Page 1 of 1

Prosecution Solicitor mis behaving?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:25 pm
by no_ta
Can anyone help with this, I want to demonstate the scams which exist in our judiical system (as if I needed to), but before I can go into specific detail, this is the question.

A person is summoned to appear before Magistrates, at a pre trial hearing, the defendent is not represented and sits and waits for the call.

Several hours into the wait, a court usher is asked by another person unknown for the defendent to be identified, the court usher duly identifies the defendent.

To cut a very messy day as short as possible, it turns out to be the prosecuting solicitor who approaches the defendent and following a minimal introduction says that the defendent could be facing a double 20,000 pound fine and possible jail time.

It was revealed later that the prosecuting solictor was not telling the truth, presumably he wanted to put frighteners on to try and turn a guilty plea.

My question is and I appologise for the delay, did this prosecuter over step the mark by speaking to the defendent in the first instance, and what remedy should be sought for his lying, complaint to SRA for instance?

I cannot find any history anywhere on the net which would shed some light on the next move, my instinct tells me that it was a scam to get it over with quickly, after 6 hours waiting for the hearing most people would get worn down, and just want to take any easy option. Naturally there is a lot more to this story but as there is yet to be a further hearing, next time at Crown Court level, I don't want to jeopardise anything.

Any input most welcome.

Re: Prosecution Solicitor mis behaving?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:11 am
by MikeThomas
Check out the Courts propaganda leaflet. Its called something like "What To Expect In Court" and it should say in there (something about) not keeping you waiting for more than an hour or two. That's your starter.

As for the solicitor threatening you with large fines: That's what they do and I'm sure its not 'illegal', just morally repugnant! Just what you'd expect from a bottom feeding scumbag!

Re: Prosecution Solicitor mis behaving?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:42 am
by no_ta
Thanks for that Mike, the waiting time in this case was 6 hours, I get the impression that the duty defence solicitors work with the prosecutor by flitting between defendent and prosecutor, it seemed as if they work as a team and not to be trusted.

I can imagine some people daunted by the experience would fall for any easy option, even if innocent, (as things stand there is a presumtion of guilt before the proceedings start) just to get out of the place and put it behind them. That isn't justice, but we all know that isn't the game, they just want to chalk up another 'kill' as cheaply as possible.

I am trying to find some definitive answer to this tactic of intimidation, I have trawled the net but cannot find anything, the only thing I can think of is to complain to the SRA, but will they take the complaint seriously? This solicitor said that the offence/s were prisonable, if this is wrong, and we have been told by another solicitor that it is incorrect, then he deliberately lied.

Thanks again MIke and may I wish everyone on our side a Happy Christmas, for the rest may they get what they deserve.

Re: Prosecution Solicitor mis behaving?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 10:11 am
by squark
I don't think lying is Illegal. All he has done is made you an offer. Conditional Acceptance? The Anti Terrorist suggests (Standing in Court Movie) they will try to negotiate before the start of trial, tell them you don't want to discuss anything before the court hearing, they can present their evidence once you get into court. A very key point is that you REQUIRE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT EVERY CLAIM THEY MAKE.

When he mentions a £20k fine give him a fee schedule or claim of defamation worth double.

Ask who they are, "I represent the Crown," he says.
"Do you have some evidence to prove your claim that you represent the Crown"
Get your proof at every stage. The burden of proof is on them.
"Is the Crown Queen Elizabeth the II or is it some other Crown?"
"What evidence do you have that the rule you refer to applies to me?"
"What evidence do you have that the incident occurred within the Jurisdiction of the UK?"
Burden of Proof is on them ALL THE TIME.
That Anti Terrorist vid is worth a couple of runs through.
I need to learn what to say to the Magistrate or Judge if they say "I am satisfied that he represents the Crown, we don't need evidence for that." "UK Law applies to everyone." "This is ridiculous, you will be in contempt."
You need to put him in place, remind him he is neutral, liable, etc