*Please note this post is full of hyperbole which will know doubt get me in trouble much like it does for any prosecutor*
I have attempted in previous posts, to outline some serious threats to the criminal Bar (now spelt with a big B, because after all it is somewhat important). These mainly being solicitor advocates, the Legal Services Commission and the Lord Carter reforms. I don't think it will be necessary to repeat my ramblings on either three topics seeing that they raise the blood pressure of any actual or potential criminal barrister. What I am however trying to attempt is to conclude what my assessment is on the situation and my learned friends to see whether endeavouring to be a criminal barrister is worth the hassle nowadays.
The impending doom
There is likely to be at some point in the near future an implosion in the criminal bar. It raises questions whether us students should get our foot in the door before the system crumbles or should wait to rise out of the ashes. The Barrister v Solicitor line has been irrevocably blurred to the point that both sides are in a silent(or not so silent if we read The Times) war with each other. The system of interdependence has broken resulting in the current feud of the legal profession.
Barristers depend on solicitors for instructions. Solicitors however are now seeing that some of the work done by barristers isn't really that difficult and with the addition of the Legal Aid reforms firms feel it would be much preferable to keep costs in house and use solicitor advocates. This is obviously cost-efficient for the solicitor and also more efficient in the sense that you may have the same solicitor representing you in the police station and at the Crown Court. This will lead to a lack of work for barristers in the Crown Court.
Not quite so apocalyptic?
Is it likely that this will have a major effect on the criminal Bar, very junior and some less junior cases will go to solicitor advocates. What is however unlikely for the time being is solicitor advocates appearing in the High Courts, Court of Appeal or House of Lords. I believe that your standard solicitor advocate will be appearing at one or two Crown Courts that are local to their practice and perhaps a wider range of practice for more established solicitor advocates.
Now what does this mean for the Bar? The work is definitely going to change, having less trial work will ultimately lead to barristers being relied upon for their "specialisms" in chosen fields, most notably serious crime such as homicide and sexual offences, for the time being will be instructed to counsel and junior practitioners will appear with their more learned leaders. As solicitor advocates are not generally experienced enough, and would as I have heard prefer cases to go to barristers.
Specialism will therefore become more and more important for barristers at the criminal Bar. As noted above if there is less junior trial work they will have to pair up in order to survive, the very nature of criminal work may change as we know it.
A mutual agreement?
Unless there is a mutual agreement between solicitors and barristers about the criminal justice system and how it works it it very likely it will implode. Easy solutions could be made to reassure the next generation of young barristers that the criminal bar will not die and that it is a worthwhile pursuit. The recent bickering between both sides, barristers deeming solicitor advocates as inadequate and the majority of solicitors viewing barristers as pompous and in some cases "dreadful" shows that a coherent system needs to be put in place. There need to be clear roles for each party.
This obviously leads to problems of whether a solicitor should really be allowed to practice advocacy and whether direct access to a barrister should be allowed to give "advice". Both give rise to the fact that each party is trying to out do one another instead of working together.
If both are trying to perform each role then should this be continued or should it be resolved by confining them to their original roles? This legal evolution of adding on tidbits to one an other's profession is unlikely to go away. Nor do I suggest is the problem between the two professions.
What is key to perhaps understanding the view of solicitors is that they see barristers as pompous, overpaid and why should it be their "right" to be the next judiciary. They have a direct line to the Home Office, the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Justice. They have power to effect very influential people because ultimately they come from a similar background, Oxbridge educated etc. This lack of diversification in the Bar (though I profess it is becoming better) annoys solicitors. I was told recently by a solicitor advocate that the more the Bar pulls strings to only enrich their own profession solicitors will try and claw back what they can from there.
Essentially the idea here is that there is a lack of balance between what solicitors are paid and what barristers are paid. An average partner of a criminal practice makes about £40,000, that is the starting salary of many students a Magic Circle and Silver Circle firms. According to BarBoy (please inform me if I am wrong) a junior criminal barrister can easily make £40,000. Why is it that solicitors should be paid more than barristers? This problem needs addressing, barristers must show and prove why they deserve to be paid more, by proving their worth. The days of old are gone, which is why many barristers I believe are struggling to make ends meet.
The CPS
Much of the focus of this post has been on the discussion of the solicitor advocates affect on the criminal bar, this is only part of the larger dilemma of a bewilderingly crippled criminal justice system.
Whilst criminal barristers are losing more work due to solicitor advocates they are also having their work depleted by in the in house advocates of the CPS. Whether or not these advocates are deemed as "failures" is not to be discussed here they have a job to do and they are put under an increasing amount of pressure to do it.
The polarisation of the Bar may even have a bigger effect than solicitor advocates in total. Half of the work disappearing to the employed Bar must have a notable effect, but does it matter less because these advocates once belonged to the independent bar so are more trustworthy to conduct cases? I am unsure with my limited knowledge to make any such contention.
Nevertheless there appears to be a lot of work being swallowed up by otherwise than the independent bar.
Conclusion
The majority of the reasons why the criminal bar looks doomed, is because it simply isn't viewed as cost efficient. Solicitor advocates and the CPS have no real alternative otherwise than to instruct their own counsel if they want to get by. Will this mean a rise in miscarriages of justice or a deflated notion of justice for all if the independent criminal Bar cannot function as it once did? I again am unsure.
I am sure that it will never be the case that you can pay less and get more in the criminal justice system and it will lead to the brightest and best candidates looking elsewhere to finance lives of luxury that their other seemingly bright friends have chosen in general common law, company law, litigation etc. This is a serious problem that needs addressing.
Will there be enough work for me when I qualify? It is unsure, it all depends on what agreement the Bar and the Law Society can make with one another before the situation implodes and chaos runs amok. Hopefully they will. The current forecast is that there will be light spells and maybe storms, leading to very specialised work in the higher courts for the time being.
Is it worth it? Imagine yourself in 20 years time, and ask yourself if there was anything that you would regret not having done. If you think you would regret not being at the Criminal Bar despite all its difficulties then that is the area for you. If not then it is likely you could probably get away with something else. What is certain is that competition for the Criminal Bar is as tough as any other area. We all hear the phrase "if you are determined enough you will succeed" but how determined does one need to be, in able to try and predict the future of the profession you wish to enter hoping that it will be the right choice and also still alive and kick well enough that you will be able to make a decent living out of it?
I suppose there is always hope....
*note - I hope for a particular reader that this is a little bit more ambitious than my usual posts ;) *
Showing posts with label Barrister. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barrister. Show all posts
Thursday, 8 January 2009
Sunday, 2 November 2008
Not a good time to be a criminal barrister (a supplement)
I've been doing some various research on the bar, seeming as that is what I want to do and I could even *shock horror* bring it up an interview, rather than just regurgitating Simon Myerson's ten reasons why I want to be a barrister, which of course I do intend to do, if not albeit my own tweaked versions.
So here is some further research about what difficulties lay in our bleak future.
Recent reports that the bar will become a two tier profession; those doing work based on legal aid are likely to get f' all whilst the commercial fat cats will have more money. The criminal bar's future definitely does look bleak.
Also at this years bar conference, barristers are furious over the inadequacy of solicitor's performances in court, who have little or no relevant experience. See here
Lord Carter's report on Legal Aid and the reform (imagine putting someone in charge of reforming legal aid when they have NO experience in the system and as he admitted he had no experience of the sytem before he started work on it) are likely to have a heavy impact on the legal aid system, as already mentioned in the previous post solicitors are more likely to take on more junior work in house. Establishing a fixed advocacy fee also looks very likely. We already know of what the Legal Services Commission wants to do to the bar (personally I think eradicate it or at least try and cut some costs which will mostly be in the criminal bar) earlier this year accusing the bar to be breaking competition laws.
The legal services commission is not very well looked upon especially in my experience of criminal barristers who refer to people who have signed onto the latest VHCC as "scabs" the equivalent to a traitor, much like those people who went to work mining during the strikes of the 70's and 80's. I'm not entirely sure if this is because they do not want fixed fees, or do not in general like the LSC.
What can be said is that the criminal bar will definitely shrink, if not all other areas of the bar, and good people will go far, and the lesser ones will go and work for the CPS. Which currently I think may be better than going to chambers, at least if they do all their own work in house it means that I will never have to worry about having no work.
I'm not sure why everyone wants to cut down the legal aid budget, from what I know the legal aid budget would fund the NHS for two weeks, so hardly that expensive, a cut in costs will ultimately either mean a leaner profession or one that no longer attracts the brighest.
Further Reading
Is the Bar becoming a two tier profession - Frances Gibb - Times Law
How healthy is the Bar? - Frances Gibb - Times LawToo many solicitors are no good in court, say barristers - Frances Gibb - Times Law
Young Legal Aid Lawyers - try and check out the videos they are quite good, you can see how the profession is being squees, also look for the very angry woman in red, she makes some very good points.
So here is some further research about what difficulties lay in our bleak future.
Recent reports that the bar will become a two tier profession; those doing work based on legal aid are likely to get f' all whilst the commercial fat cats will have more money. The criminal bar's future definitely does look bleak.
Also at this years bar conference, barristers are furious over the inadequacy of solicitor's performances in court, who have little or no relevant experience. See here
Lord Carter's report on Legal Aid and the reform (imagine putting someone in charge of reforming legal aid when they have NO experience in the system and as he admitted he had no experience of the sytem before he started work on it) are likely to have a heavy impact on the legal aid system, as already mentioned in the previous post solicitors are more likely to take on more junior work in house. Establishing a fixed advocacy fee also looks very likely. We already know of what the Legal Services Commission wants to do to the bar (personally I think eradicate it or at least try and cut some costs which will mostly be in the criminal bar) earlier this year accusing the bar to be breaking competition laws.
The legal services commission is not very well looked upon especially in my experience of criminal barristers who refer to people who have signed onto the latest VHCC as "scabs" the equivalent to a traitor, much like those people who went to work mining during the strikes of the 70's and 80's. I'm not entirely sure if this is because they do not want fixed fees, or do not in general like the LSC.
What can be said is that the criminal bar will definitely shrink, if not all other areas of the bar, and good people will go far, and the lesser ones will go and work for the CPS. Which currently I think may be better than going to chambers, at least if they do all their own work in house it means that I will never have to worry about having no work.
I'm not sure why everyone wants to cut down the legal aid budget, from what I know the legal aid budget would fund the NHS for two weeks, so hardly that expensive, a cut in costs will ultimately either mean a leaner profession or one that no longer attracts the brighest.
Further Reading
Is the Bar becoming a two tier profession - Frances Gibb - Times Law
How healthy is the Bar? - Frances Gibb - Times LawToo many solicitors are no good in court, say barristers - Frances Gibb - Times Law
Young Legal Aid Lawyers - try and check out the videos they are quite good, you can see how the profession is being squees, also look for the very angry woman in red, she makes some very good points.
Thursday, 30 October 2008
Not a good time to be a criminal barrister.
We are in recession, let's all face it, not as if pupillage wasn't hard enough to get, it will now become inevitably impossible. The Bar has gone from Highly Competitive to Hyper Competitive. For those of us who wish to become criminal barristers we may think that things will be easier, recession normally means high crime rates, so lots of work coming in or not as the case may be.
During the last recession in 1992 commercial practise dried up, leaving the non-criminal chambers with little or no work, so they started to branch out into areas of Law they had never done before, such as Family and Crime. Thus the amount of work, especially the amount of work that is done by junior barristers fell. Now if you were chambers would you really look to seek to new untrained people into your little family, if inevitably they will either not have any work to do or will be fighting for the tiniest scrap of work left.
Though there may now be structures in place and of course if a barrister is a specialist in a certain area their amount of work is unlikely to be affected too drastically. If however commercial chambers start to pick up an interest in other areas of law and eat into criminal work then this will significantly affect the budding wannabe criminal barrister, as they will most likely take away very junior work i.e. magistrates appearances, and lesser offences in the Crown Court.
Now if we couple the idea that other barristers whom shockingly didn't want to do criminal law because they wanted to make a lot of money, now want to do criminal law because they have no money with the idea of solicitor advocates (or as Geeklawyer refers to them solicitor inadequates) then the problem is further exposed.
Solicitor advocates are the bane of a barrister. Why? They again eat up work done by very junior barristers. Logically solicitor advocates are a good thing for at least a solicitor. If you have a certain amount of money allocated to a case then why not keep all of the money in house? Why instruct barristers to conduct work for you when you have an advocate within your own organisation?
Some may think that barristers who are highly trained in advocacy, will always out do the solicitor who does not necessarily have the experience of appearing before a tribunal of fact, this won't be the case of those of us just starting out, a solicitor advocate will most likely have similar abilities and skill to our own.
Before we can even think of practising as a barrister we have to look at the availability of pupillages. There is a 1 in 4 (or 5) chance of getting a pupillage, with around 450 pupillages and 3,700 applicants (See Simon Myerson QC on "The Chance of Success"). The Bar is a competitive profession so naturally it is selective as to who enters it.
As mentioned before it has gone from being highly competitive to hyper competitive, a comment on Mr Myerson's blog said that all barristers possess two qualities; high intelligence and self delusion and cheekily I would like to add a third - the ability to drink. We would have to be delusional to want to apply to a very selective profession, that can regularly work 80 hours a week, that takes up weekends and restrict social lives, for what gain? Time to really assess why we want to be barristers, and whether we have the right characteristics.
So we have two great boundaries (1) if we get a pupillage (2) if there will be any work left.
Lets hope the recession is going to be a short one, however for those of us graduating now, or have just finished the BVC the prospects look suitably bleak, unless of course you are one of those lucky ones to have a pupillage already lined up in that case you are unlikely to read my blog.
During the last recession in 1992 commercial practise dried up, leaving the non-criminal chambers with little or no work, so they started to branch out into areas of Law they had never done before, such as Family and Crime. Thus the amount of work, especially the amount of work that is done by junior barristers fell. Now if you were chambers would you really look to seek to new untrained people into your little family, if inevitably they will either not have any work to do or will be fighting for the tiniest scrap of work left.
Though there may now be structures in place and of course if a barrister is a specialist in a certain area their amount of work is unlikely to be affected too drastically. If however commercial chambers start to pick up an interest in other areas of law and eat into criminal work then this will significantly affect the budding wannabe criminal barrister, as they will most likely take away very junior work i.e. magistrates appearances, and lesser offences in the Crown Court.
Now if we couple the idea that other barristers whom shockingly didn't want to do criminal law because they wanted to make a lot of money, now want to do criminal law because they have no money with the idea of solicitor advocates (or as Geeklawyer refers to them solicitor inadequates) then the problem is further exposed.
Solicitor advocates are the bane of a barrister. Why? They again eat up work done by very junior barristers. Logically solicitor advocates are a good thing for at least a solicitor. If you have a certain amount of money allocated to a case then why not keep all of the money in house? Why instruct barristers to conduct work for you when you have an advocate within your own organisation?
Some may think that barristers who are highly trained in advocacy, will always out do the solicitor who does not necessarily have the experience of appearing before a tribunal of fact, this won't be the case of those of us just starting out, a solicitor advocate will most likely have similar abilities and skill to our own.
Before we can even think of practising as a barrister we have to look at the availability of pupillages. There is a 1 in 4 (or 5) chance of getting a pupillage, with around 450 pupillages and 3,700 applicants (See Simon Myerson QC on "The Chance of Success"). The Bar is a competitive profession so naturally it is selective as to who enters it.
As mentioned before it has gone from being highly competitive to hyper competitive, a comment on Mr Myerson's blog said that all barristers possess two qualities; high intelligence and self delusion and cheekily I would like to add a third - the ability to drink. We would have to be delusional to want to apply to a very selective profession, that can regularly work 80 hours a week, that takes up weekends and restrict social lives, for what gain? Time to really assess why we want to be barristers, and whether we have the right characteristics.
So we have two great boundaries (1) if we get a pupillage (2) if there will be any work left.
Lets hope the recession is going to be a short one, however for those of us graduating now, or have just finished the BVC the prospects look suitably bleak, unless of course you are one of those lucky ones to have a pupillage already lined up in that case you are unlikely to read my blog.
Tuesday, 9 September 2008
Dodging Fare Evasion - A Guide
Dodging Fare Evasion – A guide.
This post only relates to Fare Evasion on Buses that are operated by TFL.
It does not deal with Fare Evasion on the Tube, though I suppose you can use similar arguments, but you should be careful to make that distinction for yourselves.
Quite a few of you readers have been emailing me and asking me how I got out of being prosecuted by TFL for fare evasion. Some of you have been nice, and others have just taken my information and run, without a thank you (I hope you get done propa). Though I find it incredibly boring to give people the same advice all the time, and I’m pretty sure I keep missing stuff out, so here’s a guide if you help you getting out of being prosecuted via settling out of court.
Disclaimer: I accept no responsibility for any reliance that you make on this information, it should not be considered as independent legal advice, if you do intend to rely on this information by reading this you promise not to be a dumb ass, not to copy and paste points that I put across, you are free to distribute this information as you wish as long as I am credited.
Update 03 April 2009 - If you get a court summons just ring them up and ask to settle out of court. They will normally let you and you will have to pay around £102.
PLEASE READ THE POST IN FULL AND THE COMMENTS BEFORE EMAILING ME.
Update February 5th 2009 - there is another fanastic website that deals with this, I have yet to verify the information on it, but I consider that the information is still reliable. In addition to reading this guide you should also read the information on the link below.
I have just recently become aware as of February 6th 2009 of this wonderful website
http://busrights.blogspot.com/
1. You’ve been caught
So you have been caught, either it was a mistake or you were deliberating doing it, it really makes no difference. Make sure that you check whatever you sign at the time, this will be used in evidence against you, so make sure that you agree with what TFL inspector, or if you did not know then you may say that you were under duress to sign it.
If the ticket inspector has taken down your details it will be all put in a computer, and I gather that the decision to prosecute is made by the prosecution managers. If you have given a real name and address you are likely to receive a letter, saying that you were caught at X time and X date, and do you have anything to say about the matter.
You should immediately reply, with a grovelling letter of apology, it will also be important to make sure that any correspondence with TFL is printed off or photocopied, and kept in a safe place or folder, you will need this if you need to go to court.
2. The Court Summons
Think that they have forgotten about it, haven’t heard about them in a couple of months? TFL are extremely busy prosecuting people, probably with the amount of people that don’t pay on the buses. As fare evasion is a summary offence a court summons can arrive any time (so I’m told) within 6 months of when the offence was committed. Any longer and I assume you can have the case chucked out of you as the time limit for bring forth proceedings has elapsed, or you could be unlucky enough to have the court summons arrive 4 days before the elapsed period.
2(a) Read
Though you will probably be in shock and perhaps thinking that your legal career is over it is important to read all the documents that you have in front of you, check all the statements provided by inspectors, look to see if they are signed or not, an unsigned statement may not be valid, after all how do we know that someone else has not made this information up? Look also at the statements look for discrepancies, the TFL inspector may have surmised what you have said, or might not have written down what you said at all. Note this down for later.
Also have a look at the Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy and highlight any sections that you feel are applicable to your case.
2(b) Do I have to respond immediately?http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.bold.gif
My advice is no, do not respond immediately to the court summons as you will be trying to settle out of court. I did not fill out the back of the form or send anything off. If you have already put in your plea it doesn’t matter you can change it.
If you have received a court summons ring up the TFL number provided on the summons and ask for whoever is in charge of your case and ask for their email, this will speed up communication time, as you will not have to put valuable letters within the remit of Royal Mail.
3. Drafting a response to the court summons
(a) Tone and Format
Assuming now that you want to settle out of court, have read through all the information on the court summons, have highlighted any discrepancies in the evidence against you, and checked that the statements have been signed so you can assure for their validity you can now start with your draft letter/email in the hope that you can settle this out of court.
You will need to sound (a) apologetic, do not rant, keep it simple and precise, and (b) it needs to be written in a formal manner, even if its in an email I recon it should look like this found HERE (click link) . Do not use the same adjectives over again, have an expansive vocabulary but do not get flowery.
Here is where you need to develop your written advocacy!! Whilst also being formal, apologetic all that jazz, you need to be persuasive, be persuasive in a suggestive way for example “It could be open to suggest that…” etc.
(B) What to include.
Hopefully if you have read all the above points you will know what to include.
You may want to set it out like this (a) Apology (b) Revenue and Policy Guidelines that support you case (C) The Pace argument (explained later) (D) if the statements are signed or not.
(C) The Pace Argument
The pace argument relates to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. (You may wish to google this) now TFL inspectors are bound by this act and therefore must perform their duties in accordance with it. Depending on your circumstances you may not be even to use this argument, this must be considered very carefully, because if you use it and its not applicable to you then you will look like a dumbass. I suggest you do your own research on Pace.
Now what can you use PACE for. Basically PACE stipulates that any conversation or questions put to a suspect that are likely to produce an allged confession, must only be after you have been cautioned. A police caution in this circumstance being that which you may be familiar with on the bill "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." Also see this site HERE for more information.
So if you have been questioned and you have said anything that may be prejudical to your case you could suggest to TFL that it would be inadmissible in a court of law.
If it went to court, you can make an application under s.76 and s.78 of PACE 1984 to exclude such evidence being admitted.
4. The Waiting Game
So hopefully you will nervously await a reply from TFL as they decide your fate! This process can take up to a week. They will either (a) inform you that they are proceeding with the prosecution or (b) saying that they will drop it, if you pay prosecution costs and the fare evaded, an amount which could be between £100-£200. Once you have paid they will send you a confirmation that they have dropped the case and that you do not need to attend the court date.
5. What happens if they don’t drop the prosecution.
Now I never got this far, however I would try and keep communications open as possible with TFL, keep asking them to settle out of court.
If not you can ask to meet with the prosecutor and suggest that they charge you with a caution, if not then you could ask the magistrate to impose an absolute discharge (which is not a criminal conviction) given the prosecution’s hard stance. You could also show how eager you were to co-operate with TFL, and make sure that you have a copy of all the correspondence between yourself and TFL.
5(A) Should I get representation?
Not if you can settle it out of court, solicitors will charge £100 for an interview as fare evasion does not give rise to legal aid! There may however be people who will represent you bro pono.
Contact details are below.
Community Legal Services Direct
0845 345 4345
The Law Society on 020 7242 1222.
Bar Pro Bono Unit
0207 6119500.
6. How will this effect my future career in Law Etc
I have been told that this will probably not effect being called to the Bar. You MUST if asked declare any convictions declare them to your professional regulatory body, either to the Bar or Law Society. If you do not have a conviction then you do not need to mention it ;)
I think that they ask for any previous convictions, not withstanding whether or not they have been spent, so you must declare them. If you do not declare your conviction you risk the chance of being found out later and disbarred, or whatever the equivalent for a solicitor is.
There are two different views on whether or not this will effect your chances of pupillage/jobs, either (a) everyone has done it in London including Barrister’s themselves so it’s not very serious or (b) it’s an offence of dishonesty, “ I wouldn’t want to work with a thief” a mumbling twat would mutter, and with competition for these jobs being so high, its another reason to reject your application.
Now hopefully this has provided you with the answers that you want. If you still have questions you can contact me at lost London law student at googlemail dot com.
Good Luck!!
This post only relates to Fare Evasion on Buses that are operated by TFL.
It does not deal with Fare Evasion on the Tube, though I suppose you can use similar arguments, but you should be careful to make that distinction for yourselves.
Quite a few of you readers have been emailing me and asking me how I got out of being prosecuted by TFL for fare evasion. Some of you have been nice, and others have just taken my information and run, without a thank you (I hope you get done propa). Though I find it incredibly boring to give people the same advice all the time, and I’m pretty sure I keep missing stuff out, so here’s a guide if you help you getting out of being prosecuted via settling out of court.
Disclaimer: I accept no responsibility for any reliance that you make on this information, it should not be considered as independent legal advice, if you do intend to rely on this information by reading this you promise not to be a dumb ass, not to copy and paste points that I put across, you are free to distribute this information as you wish as long as I am credited.
Update 03 April 2009 - If you get a court summons just ring them up and ask to settle out of court. They will normally let you and you will have to pay around £102.
PLEASE READ THE POST IN FULL AND THE COMMENTS BEFORE EMAILING ME.
Update February 5th 2009 - there is another fanastic website that deals with this, I have yet to verify the information on it, but I consider that the information is still reliable. In addition to reading this guide you should also read the information on the link below.
I have just recently become aware as of February 6th 2009 of this wonderful website
http://busrights.blogspot.com/
1. You’ve been caught
So you have been caught, either it was a mistake or you were deliberating doing it, it really makes no difference. Make sure that you check whatever you sign at the time, this will be used in evidence against you, so make sure that you agree with what TFL inspector, or if you did not know then you may say that you were under duress to sign it.
If the ticket inspector has taken down your details it will be all put in a computer, and I gather that the decision to prosecute is made by the prosecution managers. If you have given a real name and address you are likely to receive a letter, saying that you were caught at X time and X date, and do you have anything to say about the matter.
You should immediately reply, with a grovelling letter of apology, it will also be important to make sure that any correspondence with TFL is printed off or photocopied, and kept in a safe place or folder, you will need this if you need to go to court.
2. The Court Summons
Think that they have forgotten about it, haven’t heard about them in a couple of months? TFL are extremely busy prosecuting people, probably with the amount of people that don’t pay on the buses. As fare evasion is a summary offence a court summons can arrive any time (so I’m told) within 6 months of when the offence was committed. Any longer and I assume you can have the case chucked out of you as the time limit for bring forth proceedings has elapsed, or you could be unlucky enough to have the court summons arrive 4 days before the elapsed period.
2(a) Read
Though you will probably be in shock and perhaps thinking that your legal career is over it is important to read all the documents that you have in front of you, check all the statements provided by inspectors, look to see if they are signed or not, an unsigned statement may not be valid, after all how do we know that someone else has not made this information up? Look also at the statements look for discrepancies, the TFL inspector may have surmised what you have said, or might not have written down what you said at all. Note this down for later.
Also have a look at the Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy and highlight any sections that you feel are applicable to your case.
2(b) Do I have to respond immediately?http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.bold.gif
My advice is no, do not respond immediately to the court summons as you will be trying to settle out of court. I did not fill out the back of the form or send anything off. If you have already put in your plea it doesn’t matter you can change it.
If you have received a court summons ring up the TFL number provided on the summons and ask for whoever is in charge of your case and ask for their email, this will speed up communication time, as you will not have to put valuable letters within the remit of Royal Mail.
3. Drafting a response to the court summons
(a) Tone and Format
Assuming now that you want to settle out of court, have read through all the information on the court summons, have highlighted any discrepancies in the evidence against you, and checked that the statements have been signed so you can assure for their validity you can now start with your draft letter/email in the hope that you can settle this out of court.
You will need to sound (a) apologetic, do not rant, keep it simple and precise, and (b) it needs to be written in a formal manner, even if its in an email I recon it should look like this found HERE (click link) . Do not use the same adjectives over again, have an expansive vocabulary but do not get flowery.
Here is where you need to develop your written advocacy!! Whilst also being formal, apologetic all that jazz, you need to be persuasive, be persuasive in a suggestive way for example “It could be open to suggest that…” etc.
(B) What to include.
Hopefully if you have read all the above points you will know what to include.
You may want to set it out like this (a) Apology (b) Revenue and Policy Guidelines that support you case (C) The Pace argument (explained later) (D) if the statements are signed or not.
(C) The Pace Argument
The pace argument relates to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. (You may wish to google this) now TFL inspectors are bound by this act and therefore must perform their duties in accordance with it. Depending on your circumstances you may not be even to use this argument, this must be considered very carefully, because if you use it and its not applicable to you then you will look like a dumbass. I suggest you do your own research on Pace.
Now what can you use PACE for. Basically PACE stipulates that any conversation or questions put to a suspect that are likely to produce an allged confession, must only be after you have been cautioned. A police caution in this circumstance being that which you may be familiar with on the bill "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." Also see this site HERE for more information.
So if you have been questioned and you have said anything that may be prejudical to your case you could suggest to TFL that it would be inadmissible in a court of law.
If it went to court, you can make an application under s.76 and s.78 of PACE 1984 to exclude such evidence being admitted.
4. The Waiting Game
So hopefully you will nervously await a reply from TFL as they decide your fate! This process can take up to a week. They will either (a) inform you that they are proceeding with the prosecution or (b) saying that they will drop it, if you pay prosecution costs and the fare evaded, an amount which could be between £100-£200. Once you have paid they will send you a confirmation that they have dropped the case and that you do not need to attend the court date.
5. What happens if they don’t drop the prosecution.
Now I never got this far, however I would try and keep communications open as possible with TFL, keep asking them to settle out of court.
If not you can ask to meet with the prosecutor and suggest that they charge you with a caution, if not then you could ask the magistrate to impose an absolute discharge (which is not a criminal conviction) given the prosecution’s hard stance. You could also show how eager you were to co-operate with TFL, and make sure that you have a copy of all the correspondence between yourself and TFL.
5(A) Should I get representation?
Not if you can settle it out of court, solicitors will charge £100 for an interview as fare evasion does not give rise to legal aid! There may however be people who will represent you bro pono.
Contact details are below.
Community Legal Services Direct
0845 345 4345
The Law Society on 020 7242 1222.
Bar Pro Bono Unit
0207 6119500.
6. How will this effect my future career in Law Etc
I have been told that this will probably not effect being called to the Bar. You MUST if asked declare any convictions declare them to your professional regulatory body, either to the Bar or Law Society. If you do not have a conviction then you do not need to mention it ;)
I think that they ask for any previous convictions, not withstanding whether or not they have been spent, so you must declare them. If you do not declare your conviction you risk the chance of being found out later and disbarred, or whatever the equivalent for a solicitor is.
There are two different views on whether or not this will effect your chances of pupillage/jobs, either (a) everyone has done it in London including Barrister’s themselves so it’s not very serious or (b) it’s an offence of dishonesty, “ I wouldn’t want to work with a thief” a mumbling twat would mutter, and with competition for these jobs being so high, its another reason to reject your application.
Now hopefully this has provided you with the answers that you want. If you still have questions you can contact me at lost London law student at googlemail dot com.
Good Luck!!
Sunday, 10 August 2008
Criminal Record - Does it Matter?
So does it matter?
UPDATE:
Bar Boy, has alerted me to the fact that Inner Temple will now no longer accept those who are convicted of fare evasion in any capacity, so don't get caught!
Solicitor said - "oh not really I have a few colleagues who have been in a similar situation"
Inner Temple says - if you have any previous criminal convictions your application to join us will have to put to a special body,
Other stuff on the internet says - a criminal conviction for something like fare evasion can damage your career, offers of recruitment can be withdrawn, all over a simple not paying for a bus fare.
Barristers and solictors are throughlly checked, and if I were to get a guilty conviction it would be spent after 5 years, however this would still show up after my "rehabiltation" period was over as I would have to disclose all previous convictions.
May be worrying about this a bit too much, then again may go jump off a bridge.
UPDATE:
Bar Boy, has alerted me to the fact that Inner Temple will now no longer accept those who are convicted of fare evasion in any capacity, so don't get caught!
Solicitor said - "oh not really I have a few colleagues who have been in a similar situation"
Inner Temple says - if you have any previous criminal convictions your application to join us will have to put to a special body,
Other stuff on the internet says - a criminal conviction for something like fare evasion can damage your career, offers of recruitment can be withdrawn, all over a simple not paying for a bus fare.
Barristers and solictors are throughlly checked, and if I were to get a guilty conviction it would be spent after 5 years, however this would still show up after my "rehabiltation" period was over as I would have to disclose all previous convictions.
May be worrying about this a bit too much, then again may go jump off a bridge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
