court next week.. solicitor???

purehoor

im in court next tuesday for being assaulted. do i need a solicitor? the person that assaulted me says that i hit him first blah blah blah. is it too short of notice to get a solicitor?

NoQuarter

purehoor wrote: »

im in court next tuesday for being assaulted. do i need a solicitor? the person that assaulted me says that i hit him first blah blah blah. is it too short of notice to get a solicitor?

Have you been charged with anything?

purehoor

no. just gave a statement. got a letter then with court date.. prosecutor; dpp verses defendant; other guy who assaulted me.

NoQuarter

Then no. Just show up, youll be called up to the witness box and asked questions about the event by a Barrister and thats it.

Kristopherus

NoQuarter wrote: »

Then no. Just show up, youll be called up to the witness box and asked questions about the event by a Barrister and thats it.

A Barrister in the district court?:eek:

NoQuarter

Kristopherus wrote: »

A Barrister in the district court?:eek:

1. He never said District Court.

and

2. Yes. They just dont robe.

purehoor

iv seen the defendants statement and it implies i did the assaulting but i only defended myself and he came off worse. will this matter/

purehoor

it is the district court btw

NoQuarter

purehoor wrote: »

iv seen the defendants statement and it implies i did the assaulting but i only defended myself and he came off worse. will this matter/

Nope. If you arent charged with anything you are fine.

ResearchWill

NoQuarter wrote: »

1. He never said District Court.

and

2. Yes. They just dont robe.

I have appeared in DC and I always robe up except during long vacation.

Procrastastudy

I've seen Barristers in the DC completely Harry Pottered.

Just to take this completely OT I was curious as to why? There didn't seem to be a solicitor in one instance and all the guy was doing was pleading mitigation to being under the influence of drugs while driving. Surely any solicitor could do that?

Case was also odd in that no one could work out whether the guy had a previous conviction or not. I'm guessing when a judge starts saying "this is most unsatisfactory" what he means is go and sort yourselves out you bunch of muppets.

johnnyskeleton

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Just to take this completely OT I was curious as to why? There didn't seem to be a solicitor in one instance and all the guy was doing was pleading mitigation to being under the influence of drugs while driving. Surely any solicitor could do that?

Solicitors, particularly in Dublin, use barristers in their first few years to cover one district court when they are in another. It is cheaper than employing another solicitor and means they don't lose the business to another firm. For the young barrister, I suppose it gives them experience and a chance to develop their relationship with the solicitor, although the fees they are paid can be as low as €25ish per day.

In a drug driving, it could also be that the barrister was giving advices and their fee for the advices also covered the hearing so they did the plea too.

Case was also odd in that no one could work out whether the guy had a previous conviction or not. I'm guessing when a judge starts saying "this is most unsatisfactory" what he means is go and sort yourselves out you bunch of muppets.

I suppose so, but it's really for the gardai to give that evidence not for the accused and his/her lawyers to figure out.

coylemj

OP, your status in the court will obviously be as a witness so even if you did bring a solicitor, he/she won't be allowed to address the court because you are not the defendant.

However you will be cross-examined by the defence and potentially you could be asked questions the answer to which could incriminate you e.g. 'did you run across the road and hit my client just because he passed some remark about your girlfriend?'. If the answer that you propose to give to any such question could lead to a prosecution against you (e.g. 'yes' to the previous question), you are not obliged to answer any such question. In the U.S. it's called 'pleading the Fifth (Amendment)' and there is a similar right here. Normally (because you have no legal representation), the judge will advise you of this right before you start giving evidence.

Just be aware that you can decline to answer any question the answer to which could tend to show that you committed a criminal offence. However the fact that only the other guy was charged would tend to show that the Gardai believe your version of the events so you're probably safe just sticking to the story you gave in your statement. No harm to ask the Garda for a copy of your statement as the other side (defence) will probably try to pick holes in your story.

NoQuarter

ResearchWill wrote: »

I have appeared in DC and I always robe up except during long vacation.

Of course. For some reason I keep thinking of the DC as courts 44, 45 and 46 out the back of th Four Courts. They dont robe in there, is that right?

Victor

NoQuarter wrote: »

Of course. For some reason I keep thinking of the DC as courts 44, 45 and 46 out the back of th Four Courts. They dont robe in there, is that right?

I'm sure I've seen some.

johnnyskeleton

NoQuarter wrote: »

Of course. For some reason I keep thinking of the DC as courts 44, 45 and 46 out the back of th Four Courts. They dont robe in there, is that right?

Barristers robe in every courthouse where there is a bar room with the exception of the dublin bridewell (where they do robe but there is no room) and swords (where there is a bar room but they don't. Only during normal sittings is during term time mon-fri and arguably not for night court.

I have no idea why this is and I don't think it is a rule, just the way it is.

NoQuarter

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Barristers robe in every courthouse where there is a bar room with the exception of the dublin bridewell (where they do robe but there is no room) and swords (where there is a bar room but they don't. Only during normal sittings is during term time mon-fri and arguably not for night court.

I have no idea why this is and I don't think it is a rule, just the way it is.

And except family law matters. I must pop into the bridewell for a look one day!

valleyoftheunos

I was in the Bridewell this morning, there were Barristers both robed and unrobed.

johnnyskeleton

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I was in the Bridewell this morning, there were Barristers both robed and unrobed.

Are you sure the unrobed barristers weren't either:

a) solicitors, or
b) representing themselves?

johnnyskeleton

NoQuarter wrote: »

And except family law matters. I must pop into the bridewell for a look one day!

Fair point. Also in the chiselers court, and when dealing with a kid via video link. Arguably also if the judge permits the barristers to disrobe.

valleyoftheunos

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Are you sure the unrobed barristers weren't either:

a) solicitors, or
b) representing themselves?

I thought they were solicitors (they were all representing somebody) initially but one or two of them were almost certainly Barristers, dressed head to toe in black, bowing to the Judge every time they came in or out, that sort of thing.

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Arguably also if the judge permits the barristers to disrobe.

Wow, don't say things like that in front of Procrastastudy. :pac:

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

... and arguably not for night court.

You just might get robbed if you were robed at that hour.

NoQuarter

Night court.... judges asking Barristers to disrobe... JS is there something you want to tell us??

Milk & Honey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Fair point. Also in the chiselers court, and when dealing with a kid via video link. Arguably also if the judge permits the barristers to disrobe.

According to the District Court Rules the only person required to robe is the Judge. This contrasts with the rules in the higher courts which require counsel and judges to robe. Many DJs don't, in fact, robe properly.
There is a practice in Dublin of counsel robing. Someone told me a few years ago about a practice direction from the president of the District Court about this but I have never seen it.
In country courts the DJs will insist that everyone identifies themselves, but in Dublin the courts are busier and the judges often don't know who is before them. having barristers robed helps the judges to some extent.

ResearchWill

Milk & Honey wrote: »

According to the District Court Rules the only person required to robe is the Judge. This contrasts with the rules in the higher courts which require counsel and judges to robe. Many DJs don't, in fact, robe properly.
There is a practice in Dublin of counsel robing. Someone told me a few years ago about a practice direction from the president of the District Court about this but I have never seen it.
In country courts the DJs will insist that everyone identifies themselves, but in Dublin the courts are busier and the judges often don't know who is before them. having barristers robed helps the judges to some extent.

I was recently having a chat with a barrister of many years, I talked about this very issue as in the DC rules do not require Barristers to robe as required by the Superiour Court Rules. He informed that the convention used to be barristers only robed in a DC that was in close proximity of a court in which a High Court sat. So any DC in Dublin, or Cork City etc.. But now the accepted position is to robe up in any DC, including long vacation sittings in that court. But always best to check with DC clerk before hand.

johnnyskeleton

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I thought they were solicitors (they were all representing somebody) initially but one or two of them were almost certainly Barristers, dressed head to toe in black, bowing to the Judge every time they came in or out, that sort of thing.

Solicitors can wear black and bow. Did they say that they were instructed by X firm of solicitors? If so, they were a barrister, if not they were probably not a barrister.

Pat Mustard

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Solicitors can wear black and bow. Did they say that they were instructed by X firm of solicitors? If so, they were a barrister, if not they were probably not a barrister.

If you spot a person who carries his papers high up against his chest as he walks, he is a barrister.*




*I am not a Freeman, honest injuns.

ResearchWill

The Mustard wrote: »

If you spot a person who carries his papers high up against his chest as he walks, he is a barrister.*




*I am not a Freeman, honest injuns.

That is because he is protecting the one and only brief he has against all.

valleyoftheunos

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Solicitors can wear black and bow. Did they say that they were instructed by X firm of solicitors? If so, they were a barrister, if not they were probably not a barrister.

Yes of course they can but generally don't whereas Barristers always do. I didn't take the time to ask them their profession but I have plenty of faith in my ability to tell the two apart, we can smell our own after all.

nuac

In provincial District Courts, many DJs do not wear robes

Milk & Honey

nuac wrote: »

In provincial District Courts, many DJs do not wear robes

Some in Dublin don't either. It is no harm to throw it into the Judicial Reviews.