Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
criminal trial
18 Answers
In a uk criminal crown court trial, if you are unhappy with your representation mid-trial, is it permissable to sack your Barrister/ solicitor. And if so does this also apply to legal aid representation.
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by doberman2089. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Thanks for the speedy response. I dont know whether it would be advisable either, but im getting the impression that even though i wouldnt have a clue as to what to do, i might be better off representing myself- every point i make to the barrister seems to be shot down in flames as being irrelevant to the case. i wonder if your barrister has to fully act on clients instructions (i.e questioning of witnesses) or whether he can completely disregard them if he doesnt agree. Anyway i digress , thanks for your reply.
hi Katie,
Thanks for your reply, i live in bradford.
The thing is my solicitor (jurys still out on him as well), really rates this guy, quote "has got us a lot of good results". But in a trial date meeting with him the other day he was so negative. Because were on alow wage we get legal aid and its running through my head do they try as hard on legal aid? Perhaps im totally off mark there.
I think what i really need is a barrister who does a lot of defence of people who have been charged after trying to deal with antisocial yobs.
Thanks for your reply, i live in bradford.
The thing is my solicitor (jurys still out on him as well), really rates this guy, quote "has got us a lot of good results". But in a trial date meeting with him the other day he was so negative. Because were on alow wage we get legal aid and its running through my head do they try as hard on legal aid? Perhaps im totally off mark there.
I think what i really need is a barrister who does a lot of defence of people who have been charged after trying to deal with antisocial yobs.
Yes they do try as hard on legal aid. It may well be that what you see as relevant and what the law sees as relevant are different things. Very often clients do become very concerned with issues that are entirely irrelevant to the charge they are facing - particularly concerning what the law accepts as a defence to charges. Try discussing this matter with your solicitor first and then discuss it with your barrister. It would be worth exploring your concerns before taking the decision to sack your legal team.
Barmaid thanks for your reply. If i was getting anywhere trying to talk with my legal team then i probably wouldnt be on here. My solicitor couldnt even spare 2 mins earlier to talk about something. I understand that what i think is important might not be applicable to a defense, but there are certain aspects of the case which i need the jury to hear, whether the barrister feels they are relevant or not.
Katie, tried sending email via hotmail now but obviously still not worked. my e mail is: [email protected].
Katie, tried sending email via hotmail now but obviously still not worked. my e mail is: [email protected].
You have a difficulty then. IF you sack your legal team the Judge may rule that you have to continue and represent yourself. That WILL be extremely difficult. Otherwise, the trial may be aborted and you will have to start from scratch again. You may run the risk of having your legal aid terminated and/or incur wasted costs.
so basically barmaid, the cut and dry of the situation is such that even in trial if i feel that i am not being afforded an adequate defence and decide to sack the legal team, then the 2 possibilities are 1) might have to defend myself-virtual impossibility to get a fair trial! or 2) the trial could be aborted and legal aid refused for retrial- resulting in the same conclusion as point 1.
In summary if what you are saying is correct, because i do not have enough money myself to pay for a defence and have to rely on legal aid, if i do not feel im getting a proper defence then thats just tough.
In summary if what you are saying is correct, because i do not have enough money myself to pay for a defence and have to rely on legal aid, if i do not feel im getting a proper defence then thats just tough.
Alot of criminal stuff is legallyaided
You can sack your lawyer, but I have to say it doesnt sound as though you should
The solicitor thinks he is good and also he will have had more practice in pleading - is this before a jury ? There is a special way to treat them
and you know it comes down to.....
saying to a princpal witness - tell the truth you stupid lying so and so
may make you feel good and it may even be true
but doesnt sort of do well with the Jury.
I have to say as a litigant in person I was kicked around a civil court yesterday and one of the observers said - it was obvious that the judge wouldnt listen to you and wanted you to listen to his words from God.
and I simpered and thought [that cd be that I wasnt right in law and he was]
anyway Good Lcuk - you have got this far and I think you should stick with him
You can sack your lawyer, but I have to say it doesnt sound as though you should
The solicitor thinks he is good and also he will have had more practice in pleading - is this before a jury ? There is a special way to treat them
and you know it comes down to.....
saying to a princpal witness - tell the truth you stupid lying so and so
may make you feel good and it may even be true
but doesnt sort of do well with the Jury.
I have to say as a litigant in person I was kicked around a civil court yesterday and one of the observers said - it was obvious that the judge wouldnt listen to you and wanted you to listen to his words from God.
and I simpered and thought [that cd be that I wasnt right in law and he was]
anyway Good Lcuk - you have got this far and I think you should stick with him
Be very careful! It sounds to me that you are not thinking like a lawyer, but thinking like an ordinary member of the public. That's perfectly understandable because you are an ordinary member of the public and are not legally qualified.
It sounds to me that you are trying to say you are not guilty because you assaulted some yobs who were causing bother and take the view that you were morally justified to do so. Your legal representation are paid to advise you on LEGAL matters. You have been accused of a crime; that crime will have a legal definition that the crown must prove against you beyond reasonable doubt (a very high standard of proof). Your defence must assess the evidence against you and guage the chances of pleading a successful defence. If there is little chance of success your defence will advise you to plead guilty as early as possible and offer explanations to mitigate your behaviour.
When I began studying law I found that separating my heart from my head was extremely difficult, (more than most of my class to be honest) and it took me a long time to adjust to thinking like a lawyer as opposed to an ordinary member of the public. However justified you feel your behaviour was (whatever it was), if it is indefencible in law it is indefencible in court.
Hope this helps, and tust me, I do sympathise.
It sounds to me that you are trying to say you are not guilty because you assaulted some yobs who were causing bother and take the view that you were morally justified to do so. Your legal representation are paid to advise you on LEGAL matters. You have been accused of a crime; that crime will have a legal definition that the crown must prove against you beyond reasonable doubt (a very high standard of proof). Your defence must assess the evidence against you and guage the chances of pleading a successful defence. If there is little chance of success your defence will advise you to plead guilty as early as possible and offer explanations to mitigate your behaviour.
When I began studying law I found that separating my heart from my head was extremely difficult, (more than most of my class to be honest) and it took me a long time to adjust to thinking like a lawyer as opposed to an ordinary member of the public. However justified you feel your behaviour was (whatever it was), if it is indefencible in law it is indefencible in court.
Hope this helps, and tust me, I do sympathise.
Student , thanks for your reply , just to clarify i didnt touch or assault anyone in this case- in fact the only person who got hurt was me i got headbutted and ended up with a broken nose. The person who did that is in court shortly and i am a prosecution witness. My big mistake in all this was going back out after that happened carrying a knife for protection, . It was my intention to tell the yobs to stay away or i would call the police but before i had a chance to say anything they come flying out of the house with a samurai sword and other weapons and i made my escape and it was me who called the police(iironic). To my knowledge the cps in their wisdom have not proceeded with any charges against the yobs with their weapons.
This whole legal thing has being going on now for nearly 8 months and to say im sick to death of the whole business would be an understatement.
I have done nothing but tell the truth from the start and these lying little ******** have got away with putting my life into one of isolation and to add insult to injury i have a barrister that doesnt want for me to get some control back and enlighten the jury into seeing exactly how this happened and what these people are really like.
rant over- my apologies.
This whole legal thing has being going on now for nearly 8 months and to say im sick to death of the whole business would be an understatement.
I have done nothing but tell the truth from the start and these lying little ******** have got away with putting my life into one of isolation and to add insult to injury i have a barrister that doesnt want for me to get some control back and enlighten the jury into seeing exactly how this happened and what these people are really like.
rant over- my apologies.
No need to apologise, Doberman. Your 'rant' was informative and completely understandable.
What I don't understand is: if you are simply a witness for the prosecution (CPS or Procurator Fiscal), the client is the Crown, not you. In which case you cannot sack your barrister/advocate, or solicitor.
If you are being defended then you are the client, and so yes, you can seek new representation. But what you say is confusing me somewhat.
Have you been charged with any offence?
You should look at the possibility of claiming criminal injuries compensation for your broken nose, plus the psychological harm you have clearly suffered by being fearful of leaving your home.
What I don't understand is: if you are simply a witness for the prosecution (CPS or Procurator Fiscal), the client is the Crown, not you. In which case you cannot sack your barrister/advocate, or solicitor.
If you are being defended then you are the client, and so yes, you can seek new representation. But what you say is confusing me somewhat.
Have you been charged with any offence?
You should look at the possibility of claiming criminal injuries compensation for your broken nose, plus the psychological harm you have clearly suffered by being fearful of leaving your home.
Just as un update, the trial has now been concluded.
I did sack my legal team and on the 1st day of the trial the recorder agreed to the transfer. And despite the advice against its just as well i did, my new team discovered some underhanded stuff from the cps regarding non disclosure of a a witness statement (other team wouldnt have noticed it in a million years). After 3 days of legal wranglings and the judge insisting on answers from people from the cps the trial went ahead. I was on bail for 10 months, the trial was 1 and a half days in when the jury retired. They took all of 20 minutes to unanimously return a not guilty verdict.
So if anyone is in this situation in the future and you have any reservations about your legal team (whether on legal aid or not) sack them and find someone who youre happy with and youre sure they actually give a stuff about fighting for you.
I did sack my legal team and on the 1st day of the trial the recorder agreed to the transfer. And despite the advice against its just as well i did, my new team discovered some underhanded stuff from the cps regarding non disclosure of a a witness statement (other team wouldnt have noticed it in a million years). After 3 days of legal wranglings and the judge insisting on answers from people from the cps the trial went ahead. I was on bail for 10 months, the trial was 1 and a half days in when the jury retired. They took all of 20 minutes to unanimously return a not guilty verdict.
So if anyone is in this situation in the future and you have any reservations about your legal team (whether on legal aid or not) sack them and find someone who youre happy with and youre sure they actually give a stuff about fighting for you.
1 to 18 of 18
