six month ban for killing a cyclist

[Monkey Hanger]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:11:15 +0000 (UTC), "pk"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> No, I don't think so. Having read it again several times I think the
>>> driver saw-but-did-not-see the cyclist, looked for motor traffic, saw
>>> none and moved off - straight into the cyclist.
>
>>in which case she would have hit/seen the cyclist before turning or while
>>turning not after straightening up.
>
> Not really. She could have pulled away while looking left or in her
> mirror - I've seen plenty of people do that.

Indeed. Just the other day I saw a car pulling out of a side road where the
driver was looking to the left and over his shoulder. Once he got clear of
the junction I speeded up, only to find the reason that he wasn't looking
where he was going was that he was towing the car behind. Said towed
vehicle then had to apply the brakes as I rode through the gap. Good job
the rope snapped... :-/
--
Chris

 

[Richard]

Monkey Hanger wrote:

> Indeed. Just the other day I saw a car pulling out of a side road where the
> driver was looking to the left and over his shoulder. Once he got clear of
> the junction I speeded up, only to find the reason that he wasn't looking
> where he was going was that he was towing the car behind. Said towed
> vehicle then had to apply the brakes as I rode through the gap. Good job
> the rope snapped... :-/

Heh. I recall a friend (no, really), who used to time trial (maybe
still does - I haven't seen him for years). He was heading downhill at
some rather high speed when he saw two cars start to pull out from a
road on the left, the driver of the leading car obviously not having
seen him. At first he thought he could just weave between the two, when
he saw the tow-rope. He slammed on his brakes and managed to end up
sideswiping the towed car, still at some speed, leaving a comedy
impression of his left side in the driver's door. He fell off (still
clipped in), picked himself up, hopped over the tow-rope and sprinted
for the finish before the drivers were even able to get out. An hour
or so later, when he was back in his car heading home, he passed the
same spot. The two cars were pulled over, the drivers still scratching
their heads as they examined the completely crushed door.

R.

 

[Tim Forcer]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:28, JLB wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>> audrey wrote:
>>>
>>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Briefs lie. It's their job.
>>>
>>> Erm, no it isn't. Economical with and happy to stretch
>>> the truth yes, outright lying no.
>>
>> Errrm, yes it is. If you say to your lawyer 'actually I'm guilty
>> as hell, but I'm going to plead not guilty and pretend it was
>> the victim's fault',

Errrm, in this case the client plead guilty.

>> the lawyer cannot then tell the court 'my client is guilty as
>> hell'.

This lawyer didn't say that in this case.

>> The lawyer can't even say 'I refuse to represent this client'.
>> It is the lawyer's duty in our bizarre legal system to say 'my
>> client is not guilty'.

I thought lawyers often told clients NOT to tell them things? Or
is that another urban myth?

> Your version is some way from accurate. The Law Society
> explains the rules for a defending solicitor in section 21.20
> of the online guide.
> http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/professional/conduct/guideonline/view=index.law
>
> There's quite a lot to it, and to understand it all requires reading the
> whole thing, but here's para. 5:
>
> "Where, prior to the commencement or during the course of the
> proceedings, a client admits to the solicitor that he or she is guilty
> of the charge, the solicitor must decline to act in the proceedings if
> the client insists on giving evidence in the witness box in denial of
> guilt or requires the making of a statement asserting his or her
> innocence.

Is denying guilt by pleading non guilty the same as "making a
statement asserting his or her innocence"?

> The advocate who acts for a client who has admitted guilt but
> has pleaded not guilty (as the client is entitled), is under a duty to
> put the prosecution to proof of its case and may submit that there is
> insufficient evidence to justify a conviction. Further, the advocate may
> advance any defence open to the client other than protesting the
> client's innocence or suggesting, expressly or by implication, that
> someone other than the client committed the offence."

Answer to my question above: "No"

To return to the specific case, the accused entered a guilty
plea, the lawyer was making a plea in mitigation. I understood
that lawyers asked clients about all sorts of aspects of the case
and their situation in order to make such pleas, but were also
able to bring in anything else they felt appropriate?

Given that the accused was not contesting the charge (assuming
there was no more serious charge on offer which was contested), I
assume there was virtually no evidence presented in the court?
Just the briefest factual statement of names, place, date, time?

--
Tim Forcer [email protected]
The University of Southampton, UK

The University is not responsible for my opinions

 

[JLB]

Tim Forcer wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:28, JLB wrote:
>
>
>>Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>>audrey wrote:
>>>
>>>>Simon Brooke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Briefs lie. It's their job.
>>>>
>>>>Erm, no it isn't. Economical with and happy to stretch
>>>>the truth yes, outright lying no.
>>>
>>>Errrm, yes it is. If you say to your lawyer 'actually I'm guilty
>>>as hell, but I'm going to plead not guilty and pretend it was
>>>the victim's fault',
>
>
> Errrm, in this case the client plead guilty.
>
>
>>>the lawyer cannot then tell the court 'my client is guilty as
>>>hell'.
>
>
> This lawyer didn't say that in this case.
>
>
>>>The lawyer can't even say 'I refuse to represent this client'.
>>>It is the lawyer's duty in our bizarre legal system to say 'my
>>>client is not guilty'.
>
>
> I thought lawyers often told clients NOT to tell them things? Or
> is that another urban myth?
>
>
>>Your version is some way from accurate. The Law Society
>>explains the rules for a defending solicitor in section 21.20
>>of the online guide.
>>http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/professional/conduct/guideonline/view=index.law
>>
>>There's quite a lot to it, and to understand it all requires reading the
>>whole thing, but here's para. 5:
>>
>>"Where, prior to the commencement or during the course of the
>>proceedings, a client admits to the solicitor that he or she is guilty
>>of the charge, the solicitor must decline to act in the proceedings if
>>the client insists on giving evidence in the witness box in denial of
>>guilt or requires the making of a statement asserting his or her
>>innocence.
>
>
> Is denying guilt by pleading non guilty the same as "making a
> statement asserting his or her innocence"?
>
>
>>The advocate who acts for a client who has admitted guilt but
>>has pleaded not guilty (as the client is entitled), is under a duty to
>>put the prosecution to proof of its case and may submit that there is
>>insufficient evidence to justify a conviction. Further, the advocate may
>>advance any defence open to the client other than protesting the
>>client's innocence or suggesting, expressly or by implication, that
>>someone other than the client committed the offence."
>
>
> Answer to my question above: "No"
>
> To return to the specific case, the accused entered a guilty
> plea, the lawyer was making a plea in mitigation. I understood
> that lawyers asked clients about all sorts of aspects of the case
> and their situation in order to make such pleas, but were also
> able to bring in anything else they felt appropriate?
>
> Given that the accused was not contesting the charge (assuming
> there was no more serious charge on offer which was contested), I
> assume there was virtually no evidence presented in the court?
> Just the briefest factual statement of names, place, date, time?
>
If you really want to know all this in the kind of detail you seem to
want, you might think about getting legal training. There are many
rules, they are not necessarily logical and any short summary will be in
some way imaccurate. The piece I quoted from the Law Society are *some*
of the rules for lawyers; if you want to argue with them, go to the Law
Society, I'm only the messenger. If you want the rest of the Law
Society's guidelines, go to the address.

By the way, I'm puzzled that your post (quoted above) spends some time
in discussion with a post earlier than mine, the inaccuracy of which was
made clear in my subsequent one which therefore answered much of what
you were saying. This is going to get very confusing. If you want to
discuss points raised by a previous poster in their own post, without
reference to anything posted subsequently, it would help everyone to
follow what is going on if you replied to the relevant post.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap