AdvicePlease

I'm a regular seeking some scoobynet wisdom and advice.

A while ago I was arrested and charged for a crime. At the time I didn't have a solicitor so the Duty Solicitor represented me for my plea in court and has continued to do so since then. I can't fault him so far as he has been top notch and on the ball.

I did not commit the crime for which I have been charged. I won't go into details and won't discuss, confirm, or deny any speculations you might make. Suffice to say this is a situation where intent and/or reckless carelessness are the key factors. There was an "incident" that was not intentional and if I can prove that them I'm innocent. If I can't....well

I've never been in any sort of trouble before and I have no idea how the legal or court systems work. The reason for my post is to ask if this is a situation where I should continue to rely on my Duty Solicitor, who has been great so far, or whether I should seek some other help or chuck more money at it. The Duty Solicitor says that his total costs from the start to the end of the trial will be £750 which doesn't seem like a lot to me. My case will probably require a fair bit of arguing of the finer points of the law and perhaps drawing on previous similar cases. Is there any reason not to entrust me representation to the duty solicitor or should I spend more getting better representation.

I'd hate to be convicted and then to have someone at a later time call me stupid for using a duty solicitor to represent me when 'getting someone else' would have saved my bacon. I just don't know if it's common practice to spend more money and whether that really would secure a better quality of representation or not?

ScoobyWon't

Once you've proved you did not do it intentionally, they'll be looking at the reckless element anyway - the test defined in R v G & R. Basically, should you have known the likely outcome of your actions.

If you can prove you did not do it intentionally then, you'll need to prove that you could not reasonably forsee the outcome of your actions.

If you'd been doing something silly like taking the law in to your own hands (as WebbyV8wagon or whatever he's known as on here think's it's ok to do - and I hope he gets sent down) then I wouldn't be hopeful. If it was something where your actions genuinely did result in something you could not have possibly known would happen, then you'll have a better chance.

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

I'd think about getting a solicitor with an in depth knowlege of the area of criminal law under which you have been charged.

Shaun

AdvicePlease

Thanks for that. As I said, I can't/won't discuss the merits of the case.

I want to stress that my question isn't about the case or how to defend it. All I need to know is if generally using a duty solicitor is as effective as using any other solicitor.

To put an analogy on it, imagine if someone came on here with a standard MY99 STI asking if it was ok to use normal unleaded. Nearly everyone on here would know that doing so is stupid and he should use V-power/SUL. Is using a duty solicitor the equivalent of buying an STI and running it on standard fuel?

The Zohan

Forget the analogy, it sucks anyway.

It it is specialised, say motoring then find a specialist solicitor, if it warrants it. You have to look at the cost of the solicitor vs. what it could cost you - in fees, fines, or jail time (if appropriate.

Try here, most solicitors will give you 30 mind for free as an introductory and getting to know you and your case sort of offer.
The Law Society - Find a solicitor

ScoobyWon't

I'd say it's stupid to post under a false name on here as it's against SN policy. And if you've done nothing wrong, then you have no need to hide your identity.

I'd spend the money on someone who specialises in that area if you think that there is a good chance you'll get off without being found guilty. But if you think that you'll be found guilty then you may as well stick with the duty solicitor who at least already knows your case.

NotoriousREV

+1. Get a specialist. To use your own analogy, would you rather take your Scooby to a back street garage or API if there was something seriously wrong with it?

The Zohan

To further the analogy.
What if the scooby specialist let the trainee work on your car and the back street garage had or was a trained Subaru mechanic with 20 years experience.

It does depend how good your duty brief is, i would consider a specialist if it is a specialist area

999wrx

iTrader: (1)

Hi mate, the duty solicitor is as good as any, all the 'duty' means is that they were on duty at the time you were in court. For example, if your a regular in police stations you may always use a certain solicitor which at the time may have been the duty. If you have never been locked up before you wont have had to use a solicitor so opt for the duty which could be the same solicitor as the regular crim uses. With me so far? A certain police station will have a list of local solicitors and use them in turn to act as the duty. If you've been approached at court by the solicitor it's just that they were in court on the day in question probably dealing with someone else's case n getting some new business. PM me if you need any more info.

AdvicePlease

Firstly, I expect SN will show leniency in the circumstances. Secondly, regardless of innocence or otherwise would you want your business posted all over the site? Just looking for some useful advice.

How can I determine how experience the duty solicitor is in this area of law? Is it rude to just outright ask him?

mouse555

iTrader: (1)

People seem to make a common mistake that a duty solicitor is not as good as the solicitor that their mate might have when they can actually be one and the same. Duty Solicitors are employed in private practice too and are only the 'duty solicitor' on a rota basis.

There is a duty rota at Court and the police station so that those without legal representation can seek legal advice and be represented. The duty solicitor will be from a local firm and does not work for the court or the police. It is then up to the individual if they want to continue to be represented by that person or not. Obviously costs are a factor as is the relationship you have with that particular solicitor. If you enjoy a good relationship with them then there really is no point instructing another.

It is not about getting a better solicitor because 'better' very much depends on many factors eg the solicitor who won a trial for John Smith could be the same solicitor who lost a trial for Brian Jones. Which one will recommend the solicitor they had? Exactly it wont be Brian Jones.

The other thing to be aware of is that trials can go either way. Your solicitor acts on your instructions and presents the case as best he can but the ultimate decision as to whether you are convicted or not rests with the Magistrates. You need to present yourself well to the bench and be sincere. Do not (under any circumstances) allow the Prosecutor to wind you up when you are being cross examined. Remain polite and consistent throughout.

Finally, you do not have to prove anything. The Crown bring the case against you and they must prove their case against you beyond reasonable doubt. Do not forget that. You do not even have to give evidence but Mags do like to have the opportunity of listening to the Defendant when giving examination in chief and they like to see how their account stands up to cross-examination.

If I were you, on the basis that you are happy with your Solicitor so far, I would stick with him.

AdvicePlease

Thank you very much for your post mouse. You've kind of hit the nail on the head with regards to the problem I face. My solicitor is, as you say, just the guy that was on duty that day and afaik is part of a small firm (possibly a one man band). He's seemed very competent so far. I just have no clue as to how to assess how well he, or any other solicitor for that matter, is equipped to represent my case.

I try to use the "beyond all reasonable doubt" thing to help me get to sleep at night but I still have this fear that the witnesses are clear in their minds with regards to what they 'think' happened and that will be that.

The Zohan

Are you sure? i though that it was only against policy if you where banned
and used the other ID.

I understand why someone would do this, not everybody wants their personal circumstances known and aired by the wider community but never the less needs good/reliable advice (yes i know you get the other was well).

mouse555

iTrader: (1)

No, No, No! Positivity is the key here.

Are you certain that they will come to Court and give evidence against you? Many cases are won when the witnesses fail to show.

If they do turn up you can only do your best when giving your evidence and be nicer than them. How many Pros witnesses are there if you don't mind me asking? Being nervous is no bad thing either-it shows to the Mags you are taking proceedings seriously. You'll be fine.

AdvicePlease

I have absolutely no idea? I've seen, and completely ignored, the witness(es) several times since my arrest. I can only guess they'd turn up. I know that if I was drawn into some legal process I'd always do what is required of me (i.e. turn up).

Is there any sort of stats to give an indication of conviction rates in UK courts. I probably don't want to know but I guess it if was 90%+ I can prepare myself to usually lose and it if its <30% then maybe feel a little better :shrug:

Nervous, lol! I'm actually petrified of getting so worked up and stressed that I spew in the dock!

fatherpierre

Can't really go on stats as we don't know what you're accused of.

AdvicePlease

Just found some conviction stats for 2005/2006 period. 90% of of people that had proceedings brought against them were convicted or had a plea of guilty accepted.

I'm so screwed

fatherpierre

90%?

You sure?

I'd say that most poeple that are charged by the CPS are guilty, hence that rate. CPS only seem to charge when there's a 99% of a conviction in the 1st place.

Do you have witnesses on your side? Are the witnesses against you of good character? Is there CCTV evidence against you? Loads of variables to consider.

999wrx

iTrader: (1)

Thats right fatherpiere, CPS have tightened their belts recntly but sometimes, depending on the offence they air on the side of caution and let the court decide, everyones innocent until proven guilty!

AdvicePlease

Can't really answer those questions without going into the merits fatherpierre.

The overall stat is 90% however, I've read on and a lot of that is propped up by a very high conviction rate for motoring offenses. The conviction rate in my category is less it appears.

fatherpierre

They rarely let the court decide unless they are sure of a conviction.

Unless you use CPS direct and are selective with things

mouse555

iTrader: (1)

[quote=fatherpierre;8663576]90%?



I'd say that most poeple that are charged by the CPS are guilty, hence that rate. CPS only seem to charge when there's a 99% of a conviction in the 1st place.

Sorry to be picky but its 'a realistic prospect of conviction.'

Most people who are charged are guilty? That is not true.

You're not a copper are you?

mouse555

iTrader: (1)

Forget about statistics too-each case is judged on its own merits or it should be.

999wrx

iTrader: (1)

Who?

fatherpierre

[QUOTE=mouse555;8663589]Most people I charge are guilty

And a realistic prospect of a conviction would therefore lean towards them being guiilty would it not, with our oh so fair court system? So the word most is fairly used.

Whether the court find them guilty or not doesn't mean they aren't guitly of committing the thing they're in court for - unless you want to be technical.

ScoobyWon't

Coppers? Where?

mouse555

iTrader: (1)

Who what? Is a copper or relying on statistics?

999wrx

iTrader: (1)

were not all bad!

ScoobyWon't

I was under the impression that motoring offences only require the guilty act, rather than the guilty act and the guilty mind.

ScoobyWon't

I am