Discussion
What a complete waste of time and person-hours, all for something that's basically a non-event.
'She then awarded costs to me. However, I can only claim the equivalent of legal aid back, so I will still be well out of pocket'
Was he receiving legal aid? How much would it have cost someone paying for their own counsel?
'She then awarded costs to me. However, I can only claim the equivalent of legal aid back, so I will still be well out of pocket'
Was he receiving legal aid? How much would it have cost someone paying for their own counsel?
Simpo Two said:
What a complete waste of time and person-hours, all for something that's basically a non-event.
'She then awarded costs to me. However, I can only claim the equivalent of legal aid back, so I will still be well out of pocket'
Was he receiving legal aid? How much would it have cost someone paying for their own counsel?
I don't think he was receiving legal aid as he used the phrase 'the equivalent of'.'She then awarded costs to me. However, I can only claim the equivalent of legal aid back, so I will still be well out of pocket'
Was he receiving legal aid? How much would it have cost someone paying for their own counsel?
Simpo Two said:
If he was was awarded costs why could he only claim the equivalent of legal aid? Costs are costs... or was it because the loser was the State and they make the rules?
The courts only pay legal aid rates, legally aided or not. It is to stop lawyers charging extortionate rates to the tax payer.It has been like this for years now. It is a big issue because the prosecutors know it puts pressure on people to plead guilty because if they are represented the legal fee will be more than that which can be claimed back. So if you are found NG you are still fined by virtue of having to pay legal fees.
The good old british legal system.
Bigends said:
Iain Dales court hearing
https://www.iaindale.com/articles/speeding-on-the-...
“I would recommend anyone in a similar position, where the witnesses don’t turn up should quote my case as a precedent for throwing it out.”https://www.iaindale.com/articles/speeding-on-the-...
Lol.
This was not a novel case.
In any event, a magistrates’ court does not set precedent.
119 said:
What are we supposed to be celebrating?
A part-heard trial, apparently. Case adjourned to 13 November 2025.Iain Dale appears to think his case is special. It isn’t. Witnesses fail to appear on a regular basis. No evidence is offered. Case dismissed. Nothing remotely unusual about that.
agtlaw said:
“I would recommend anyone in a similar position, where the witnesses don’t turn up should quote my case as a precedent for throwing it out.”
Lol.
This was not a novel case.
In any event, a magistrates’ court does not set precedent.
Quite.Lol.
This was not a novel case.
In any event, a magistrates’ court does not set precedent.
I have no idea who Mr Dale is, but he strikes me as a bit of a biff.
Sounds like he'd be making an admission of careless driving to excuse his speeding 
shame they can't do that instead...
Officers not turning up isn't usually their fault, normally witness care or CPS don't pass the message on.
I went to court several times for a speeding and fail to stop offence, he failed to turn up to the first time, found guilty in his absence, he then appealed it, we all went back, it got adjourned for some reason... I never got told about the 3rd hearing by duties.
He turned up that time and they threw it out as I didn't attend.
I was absolutely furious.
shame they can't do that instead...Officers not turning up isn't usually their fault, normally witness care or CPS don't pass the message on.
I went to court several times for a speeding and fail to stop offence, he failed to turn up to the first time, found guilty in his absence, he then appealed it, we all went back, it got adjourned for some reason... I never got told about the 3rd hearing by duties.
He turned up that time and they threw it out as I didn't attend.
I was absolutely furious.
Count897 said:
The article said:
As many as 60,000 motorists have been prosecuted for speeding along the same stretch of road between late 2023 and early 2024
I'm sorry, what? Sixty thousand motorists on one stretch in a ~6 month period?Are we pretending there's any proportionality to this anymore?
I've had minor cases where the suspect has failed to attend multiple times, or the defence ask for an adjournment for, say, defence witnesses not being available. Once had a case where the defence brought up three separate legal 'concerns' on three separate occasions, and each time a different bench adjourned the case. When we finally got to trial, the defence claimed that, due to the length of time between the offence and the case being heard, the case should be dumped in Latin. Thankfully, the same CPS chap had been at each previous adjournment and he was ticking. He put the prosecution's case forcefully and included the names of the chair of the bench each previous time.
I was given a full witness order for a number of cases which I obviously attended, only not to be called. Had I not been able to attend - I was busy in those days and had 137 full witness orders in two years - they would have suggested my evidence was essential. Once, when double booked, with me being required for another case the following day - I was not required to give evidence - I went from Chichester in the morning to Hove in the afternoon. When I gave evidence, at 4.15pm, all I did was go through my statement of evidence. The defence barrister asked a couple of 'clarification' questions, and then sat down. The judge, the resident judge of East Sussex, a man I admired, said to said lawyer, 'Mr [whatever], you have stated to this court this officer's evidence was critical to your defence, and your cross examination has not supported this. I put it to you, you have not finished questioning him.'
The jury were amused as the lawyer struggled to comply. I don't think His Honour Judge Gower was. Rule 1 for lawyers, Don't upset the judge.
I think for minor cases at magistrates' court, where there is no objection from the defence, and the case merits it, the police should prosecute as in the pre-CPS days. It taught officers what was required to prove a case and you only went in with insufficient evidence once. (That time sticks in my memory.) I've arrested a chap at 21.30 for multiple offences, slept at the nick that morning, went to court the following day for a trial, at 11.00 as I informed the clerk of my situation, and dropped the completed file into the nick by 11.30. Justice delayed and all that. Further, in that particular case, I asked for two counts to be adjourned sine die (what's wrong with indefinitely?) as I thought them inappropriate.
I was given a full witness order for a number of cases which I obviously attended, only not to be called. Had I not been able to attend - I was busy in those days and had 137 full witness orders in two years - they would have suggested my evidence was essential. Once, when double booked, with me being required for another case the following day - I was not required to give evidence - I went from Chichester in the morning to Hove in the afternoon. When I gave evidence, at 4.15pm, all I did was go through my statement of evidence. The defence barrister asked a couple of 'clarification' questions, and then sat down. The judge, the resident judge of East Sussex, a man I admired, said to said lawyer, 'Mr [whatever], you have stated to this court this officer's evidence was critical to your defence, and your cross examination has not supported this. I put it to you, you have not finished questioning him.'
The jury were amused as the lawyer struggled to comply. I don't think His Honour Judge Gower was. Rule 1 for lawyers, Don't upset the judge.
I think for minor cases at magistrates' court, where there is no objection from the defence, and the case merits it, the police should prosecute as in the pre-CPS days. It taught officers what was required to prove a case and you only went in with insufficient evidence once. (That time sticks in my memory.) I've arrested a chap at 21.30 for multiple offences, slept at the nick that morning, went to court the following day for a trial, at 11.00 as I informed the clerk of my situation, and dropped the completed file into the nick by 11.30. Justice delayed and all that. Further, in that particular case, I asked for two counts to be adjourned sine die (what's wrong with indefinitely?) as I thought them inappropriate.
Standard tactic by we’ll-know. Defence solicitors, make a list of a dozen prosecution witnesses then wait for one to fail to appear. Then claim that is the most essential witness.
Crown Court judge asked loophole firm if they would pay for the helicopter to bring a calibration engineer to court to answer their essential concerns. It was explained that if there were no cogent questions in cross-examination the full costs for the helicopter would fall to their client. Turns out the witness evidence, such as it was, was agreed.
This tactic should be firmly curtailed and the costs levied against the quality of cross-exam. If evidence of a witness called at the insistence of the defence is agreed before given then the defence should not only pay the costs but should be fined for taking the pi55.
Crown Court judge asked loophole firm if they would pay for the helicopter to bring a calibration engineer to court to answer their essential concerns. It was explained that if there were no cogent questions in cross-examination the full costs for the helicopter would fall to their client. Turns out the witness evidence, such as it was, was agreed.
This tactic should be firmly curtailed and the costs levied against the quality of cross-exam. If evidence of a witness called at the insistence of the defence is agreed before given then the defence should not only pay the costs but should be fined for taking the pi55.
2020vision said:
Standard tactic by we’ll-know. Defence solicitors, make a list of a dozen prosecution witnesses then wait for one to fail to appear. Then claim that is the most essential witness.
Crown Court judge asked loophole firm if they would pay for the helicopter to bring a calibration engineer to court to answer their essential concerns. It was explained that if there were no cogent questions in cross-examination the full costs for the helicopter would fall to their client. Turns out the witness evidence, such as it was, was agreed.
This tactic should be firmly curtailed and the costs levied against the quality of cross-exam. If evidence of a witness called at the insistence of the defence is agreed before given then the defence should not only pay the costs but should be fined for taking the pi55.
A judge had been told a critical witness, at least one critical in the eyes of the defence, had broken her leg and was in plaster from the foot to thigh, so was unable to attend court. He demanded, of me as I was Crown Court Liaison, the witness to attend court within two hours. I got a traffic inspector I was friendly with, the traffic inspector I was friendly with, to send a car to pick her up. Crown Court judge asked loophole firm if they would pay for the helicopter to bring a calibration engineer to court to answer their essential concerns. It was explained that if there were no cogent questions in cross-examination the full costs for the helicopter would fall to their client. Turns out the witness evidence, such as it was, was agreed.
This tactic should be firmly curtailed and the costs levied against the quality of cross-exam. If evidence of a witness called at the insistence of the defence is agreed before given then the defence should not only pay the costs but should be fined for taking the pi55.
Our Sierra Cosworth arrived at court with the front brakes smoking. The passenger was not amused. I pushed her in a wheelchair to the court with her swearing F-ing, C-ing and an ethnic word I felt it best not to investigate. It was hilarious.
She refused the traffic car for the return journey, and we got a divisional car to drive her back. She was in the box for less than 30 mins (not in the box as it was not disabled-friendly) and that included brief evidence in chief.
The Telegraph said:
Mr O’Toole also said that TfL had taken out advertisements in local newspapers the Bexley News and the News Shopper saying that the speed limit on the A20 near Sidcup had been lowered.
Not much help to those who don't live in the circulation area of those rags. Although I do, not being a reader of either publication* and an infrequent user of that section of the A20, I nearly got caught out myself. It was after dark and can vouch for the utter inadequacy of the signage.* Btw, there is no such newspaper as the Bexley News.
It's the Bexley Times. Either TfL's Mr O'Toole is poorly informed or The Telegraph's reporting is sloppy.kestral said:
The courts only pay legal aid rates, legally aided or not. It is to stop lawyers charging extortionate rates to the tax payer.
It has been like this for years now. It is a big issue because the prosecutors know it puts pressure on people to plead guilty because if they are represented the legal fee will be more than that which can be claimed back. So if you are found NG you are still fined by virtue of having to pay legal fees.
The good old british legal system.
Thanks, good answer. Slightly in the State's defence, if they paid all the legal fees of every losing case it would be even more bankrupt than it is already...It has been like this for years now. It is a big issue because the prosecutors know it puts pressure on people to plead guilty because if they are represented the legal fee will be more than that which can be claimed back. So if you are found NG you are still fined by virtue of having to pay legal fees.
The good old british legal system.
Tom1312 said:
Sounds like he'd be making an admission of careless driving to excuse his speeding shame they can't do that instead...
If he didn't know about the temp speed limit then wasn't driving carelessly. He was, in fact, driving a normal road at a normal speed. shame they can't do that instead...The underlying injustice of 'speed limits' of course is that they don't/can't take into account the road conditions at the time. In many cases - I suggest the majority - it was in fact perfectly safe to drive at the speed recorded, it simply happened to be a higher number than the one on the tin sign devised by civil servants in an office. But X is bigger than Y so that's it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff