Thanks for your help, I will see what the barrister has to say on Monday.

Can't help on the main issue.

An 'unlucky place'? Or did he excercise poor judgement in selecting a risky vantage point?

While spectating rallies in my younger days it was common for photographers to occupy chancy positions in run off areas for a better shots. I don't see how the MSA can be held responsible for decisions he made for himself.

Edited by Martin4x4 on Sunday 7th September 13:02