Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Yes, the Code was one such factor that I had in mind (and seemingly not strongly observed with private prosecutions). Also if there is a barrister in place they have 10 Core Duties, the first is to observe their duty to the court in the administration of justice. Then solicitors have their own codes of conduct.
If you are a litigant in person, frankly you are at a massive disadvantage. It shouldn't be so at Magistrate level, but I'm guessing you now have a District Judge rather than a trio of amateur JPs, and a DJ will sometimes find it difficult to discuss points of law with a litigant in person.
They would also need to give up a large part of their weekday - or the whole day - to simply attend, and you want them to agree to do this with no idea as to what they are letting themselves in for.
There is quite a small number of people here who have any experience of the *actual court process* - as in, having been there themselves, familiar enough with the process to see if there is any “abuse by the magistrates” however that may arise, and with the ability to tell you with any sort of confidence so that (presumably) you might do something about it if or when you lose. They would also need to give up a large part of their weekday - or the whole day - to simply attend, and you want them to agree to do this with no idea as to what they are letting themselves in for.
It’s a really odd request, but that’s just my point of view.
Yes, the Code was one such factor that I had in mind (and seemingly not strongly observed with private prosecutions). Also if there is a barrister in place they have 10 Core Duties, the first is to observe their duty to the court in the administration of justice. Then solicitors have their own codes of conduct.
If you are a litigant in person, frankly you are at a massive disadvantage. It shouldn't be so at Magistrate level, but I'm guessing you now have a District Judge rather than a trio of amateur JPs, and a DJ will sometimes find it difficult to discuss points of law with a litigant in person.
I was against a private prosecutor, though I am unsure if he is a qualified barrister too.
I am aware of the rules that both solicitors and barristers should adhere to.
I guess I will find out if private prosecutors are required to adhere to the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
Fingers crossed that the case is now before a District Judge. A part of my complaint was that the Magistrates were at a disadvantage at the trial, because they are directed on the law by a legal advisor, but she admitted that she was unsure of the railway laws when she was advising them!
I have thoroughly researched the law, because I know how hard it is for a lawyer to discuss a point of law with a litigant in person!
The problem is that there are many litigants who think there are the victims of some big conspiracy by the judiciary when actually they simply don't understand the law.
There are also some people who have suffered genuine injustices.
At present, you have given no information to help anyone decide which category you fit into.
Much of what you say suggests that I am asking for you to be there, in order that you can advise me. I am not asking for a legal advisor!
There are people, who, from time to time attend court hearings, to observe proceedings from the public gallery.
I am not sure where to find them. John R says that he did so. So I do not feel casting my net in here is such an odd thing to do.
Whether or not someone may actually want to, is another matter entirely.
I do subscribe to the idea, "don't ask, don't get."
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I was against a private prosecutor, though I am unsure if he is a qualified barrister too.
I am aware of the rules that both solicitors and barristers should adhere to.
I guess I will find out if private prosecutors are required to adhere to the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
Fingers crossed that the case is now before a District Judge. A part of my complaint was that the Magistrates were at a disadvantage at the trial, because they are directed on the law by a legal advisor, but she admitted that she was unsure of the railway laws when she was advising them!
I have thoroughly researched the law, because I know how hard it is for a lawyer to discuss a point of law with a litigant in person!
Could you actually state what the case is. You have been asked more than once and we just get rambling obfuscation, with no facts as to what the case is about.
Ask yourself: why would anyone give up a day of their own time to do this when you cannot be bothered to reply to a straight-forward question of what the facts of the original case are. if you cannot do that, stop wasting people's time.
This section of the forum contains a number people and collectively we are experts in rail fares and proecutions. One of the most important things we do when helping someone who has been reported for a ticketing irregularity is to make sure thatthe train company has followed the correct rules and procedures.
We really need to know what has happened in your case to be able to offer appropriate advice. Some of us have attended court cases as observers where a case is of particular interest but we need to know the facts of the case to establish what has gone wrong and whether or not the train company has followed the correct procedure. We really need to see copies of all the paperwork (as often this contains errors) but we do ask that any personal details and case reference numbers are redacted before uploading.
If you won't share details about your case then we are unable to assist.
Obviously it varies by case, but I'd say that in the majority of cases where prosecution is threatened (TfL excepted), the advice given by this forum assists in a prosecution being avoided, and an out of court settlement offered.
And even where we are unable to assist in such a result, the majority of prosecutions are dealt with by SJPN, so again goes nowhere near a traditional court. (Although noted that there is some discomfort about this process, for the moment, it is what happens).
So neither of these scenarios relies on any knowledge, from either side of the process, of what goes on in a courtroom, which seems to be what you are interested in.
And I'm with @AlterEgo - it's a really odd and unreasonable request, but that won't stop me wishing you luck in getting your problem resolved in your favour in due course.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Apologies if I misled you, but the Post Office Enquiry which I referred to has been streamed live every day it has been sitting, and it is that which I was referring to. (Yes, I know it's a bit sad, but some of the witnesses' evidence under cross examination has been remarkable and well worth watching.)
So no, I have never set foot in a live court room, and I hope to keep that record intact.
Yes please give us a summary of the legal points in one short paragraph. (If this is about Compulsory Ticket Areas, which some of us think has the potential to be leading to some wrongful convictions at the moment, then we are all ears.)
Oh and the court system in this court is structurally adversarial. If the prosecutor seems lacking in balance, they may well be arguing the same point completely differently in their next case. They aren't, unfortunately, expecting to be neutral here, though there are some over-riding fundamentals of justice which are supposed to steer the process. Another interesting feature of Horizon was some very senior lawyers more-or-less admitted to paying lip service to these principles.
This is a really important point - and an area of weakness in a system which assumes an equality of knowledge and experience on both sides of a trial, which isn't the case where one side is unrepresented. An advocate's job is to strongly and confidently make the strongest arguable case based on the interpretations of the law and facts most favourable to their client. An advocate should not seek to mislead and must not advance points they know to be untrue, but they should present the best possible case for their client. The system then (ideally) works on the basis that the other side will do the same and a neutral third party will determine their view of the facts (where these are in dispute) and the law on the basis of these arguments. This does mean that even in a criminal case the prosecutor is not meant to be unbiased: they have an underlying duty not to prosecute the innocent, but if there are plausible arguments which would, if accepted, mean the defendant is guilty, they should present them. The defence should be prepared to strongly and confidently present the counter-arguments including those which are based on interpretations of the law which would mean the acts of the defendant do not amount to the crime charged. Clearly that is much harder for the unrepresented defendant, who lacks the training in legal argumentation and the core knowledge about the methods of interpreting laws that the experienced prosecutor will have. That can lead to decisions about the law being (objectively) incorrect, since the court should base its decision-making on the evidence and argument presented to it.
Yes please give us a summary of the legal points in one short paragraph. (If this is about Compulsory Ticket Areas, which some of us think has the potential to be leading to some wrongful convictions at the moment, then we are all ears.)
I would echo this request. There is very little we can usefully do without the said points. All we know so far is that the defendant is unrepresented and has successfully applied for a case to be reopened under s142 MCA. I infer that a summary trial date has now been fixed.
To try and allay your fears, I've never seen a negative result to posting on here other than where it's clear the OP has been telling the TOC complete lies.
If you have a sound defence based in legislation there's no harm in sharing at least the sequence of events. With the level of detail we have there is nothing at all helpful we can say. I know you don't want an "academic chat" but I can't really see what help we can be otherwise.
I am semi-annoyed at the lack of detail as everyone else, but (a) it's your choice and (b) in specific reference to the above, we know for sure that some people in the Chiltern HQ are avid readers of this forum. That said, their involvement seems more positive than negative. There have been a few merciful decisions, and one case where someone departing Wembley really was taking the proverbial where a decent outcome was offered, even though the person concerned deserved a prolonged spell at the cleaners. There is experience here of specific aspects of byelaws and rail legislation, some people here are quite quick at finding holes.
Is this something where a McKenzie friend might be of help?
What is a McKenzie Friend? A McKenzie Friend is someone who is not legally qualified who can attend court with you when you do not have a lawyer to provide support and assistance. (Taken from Rights of Women website)
i heard about McKenzie Friends while a CAB adviser, but know little about how they can be found or what they can do. Sorry not be to more helpful.
