I cant afford a solicitor at court and i have to represent myself please help!

[uglysmithy80]

I have been arrested and charged with ABH but attended court to plead guilty or not guilty which i have pleaded not guilty. The procecution have now decided that they have to have a week to decide if the injuries are of ABH or common assault, which the duty solicitor advise me that it will probably be common assault. I will lose my job if i am found guilty as i work for the police and i do not qualify for legal aid as i earn to much, well more than 10k. I have no choice but to represent myself in a magistrate court, the main thing is that i am not sure what questions i am allowed to ask the victim and his friends who are witnesses. I have proof that he is lying and medical evidence from the A & E doctor states that he has 2 previous fractures to his nose and that he friends state that they saw exactly what happend and had a clear view of the incident but one witness said i hit hit with my left and the other witness said i used my right hand. i did not punch anyone. Am i allowed to question them all this in court and will the magistrate guide me along ? please can somebody help me ?>. kind regards andrew

[ummmm]

In case Sara doesn't come back judge...she deals with benefit fraud cases I think.

[tamborine]

ugly's job is at stake and his future employment. Only a good solicitor can assist his prospects. He has to win his case & the threat of costs might make the prosecutors withdraw......I have experienced such cases being settled 'out of Court'.

[ummmm]

Read Judges answer again Tambo....!!!!!!

[ummmm]

Settling out of court?

How's that going to happen then???

[tamborine]

ummm....by judges answer ugly doesn't stand a chance at a fair trial - there must be a loop hole.

[ummmm]

What? Why must their be loophole?

Judge has said that he will almost certainly fail to bring a compensation case against the 'victim'

So your advice is absolutely useless...

[jackthehat]

tamborine - You do seem to give the first answer that comes into your head.
Natural Justice is not the same thing as Legal Justice...........
The law is content that someone innocent accused of a crime is found Not Guilty. Legal Justice has been served..........that it may have cost them their all to prove it is not the business of the Legal system.

[tamborine]

judge response ".....you were otherwise maliciously or wrongly prosecuted...." that might fit the bill ?

[ummmm]

But he hasn't been prosecuted....!!! So again your answer is useless.

[PokerMan]

ummmm ... all youve done on this thread is criticise other peoples' answers

can you not come up with something more advisory or helpful????????

[PokerMan]

thought not

[ummmm]

Here's something very helpful.

Do not listen to tamborine. Judge and Jack have confirmed that.

I don't know how long you've been using this site poker but Tambo has a habit, like Jack says, of posting the first thing that comes into her head.

Sometimes very very unhelpful advice.

You've been advised :-)

[tamborine]

ummmm seems you have a vendetta against my pixels & always need to mention back-up abers.....enjoy following my pixels to fill your day.

[PokerMan]

ok lol - but it wasnt me that wanted the advice : -)

thanks anyway

[ummmm]

I don't have a vendetta at all...I also don't follow you about. I do get quite astonished about the crap you type though. Then I'm usually left in shock that you continue to spout crap even though 'people in the know' have told you that you're wrong.

[New Judge]

From what ugly has told us I don’t think ".....you were otherwise maliciously or wrongly prosecuted...." will fit the bill, tambourine.

The CPS must ensure there is sufficient reliable evidence to support the strong likelihood of a conviction. He has already been charged so that test must have already been made. If there was any hint that the prosecution was malicious or wrong it is unlikely to have been authorised. This seems to be a classic case for a Bench of Magistrates to deal with - two different versions of events, one (or possibly both) being some way from the truth. Most prosecutions for violent offences take that form.

It is for the court to evaluate that evidence further and the fact that he will not be represented does not mean he will not receive a fair trial. The prosecution still has to bring evidence to the court to support a conviction “beyond reasonable doubt” and he will have the opportunity to refute the allegations made. There is nothing unfair about that.

I'm dipping out now because the thread is degenerating into a slanging match, which is not very helpful, especially for ugly.

[PokerMan]

im getting that feeling.... ugly hasnt replied for a while and is probably reading this and laughing at people slagging off others

[tamborine]

I wish you luck ugly & hope you come back and report you're cleared. I worry for you as the result will affect your prospects of employment.