What can a witness to an RTA expect in court?

silverharp

Someone I know will be a witness in court to a road traffic accident where one of the drivers is being prosecuted. The individual (witness) was luckily with another person at the time and they both saw it the same way , their car wasnt involved. Will the questions be reasonable or could they get asked questions in an attemot to throw them off balance? knowing the individuals they know how to speak their mind but just curious does any "gamesmanship" come into play or would the judge slap such behaviour down.

Donald_ducked

Depends really. What was the outcome of the accident?

If the defendant is pleading not guilty, the person you know will more than likely be cross examined by the defendants lawyer in an attempt to rubbish the statement given

All depends on what type of case it is really

ScouseMouse

I sat for two days in a room due to me witnessing a dumbo cycle straight out in front of a car (which had a green light)

Eventually a suit came in and told me I could go home.

I never saw anything again after that.

silverharp

car running a red light and crashing into the car in front of my friend. Nobody injured but sounds like other driver is denying he ran the lights. Just curious will the cross examinimg be reasonable or will there be an attempt to try unsettle the witness.

MagicSean

superscouse wrote: »

I sat for two days in a room due to me witnessing a dumbo cycle straight out in front of a car (which had a green light)

Eventually a suit came in and told me I could go home.

I never saw anything again after that.

I think this is a big problem in the Irish legal system. The amount of times I've had to attend court just to be told I won't be needed is crazy. There should be a requirement on both legal teams to communicate before a hearing and establish which statements/evidence will be accepted and which will require testimony. It would save an awful lot of expense for the state.

Avatargh

MagicSean wrote: »

I think this is a big problem in the Irish legal system. The amount of times I've had to attend court just to be told I won't be needed is crazy. There should be a requirement on both legal teams to communicate before a hearing and establish which statements/evidence will be accepted and which will require testimony. It would save an awful lot of expense for the state.

Then you'll have to pay for the lawyers to spend the time going through all the evidence in advance and fighting over what's to be agreed and what's not? That's work and work has to be paid for. Assuming the State is paying (I don't know why they would be), its still money being paid for work.

This is something that is often skimmed over - the more pre-trial obligations that are placed on litigants, the more pre-trial work is needed. Someone has to pay for that work.

MagicSean

Avatargh wrote: »

Then you'll have to pay for the lawyers to spend the time going through all the evidence in advance and fighting over what's to be agreed and what's not? That's work and work has to be paid for. Assuming the State is paying (I don't know why they would be), its still money being paid for work.

This is something that is often skimmed over - the more pre-trial obligations that are placed on litigants, the more pre-trial work is needed. Someone has to pay for that work.

How is it difficult? Why would there be any argument? Presumably both sides will have reviewed their evidence and the witness list. It's a simple matter of the defence saying "We will not be contesting this evidence".

And the state pays for all Garda overtime.

Kosseegan

there is enough power in the court rules to enforce this but few if any judges enforce it. there is a provision in the Criminal justice Act 1984 for the defendant to admuit certain facts, rarely is it used and rarely is the defendant given credit for using it. The district court has a practice direction requiring 7 days notice if a trial is not going ahead. Judge routinely ignore this and givce the guards an adjournment on the day op the hearing with no prior notice to the other side.
I have seen guards wait to see if the defendant is going ahead before they ask for the adjournment. this is an abuse but they are let away with it.
The other thing that happens is that the running times for cases are underestimated deliberately. The result is the court list cannot be finished and cases carry over. It is up to the judges to control this but they don't.

MagicSean

Kosseegan wrote: »

there is enough power in the court rules to enforce this but few if any judges enforce it. there is a provision in the Criminal justice Act 1984 for the defendant to admuit certain facts, rarely is it used and rarely is the defendant given credit for using it. The district court has a practice direction requiring 7 days notice if a trial is not going ahead. Judge routinely ignore this and givce the guards an adjournment on the day op the hearing with no prior notice to the other side.
I have seen guards wait to see if the defendant is going ahead before they ask for the adjournment. this is an abuse but they are let away with it.
The other thing that happens is that the running times for cases are underestimated deliberately. The result is the court list cannot be finished and cases carry over. It is up to the judges to control this but they don't.

In fairness, it happens on both sides. I've seen defence solicitors wait until they know if a Garda is there before asking for an adjournment.