DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 37656--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic offence Solicitors in Leamington Spa-Coventry area
DIR By: MJ007
Date: September 20, 2024, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Southpaw82 link ---
>
> [quote author=MJ007 link=topic=3160.msg37651#msg37651
date=1726859541]
> I have an option to plead not guilty and argue that the
offence is not made out
>
--- End Quote ---
Who has told you that?
[/quote]
A Solicitor
#Post#: 37657--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic offence Solicitors in Leamington Spa-Coventry area
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: September 20, 2024, 3:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
And what are they basing that on? I’ve already set out above how
I read the various sections of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980
pointing towards your plea having been entered and the rest of
the matter adjourned, so I’d be interested to know why they
think otherwise.
#Post#: 37678--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic offence Solicitors in Leamington Spa-Coventry area
DIR By: MJ007
Date: September 21, 2024, 2:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So could I change my plea? Yes or non
A senior Solicitor thinks I can.
A layman like me thinks, why not? Bcos a magistrate has rejected
the guilty plea and my
mitigation statement as ‘ inappropriate to be tried under SJP’
So all bets are off? We start anew, facing a proper trial with
a three member magistrate bench?
Either way, bull*cks to them all, a person like me
should never trust the establishment.Easy for you guys to
disagree and ridicule me as an alcoholic or playing the victim
card. I'm not offended in the least.
Will fork out 3 k and fight this in court
At least it would answer the million dollar question on why? Why
was it inappropriate to try this case under the SJP
D
#Post#: 37682--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic offence Solicitors in Leamington Spa-Coventry area
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: September 21, 2024, 4:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, there will be something that the SJP can
neither accept on face value or ignore. Something that the court
will want to hear evidence on and weigh up that evidence, rather
than something that can be decided on the papers.
Whether that is mitigation that would lessen the seriousness of
the offence if the court accepts your evidence on the matter, or
something that could amount to a defence if the court accepts
your evidence on the matter, or something else.
Back in the old days when prosecutions were initiated with a
summons, when you entered a plea in advance, that was taken to
be an indication of you intention to plead - if you turned up on
the day, you would be asked to plead/confirm your plea.
If you have been convicted and the case transferred for
sentencing, then you would need to ask the court to re-open the
case or allow you to vacate your plea if you want to plead not
guilty. If your plea has been rejected, then effectively a not
guilty plea would have been entered on your behalf.
We can't tell you any more. The court might be able to though.
N.B. There has been a lot of irrelevant noise in this thread.
Any further posts bumping the thread or otherwise not adding to
it for the purposes of providing advice to the OP are likely to
either be removed or have the thread locked.
#Post#: 37688--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic offence Solicitors in Leamington Spa-Coventry area
DIR By: MJ007
Date: September 21, 2024, 4:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, Andy
#Post#: 37695--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic offence Solicitors in Leamington Spa-Coventry area
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: September 21, 2024, 5:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Bcos a magistrate has rejected the guilty plea and my
> mitigation statement as ‘ inappropriate to be tried under SJP’
--- End Quote ---
As far as I can see, this is the first time you have mentioned
the word "tried". Lots of legislation to do with court procedure
uses that word to cover all proceedings, but most people
understand it to mean proceedings involving a not guilty plea
followed by a trial. Is that what you mean and if so, where did
you get that idea from?
--- Quote ---
> Easy for you guys to disagree and ridicule me as an
alcoholic...
--- End Quote ---
That was me and I apologise. It was not the best term to use.
But you must understand that people here are trying to help you
and it has been extremely difficult throughout this thread to
get any firm and detailed information from you. It is very
frustrating when a simple (but very pertinent) question is asked
of you and no answer is forthcoming. When, instead, you start
rambling on about conspiracies among the police and judiciary to
"fit you up" for what is a minor motoring offence which could
have been disposed of by way of a fixed penalty had you simply
complied with its requirements, not only does it sound
ridiculous but it is ridiculous.
--- Quote ---
> "We start anew, facing a proper trial with a three member
magistrate bench?"
--- End Quote ---
No we don't. Proceedings against you have already commenced and
one hearing, where you entered a guilty plea, has already been
held. Furthermore, as above, you don't know whether you face a
trial or simply a sentencing hearing.
--- Quote ---
> At least it would answer the million dollar question on why?
Why was it inappropriate to try this case under the SJP
--- End Quote ---
We are obviously not going to provide an answer to that question
here. But before you consider shelling out £3k to get a
solicitor to say "bollox to them all" on your behalf, you might
wait to find out why they want you in court. If indeed it is for
a trial, that trial will not be heard on the day you attend.
Between then and the trial date you can consider your position
more rationally.
We are equally as intrigued as you to find out the answer, so
would you let us know?
#Post#: 37713--------------------------------------------------
Re: Traffic offence Solicitors in Leamington Spa-Coventry area
DIR By: MJ007
Date: September 21, 2024, 10:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please let me know if this is the right approach
Cummulative, from two senior Solicitors
- the hearing on the 21st is because the court has decided your
case is not suitable for the Single Justice Procedure (I’m not
sure why they have done this).
On the 21st we have the option to plead guilty or not guilty
(without attending - even though the summons says you should
attend).
On the 21st the case will either be listed for trial or it will
be adjourned for a case management hearing. We would deal with
the case management hearing via letter.
Between the 22st and the trial date I would be working to
persuade the prosecution to drop the case on public interest
grounds.
If we haven’t managed to get them to drop the case by the trial
date then we would attend the trial and argue that the offence
is not made out.
——
This isn’t how these cases work. You have not yet entered a
guilty plea because the court has not accepted your guilty plea.
The next hearing would be dealt with via letter confirming a not
guilty plea (neither you nor I would attend)
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page