PLEASE HELP WITH ADVICE - taken to court

BigTrouble_2

jimbms wrote: »

You have to decide yourself, if you feel that there is any reason you are not guilty and a solicitor can prove this and make a strong case then try it, but be aware magistrates look at offences involving a child near schools very seriously and if found guilty after an innocent plea may very well go for maximum penalty. If you happen to have been driving a chelsea tractor then I am afraid that will go against you. For me I would say plead guilty, but I am bias, I would like to see nobody bar residents or drivers of disabled children allowed to park or drive within half a mile of schools during start and finish times.

Thanks for your opinion - it is a desperate time for me.

The reason that I think that I am not guilty is because the boy ran out in front of my car and there was so much I could do. I was driving a small hatchback at a speed of 15-20 mph. I have no idea why he felt the need to rush out in front of me.

I understand that the evidence is against me - all the witnesses are probably mothers and don't they just hate drivers - so might well just give up. But I do feel that I cannot take on all the blame. And no lawyer told me for sure that if I plead guilty I will get fewer points.

gemmy26wales

hiya chick, if it was me there was no way i would plead giulty. you know the truth so tell the truth.

the parents should take some responsibility here. there is only soo much a driver can do to avoid an accident.

we dont drive around in marshmallows!!!-be lovely if we did lol!

king100

Just one question.

If you plead guilty does that open the door for them to sue you for damages?(another court date)

Or will the judge award them compo then and there?

king100

On another note, I personally would plead not guilty. I have had 2 similiar instances one when I was turning right into a road and someone over took me crashing into my car. Went to court to find out that he was an off duty policeman, guess who won that one.

Next one was driving along and a kid ran out from my left to catch a bus, I slammed on my breaks, managed to stop with his hand resting on my bonnet, so very close to knocking him over. I stopped the car and was about to get and smack him for doing that. If I had knocked him down I would have pleaded not guilty, driving in the speed limit with no distraction.

The evidence from my point of view is that the kid didnt look properly before stepping out. Its a road that has cars on it. Irrelevant if you were overtaking a car IMHO if the road was clear ahead, and someone stopped or pulled in then you can overtake.

Where is the undue care and attention?

Surely they have to prove that you were "driving with undue care and attention"?

Is there a set speed limit to drive past a school at peak times?

If so its normally 20, if you were within that and skid marks will show this and police report should also. Where is the undue care and attention?

For you managing to stop and swerve then you must have been paying attention to the road? Again where is undue care and attention.

Dont take what witness statements as fact. Its only the evidence that can speak the truth.

It seems that every timne you read them you think that maybe your memory might be wrong.

I am sorry that a child got injured, many more will be injured yet it falls on the motorist to prove their innocence rather than the prosecutor to prove guilty. Just because a child got knocked down doesnt mean that you are guilty of anything.

LandyAndy

BigTrouble wrote: »

Now the costs:

1st solicitor (local) - £300 plus VAT for Court representation, £1500 + to plead not-guilty. Didn't meet him personally but sounds knowledgeable and confident (the one who had experience as a Prosecutor).

2nd solicitor (motoring offences law firm in Cornwall) - £500 plus VAT for detailed statement, contacting CPS, further contacting CPS about Driver Improvement Course, preparation of mitigation circumstances if I go to the Court. No court representation included (paid for separately). Their T&C state that if the amount of work included in the fixed fee is exceeded they begin charging at £180 per hour. Their web-site states that

• We win over 95% of the cases that we defend.

• We get over 83% of the cases we defend withdrawn without our clients having to attend court.

3rd Solicitor (local) - £175 plus VAT for Court representation. Cannot represent me personally, will instruct a colleague - so I don't know who that will be.

I think I need to make a decision today - the hearing is on Friday.

Ideas?

I would stick with the local guys but up to you which you prefer.

Two solicitors have looked at the paperwork and advised you to plead guilty. I think they are right. Unfortunately these things aren't always about right and wrong.

It's your call but good luck whatever you decide to do.

gemmy26wales

ahh i wish i was a solicitor-i would happily deal with your case free of charge!!!

this may of been posted before but who has taken you to court-the police or the child's family?

BigTrouble_2

gemmy26wales wrote: »

ahh i wish i was a solicitor-i would happily deal with your case free of charge!!!

this may of been posted before but who has taken you to court-the police or the child's family?

Hi, I would have hired you free of charge!

It was the police. I haven't heard from the child's family. My insurance company says that a compensation claim is possible but they will take care of it.

BigTrouble_2

LandyAndy wrote: »

I would stick with the local guys but up to you which you prefer.

Two solicitors have looked at the paperwork and advised you to plead guilty. I think they are right. Unfortunately these things aren't always about right and wrong.

It's your call but good luck whatever you decide to do.

Yes, I liked that the solicitors were local - but both just offered pleading guilty. They basically said what you are saying: that the boy wasn't in the right, that he played it down in his statement, that witnesses' statements have inconnsistencies. But ultimately - that neither of this would matter much, if only to mitigate my case.

I just don't think it is fair - and so maybe I have a chance.

property.advert

Lots of solicitors and barristers are useless. They just go through the motions, not interested in you. I put it down largely to the legal aid system, where they are just processing people than defending the case. I fired a solicitor last year.

The thing is that you need to get the wallet out if you want to defend it. You should have done this from the start. Slippery expert lawyers who know how to get professional footballers off speeding fines on technicalities spring to mind. You might hate them but they are the ones you call if the proverbial hits the fan. Leave the local boys to probate and house sales.

I think they are after compensation. We have a compensation culture these days. A proper lawyer would have had that off straight away and there would have been an investigation into the family. Do they have any money ? do they have CCJs ? all kinds of things to build up a picture of who they are and what their motives might be.

Remember, you need beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case and only the balance of probabilities in a civil case. Win the criminal one, even through a guilty plea and you will win the civil one, which won't even happen as the insurers know damn well they will be paying out.

So you have to ask yourself, are you guilty beyond reasonable doubt ? Not a 50/50 coin toss but beyond all reasonable doubt. All your solicitor has to do is to introduce reasonable doubt and you have to be acquitted, that is the law.

sniper005

Another local solicitor. The firm specialises in criminal offences so not solely road accidents. He had studied the paperwork. His view and his advice was more or less the same as the first solicitor - that regardless of all circumstances a child was hit so I am very likely to be convicted anyway.

Absolute toilet!! The Road Traffic Act talks about `Careless Driving`. You were either careless or you weren`t. The fact that someone was injured, whilst sad, is irrelevant.

The CPS have to prove you were driving carelessly, you don`t have to prove you weren`t.
If you were driving at 20 mph because you knew the hazard was there and had slowed down because of it, you were paying attention and you hadn`t done anything that a normal driver would consider careless, you haven`t committed an offence.
You can do everything right and still have someone run into you. Ask yourself, is there anything you could have reasonably done to prevent the accident? If not, go not guilty and explain all that to the magistrate.

Have a look at a site called Speed Trap Bible, or some bits of Pepipoo for more information.