Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
need advice
my best friend is on trail in the crown court for GBH sec.20 without intent. He was with a guy who badly beat another young man. He claims he had nothing to do with it, and he wants to plead not guilty. Is this a good idea?
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gemUK123. 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.
Without knowing the strength of the evidence against your friend, it's impossible to answer your question.
Your friend would be well advised to insist that his solicitor arranges a conference between the two of them and his barrister. Solicitors and barristers often see cases differently but the barrister will have much greater knowledge and experience. He will be able to give your friend a good indication of the likelihood of acquittal if he pleads not guilty.
It's far better that your friend speaks to the barrister directly, rather than through his solicitor, which is why I suggest that he insists on a case conference.
Chris
Your friend would be well advised to insist that his solicitor arranges a conference between the two of them and his barrister. Solicitors and barristers often see cases differently but the barrister will have much greater knowledge and experience. He will be able to give your friend a good indication of the likelihood of acquittal if he pleads not guilty.
It's far better that your friend speaks to the barrister directly, rather than through his solicitor, which is why I suggest that he insists on a case conference.
Chris
they have cctv evidence that shows him not doing anything, but the prosecution is saying he should have stopped it from happening. The other guy isnt owning up to anything, i believe he is pleading not guilty. i am not sure if he will say my friend was involved. i shall advise him to talk to his barrister, thank you for your help!
chris is spot on - altho obviously it depends if your friend and the main cuprit are independently represented. it sounds like it ought to be separate. either way a conference with counsel would be a good idea but it might be too early in the proceedings.
the other main point is that unless there is a duty to act ( which in this case I doubt) then he cannot be guilty of failing to stop the fight. no liability for omissions.
the other main point is that unless there is a duty to act ( which in this case I doubt) then he cannot be guilty of failing to stop the fight. no liability for omissions.
1 to 5 of 5
