Excel Court Date Set - Defence Statement Help

cordsandcag

Yeah hopefully that might help others in the future - be prepared to be asked and have answer that can satisfy the judge without naming the driver.

The judge wanted something to corroborate my claim. And as Lamilad pointed out afterwards, being vague e.g. saying 'I don't know' (unless you genuinely don't) invites the DJ / their rep to question the probability and leaves the defendant a bit more open.

System

Your answer that it was 'a family member' is a good one because it answered the Judge without naming the driver.

The issue of family member is a key one. Domestic arrangements are not intended to create legal relations, and so there cannot be an agency arrangement as implied by CPS v AJH Films. In fact CPS v AJH Films can be killed stone dead by the simple premise that the driver was not in a "hire and reward" arrangement with the Keeper. Clearly CPS v AJH Films will apply where there is a company vehicle (on company business) but for the vast majority of cases it is a red herring, like Elliott v Loake

beamerguy

Well done cordsandcag, a delightful read

I have nothing but admiration for lamilad who is one smart cookie:T

:beer::beer::beer:

Umkomaas

Nice result, great report. Well done (and Lami too).

claretmad62

Great read that cordsandcag, and well done. Some great points (and explanations) made on this thread leading upto your appearance....all of which can only help others.

Lamilad

Fairly early on the DJ asked me about my position and asked me if I was the driver, to which I stated I wasn't. He then chucked a bit of a curveball in, something I'd not seen in other transcripts / cases. He asked: If you weren't the driver, who was (or something similar)?

I stated that I had no legal obligation to name the driver. He said: 'you do if I ask you'. Again, I was a bit taken aback by this. I stated: it was a family member. He was satisfied with this answer and then moved on.

Yeah this was a rather uncomfortable moment. He asked the OP who was driving (at this point I got told off for trying to advise him) OP read HG and said he was under no obligation to name the driver. The judge said if I'm asking you then you're obliged to reply. OP said but there is nothing in law that says I have to name the driver. The judge again said 'yes there is - if I'm asking you a question then you have to answer it. The judge asked him again, there was a long pause, OP asked if he could speak to me but the judge said 'No' he then asked if he could give the answer in private to which the judge said 'no, this is open court'. He eventually said "it was a family member", the judge made a note of it and moved on.

I thought, initially the judge was going to make him give a name and full details but, I believe, he just wanted, for the record, a proper denial that he was the driver and a stated alternative scenario i.e - it was someone else (think he mentioned PD 16.5). This was because the OP had not denied in his defence that he was the driver (a major oversight).

A strict judge could have made things difficult but I think this one was helping him by getting it on the record that he wasn't the driver and someone else was.