cost of solicitor? or represent myself

flynn2426

Hi guys I'm up in court in 2 weeks for driving with no insurance and no tax i know really stupid, just wondering am I better to get a solicitor or represent myself? Just worried about the cost of a solicitor, anyone have a rough idea how much I'd pay for one, any info appreciated cheers

Homer

I doubt hiring a solicitor would benefit you? You are probably going to get a ban and hiring a solicitor won't change that?

coylemj

Driving without insurance is a serious offence, you really do need a solicitor. Even if you say the same things as the solicitor might, the judge will in all probability tale a dim view of you showing up without one as it may (read will) be interpreted as thinking that it's not a big deal, something that the judge will quickly put right.

cobhguy28

coylemj wrote: »

Driving without insurance is a serious offence, you really do need a solicitor. Even if you say the same things as the solicitor might, the judge will in all probability tale a dim view of you showing up without one as it may (read will) be interpreted as thinking that it's not a big deal, something that the judge will quickly put right.

If you are pleading guilty, what is a solicitor going to do.

hullaballoo

cobhguy28 wrote: »

If you are pleading guilty, what is a solicitor going to do.

A plea in mitigation. In fact, facing up to a second driving ban for probably what is regarded as one of the most serious Road Traffic offences, a solicitor would probably want a barrister as well.

Edit: I just realised I posted this under the impression this is the drink-driving ban guy but never mind, the plea in mitigation is as The Mustard sets out below - an art more than a science.

MarkAnthony

OP you may find representation pays for it self if you avoid large fines. I assume your financial situation isn't the best so legal aid may also be an option.

For goodness sake don't risk driving during your ban or you may end up spending some in the hotel with no optional checkout.

Pat Mustard

cobhguy28 wrote: »

If you are pleading guilty, what is a solicitor going to do.

A solicitor can make an effective a plea in mitigation, giving the relevant details, omitting the irrelevant ones. A punter may not know how to do this.

An experienced local solicitor should know the judge's form. This can be important. As the old saying goes: "It is better to know the judge than to know the law."

Also, if an excessive penalty is handed down, a solicitor knows the necessary procedure to apply to fix recognizances and subsequently enter the appeal within 14 days, so as to put a stay on the district court order and any attendant disqualification order, pending appeal. Otherwise, somebody could be disqualified pending appeal, etc.

tricky D

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_insurance.html

Failure to have motor insurance or driving without insurance in Ireland is generally punishable by:

A fine of up to €5,000
5 penalty points and
At the discretion of the court, a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months.

The court may decide that you be disqualified from driving instead of incurring penalty points. In that case, you will be disqualified for 2 years or more for a first offence and 4 years or more in the case of a second offence committed within 3 years of the first.

Representation will help you get the lower end of these punishments' range. You simply won't be familiar enough with the way the courts work so having representation could mean the difference between you getting something like a €1000 fine and 5 points or not having one and getting disqualified with a hefty fine and even jail (while unlikely it is possible). That's just for no insurance, never mind the no tax and the non-display or insurance and tax.

And, reiterating a previous point, not having one risks you not appearing to appreciate the gravity of your situation. Judges can hate that type of thing.

You have already admitted being stupid by not having tax and insurance in order. Don't heap more mistakes on yourself and bite the bullet.

john.han

This is a genuine question and I don't mean to offend anyone, but do people genuinely believe that hiring a solicitor should help reduce a sentence where a person is going to plead guilty? Surely there is also an onus on a Judge to examine things a little to determine mitigation? Not to mention the fact that the single greatest mitigation factor is the guilty plea itself?

Beano

john.han wrote: »

This is a genuine question and I don't mean to offend anyone, but do people genuinely believe that hiring a solicitor should help reduce a sentence where a person is going to plead guilty? Surely there is also an onus on a Judge to examine things a little to determine mitigation? Not to mention the fact that the single greatest mitigation factor is the guilty plea itself?

The judge makes his decision on the mitigation presented to him. They have a lot of cases to get through in a day. It is up to you to make sure all relevant mitigating factors are presented. If you represent yourself you might not present these factors to your best advantage or you may simply forget on the day due to nerves. You may also present them in an inconcise and rambling style. Hire an expert and these worries go away. the judge has wide discretion on the sentence he hands down. Anything you can do to get the best outcome has to be the smart thing to do.

MarkAnthony

john.han wrote: »

This is a genuine question and I don't mean to offend anyone, but do people genuinely believe that hiring a solicitor should help reduce a sentence where a person is going to plead guilty? Surely there is also an onus on a Judge to examine things a little to determine mitigation? Not to mention the fact that the single greatest mitigation factor is the guilty plea itself?

We've an adversarial common law system. The judge is there to judge on the basis of the case put before him or her. A solicitor and in some cases a barrister will put forward the best possible case for the client, the other side will do the same for their side.

Should it be like this? Some would argue a more inquisitorial system is better; perhaps in less contentious cases they're right; but that simply isn't the system we have. In more serious and contentious matters I, personally, think the adversarial system is more natural, and more efficient. People are free to represent their own best interests, within certain limitations.

A guilty plea really isn't a massive mitigating factor. You've simply told the truth, or you've been forced into that by the case being so patently obvious, as is the case here. It does go so far, but I think you're over estimating it.

As for a discussion of legal realism, google Jerome Frank.

Roquentin

admit you were wrong and he might cut the fine in half

gctest50

flynn2426 wrote: »

Hi guys I'm up in court in 2 weeks for driving with no insurance and no tax i know really stupid, just wondering am I better to get a solicitor orrepresent myself? Just worried about the cost of a solicitor, anyone have a rough idea how much I'd pay for one, any info appreciated cheers

You should get one - he who represents himself has a fool for a client

and maybe a bit of this :

Judge Coughlan fined Kelly €500, banned him from driving for 40 years and sentenced him to five months jail, suspended for two years.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-john-coughlan-puts-three-drivers-off-the-road-for-40-years-each-because-of-no-insurance-29711624.html

john.han

MarkAnthony wrote: »

We've an adversarial common law system. The judge is there to judge on the basis of the case put before him or her. A solicitor and in some cases a barrister will put forward the best possible case for the client, the other side will do the same for their side.

Should it be like this? Some would argue a more inquisitorial system is better; perhaps in less contentious cases they're right; but that simply isn't the system we have. In more serious and contentious matters I, personally, think the adversarial system is more natural, and more efficient. People are free to represent their own best interests, within certain limitations.

A guilty plea really isn't a massive mitigating factor. You've simply told the truth, or you've been forced into that by the case being so patently obvious, as is the case here. It does go so far, but I think you're over estimating it.

As for a discussion of legal realism, google Jerome Frank.

That's all fair enough apart, but I'd disagree with the guilty plea bit. An early guilty plea or admission of guilt is a massive mitigating factor, after that previous character, likelihood to re-offend, remorse and attempts at reducing the impact caused by the offence and or making lifestyle changes since committing the offence are all that really should matter.

I've never understood why having a solicitor stand up and say some lad plays GAA should have any impact on a sentencing decision.

coylemj

gctest50 wrote: »

and maybe a bit of this :

That's a really stupid contribution to this thread, those people were serial offenders and deserved to put off the road for many years if not jailed.

MarkAnthony

john.han wrote: »

That's all fair enough apart, but I'd disagree with the guilty plea bit. An early guilty plea or admission of guilt is a massive mitigating factor, after that previous character, likelihood to re-offend, remorse and attempts at reducing the impact caused by the offence and or making lifestyle changes since committing the offence are all that really should matter.

I've never understood why having a solicitor stand up and say some lad plays GAA should have any impact on a sentencing decision.

The vast majority (some say as high as 90%) plead guilty. In a rape case, for example, it saves the victim the ordeal of a trial and is worth a lot more than say a case where you're driving with no insurance and Tax and have absolutely no chance of saying otherwise. In that case the guilty plea becomes inconsequential and a not-guilty plea would be an aggravating factor.

john.han

gctest50 wrote: »

You should get one - he who represents himself has a fool for a client

and maybe a bit of this :

You've highlighted a severe punishment where the person in question had representation?

MarkAnthony

coylemj wrote: »

That's a really stupid contribution to this thread, those people were serial offenders and deserved to put off the road for many years if not jailed.

It completely counter productive to hand down those sorts of bans IMHO. The only recourse with serial driving offenders is a few weeks/months in prison.

MarkAnthony

john.han wrote: »

You've highlighted a severe punishment where the person in question had representation?

Where the solicitor probably stopped the guys going to prison.

john.han

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The vast majority (some say as high as 90%) plead guilty. In a rape case, for example, it saves the victim the ordeal of a trial and is worth a lot more than say a case where you're driving with no insurance and Tax and have absolutely no chance of saying otherwise. In that case the guilty plea becomes inconsequential and a not-guilty plea would be an aggravating factor.

Agreed, but if someone admits to the Guard straight away rather than giving a spiel and promising to produce insurance in a few days this would have a significant mitigation factor.

MarkAnthony

john.han wrote: »

Agreed, but if someone admits to the Guard straight away rather than giving a spiel and promising to produce insurance in a few days this would have a significant mitigation factor.

That's a dangerous slope. The person concerned should have the opportunity to seek legal representation and advice before they make any statement to the guards.

coylemj

john.han wrote: »

An early guilty plea or admission of guilt is a massive mitigating factor...

Are you serious? If you plead not guilty in a case of no insurance, the case will last all of 2 minutes which is the time it will take for the Garda to say that you were stopped at a checkpoint, failed to produce a cert on the spot, failed to produce a cert at xxx Garda station which you nominated and the judge will then ask if you can produce a cert. to show you were insured on the day. When you can not do so, you can expect to get seriously hammered with a big fine and a long ban.

You are not going to get any credit for pleading guilty in a case of no insurance, you either had insurance or you didn't.

john.han

coylemj wrote: »

Are you serious? If you plead not guilty in a case of no insurance, the case will last all of 2 minutes which is the time it will take for the Garda to say that you were stopped at a checkpoint, failed to produce a cert on the spot, failed to produce a cert at xxx Garda station which you nominated and the judge will then ask if you can produce a cert. to show you were insured on the day. When you can not do so, you can expect to get seriously hammered with a big fine and a long ban.

You are not going to get any credit for pleading guilty in a case of no insurance, you either had insurance or you didn't.

Jeez that's a bit harsh, an early admission and display of remorse should have some mitigation no matter the crime. Zero seems ridiculous even for very obvious offences from an evidence perspective.

MarkAnthony

john.han wrote: »

Jeez that's a bit harsh, an early admission and display of remorse should have some mitigation no matter the crime. Zero seems ridiculous even for very obvious offences from an evidence perspective.

OP while I might agree or disagree with some of your thoughts on the matter I hope it goes to illustrate it's not as simple as it may first appear to a lay-person. Please do not think that that indicates a lack of respect, you've asked an intelligent question and made some thought out replies, I just wanted to underscore the point that although there is certainly area for reform, the instant case will benefit, in my view at least, from representation.

Pro Hoc Vice

john.han wrote: »

That's all fair enough apart, but I'd disagree with the guilty plea bit. An early guilty plea or admission of guilt is a massive mitigating factor, after that previous character, likelihood to re-offend, remorse and attempts at reducing the impact caused by the offence and or making lifestyle changes since committing the offence are all that really should matter.

I've never understood why having a solicitor stand up and say some lad plays GAA should have any impact on a sentencing decision.

You have not mentioned the most important bit in a first offence no insurance.

coylemj

john.han wrote: »

Jeez that's a bit harsh, an early admission and display of remorse should have some mitigation no matter the crime. Zero seems ridiculous even for very obvious offences from an evidence perspective.

Go back and read MarkAnthony's post #16 above, that best describes the merits of pleading guilty in a traffic case which is that pleading guilty is effectively neutral. You will get no credit (for pleading guilty) in a case of no insurance on the basis that you have no choice and would be a complete idiot to risk the wrath of the judge contesting a case that you cannot win.

seb65

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The vast majority (some say as high as 90%) plead guilty. In a rape case, for example, it saves the victim the ordeal of a trial and is worth a lot more than say a case where you're driving with no insurance and Tax and have absolutely no chance of saying otherwise. In that case the guilty plea becomes inconsequential and a not-guilty plea would be an aggravating factor.

A not guilty plea cannot be an aggravating factor.

Pro Hoc Vice

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The vast majority (some say as high as 90%) plead guilty. In a rape case, for example, it saves the victim the ordeal of a trial and is worth a lot more than say a case where you're driving with no insurance and Tax and have absolutely no chance of saying otherwise. In that case the guilty plea becomes inconsequential and a not-guilty plea would be an aggravating factor.

So you think a person does not have a constitutional right to maintain their innocence.

Just slightly back on topic I remember the best line I'd ever heard about self-representation versus hiring a solicitor was from a Circuit Court judge in Naas. He had just told someone in a civil matter that the legal aid board probably wouldn't cover him and to consider hiring a solicitor. When the punter asked what the cost would be he said:

"When you hire the solicitor you learn their cost, when you represent yourself you'll learn their value."

Thought it was a good line personally.

coylemj

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So you think a person does not have a constitutional right to maintain their innocence.

Where you did read otherwise?

MarkAnthony

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So you think a person does not have a constitutional right to maintain their innocence.

You're quite right of course. However as much as one must avoid calling it an aggravating factor and it be seen only as a 'lack of mitigation' I suspect the reality is that a larger fine gets handed down.

However my terminology is incorrect OP and PHV is quite right it's not an actual aggravating factor.

That said, maintaining your innocence is fine but sentence is handed down only where the person was guilty. I would have thought conduct at that point could be considered retrospectively.

Pro Hoc Vice

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You're quite right of course. However as much as one must avoid calling it an aggravating factor and it be seen only as a 'lack of mitigation' I suspect the reality is that a larger fine gets handed down.

However my terminology is incorrect OP and PHV is quite right it's not an actual aggravating factor.

That said, maintaining your innocence is fine but sentence is handed down only where the person was guilty. I would have thought conduct at that point could be considered retrospectively.

A person who pleads not guilty will not be able in most cases to avail of any discount for a plea. But of course this varies from district to district or circuit to circuit. In some cases the penalty can be the same for a plea or not, but the norm is a certain reduction for an early plea.

Pro Hoc Vice

coylemj wrote: »

Where you did read otherwise?

By saying that a person who maintains their constitutional right to a trail is at risk of a increase of sentence would in my opinion be an attack on the constitutional and common law right to the right to maintain a not guilty plea. If the Dail passed a law saying a 25% increase in sentence if you ran a trial I believe such a law would be struck down.

Timmyctc

I say represent yourself op. The plucky underdog always comes out on top

coylemj

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

By saying that a person who maintains their constitutional right to a trail is at risk of a increase of sentence would in my opinion be an attack on the constitutional and common law right to the right to maintain a not guilty plea. If the Dail passed a law saying a 25% increase in sentence if you ran a trial I believe such a law would be struck down.

Whether you describe it as a more severe sentence for pleading not guilty or a reduced sentence for pleading guilty, it's effectively the same thing and is already in operation here thanks to multiple judgements of the Court of Criminal Appeal - it's why Larry Murphy only got 17 years when he clearly should have been locked up for the rest of his life after being convicted of three crimes each of which can carry a life sentence.

This guy kidnapped a woman, raped her and then attempted to strangle her with her own bra in the middle of a lonely forest. Only that a couple of people happened to be passing and recognised him was he caught. Had he pleaded not guilty and been found guilty, he would almost certainly have received three life sentences but by the tactic of pleading guilty he got a finite sentence and is now a free man.

It's a bone of contention for Judge Paul Carney who bemoans the fact that no matter how heinous the crime, he has to give a reduced sentence for a guilty plea. The corollary of that is that someone who invokes their constitutional right to a trial will get a heavier sentence if found guilty.

Pro Hoc Vice

coylemj wrote: »

Whether you describe it as a more severe sentence for pleading not guilty or a reduced sentence for pleading guilty, it's effectively the same thing and is already in operation here thanks to multiple judgements of the Court of Criminal Appeal - it's why Larry Murphy only got 17 years when he clearly should have been locked up for the rest of his life after being convicted of three crimes each of which can carry a life sentence.

This guy kidnapped a woman, raped her and then attempted to strangle her with her own bra in the middle of a lonely forest. Only that a couple of people happened to be passing and recognised him was he caught. Had he pleaded not guilty and been found guilty, he would almost certainly have received three life sentences but by the tactic of pleading guilty he got a finite sentence and is now a free man.

It's a bone of contention for Judge Paul Carney who bemoans the fact that no matter how heinous the crime, he has to give a reduced sentence for a guilty plea. The corollary of that is that someone who invokes their constitutional right to a trial will get a heavier sentence if found guilty.

No a person who pleads not guilty and is found guilty does not get extra because of that he or she just does not benefit from one of the reductions available to a person for an early plea it's an important distinction. A judge saying I am giving you more for pleading not guilty would be over turned where a judge saying sorry no reduction for a plea would not its an important distinction. Hence why carney says I can't give more because you did not fight it.

coylemj

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No a person who pleads not guilty and is found guilty does not get extra because of that he or she just does not benefit from one of the reductions available to a person for an early plea it's an important distinction.

If by 'important distinction' you mean inverted logic then I get you.

Carawaystick

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

But of course this varies from district to district or circuit to circuit. In some cases the penalty can be the same for a plea or not

This post shows the importance of Local democracy in Ireland and how your vote for county and city councillors can affect your fellow citizens, because the law is different in different parts of the country. It is also blind


*Not*

Pro Hoc Vice

coylemj wrote: »

If by 'important distinction' you mean inverted logic then I get you.

It's a very real legal distinction. On one word a JR or a appeal can turn.

braddun

Driving without insurance is a criminal offence in Ireland, carrying maximum fines of up to €2,500 as well as disqualification from driving for one year on the first offence, and over two years in subsequent offences.

The law also allows for maximum prison terms of six months for a second offence, though in practice these are rarely imposed

flynn2426

Hi guys, today was the day i was up in court for no insurance tax or nct and it got put back till February as the judge wanted to see proof that I was now insured which I am, just wondering is this good or bad news that it got put back

Pat Mustard

flynn2426 wrote: »

Hi guys, today was the day i was up in court for no insurance tax or nct and it got put back till February as the judge wanted to see proof that I was now insured which I am, just wondering is this good or bad news that it got put back

In your OP, you admitted that you knew that it was stupid to get caught for no insurance at the time that you are stopped. You got a summons for having no insurance at that time.

You say that you have insurance now and the judge put matters back to February to see evidence of the insurance that you had when you were stopped.

Do you realise that having insurance now is not the same as having insurance at the time of the alleged offence?

The judge put matters back to February for you to organise your evidence of insurance. What is he going to think if you rock up to court empty-handed, with some half baked story that you have insurance now?

The good news is you have enough time to get a solicitor before the next occasion.

MarkAnthony

flynn2426 wrote: »

Hi guys, today was the day i was up in court for no insurance tax or nct and it got put back till February as the judge wanted to see proof that I was now insured which I am, just wondering is this good or bad news that it got put back

I read this slightly differently but please be aware AFAIK The Mustard is a practicing solicitor and I'm a gobsh1te.

The Judge maybe looking for proof it's NOW sorted even though it wasn't THEN and will make a determination whether you're a scroat or a scatter brain. Assuming it's my interpretation and you didn't make any representations that you were insured THEN I'd guess it's good news.

coylemj

flynn2426 wrote: »

Hi guys, today was the day i was up in court for no insurance tax or nct and it got put back till February as the judge wanted to see proof that I was now insured which I am, just wondering is this good or bad news that it got put back

You're leaving us in the dark as to what you told the judge - did you plead guilty to having no insurance on the day you were stopped?

If you did and the judge wants to see if you are now insured then there's a glimmer of hope, otherwise he would have thrown the book at you there and then. Either way, you will be convicted of driving with no insurance so don't expect to get off with a slap on the wrist.

flynn2426

The Mustard wrote: »

In your OP, you admitted that you knew that it was stupid to get caught for no insurance at the time that you are stopped. You got a summons for having no insurance at that time.

You say that you have insurance now and the judge put matters back to February to see evidence of the insurance that you had when you were stopped.

Do you realise that having insurance now is not the same as having insurance at the time of the alleged offence?

The judge put matters back to February for you to organise your evidence of insurance. What is he going to think if you rock up to court empty-handed, with some half baked story that you have insurance now?

The good news is you have enough time to get a solicitor before the next occasion.

I had a solicitor today actually, and I'm not stupid obviously having insurance now is different to when the offence was committed, if your going to comment again could you refrain from commenting blantley stupid comments

flynn2426

coylemj wrote: »

You're leaving us in the dark as to what you told the judge - did you plead guilty to having no insurance on the day you were stopped?

If you did and the judge wants to see if you are now insured then there's a glimmer of hope, otherwise he would have thrown the book at you there and then. Either way, you will be convicted of driving with no insurance so don't expect to get off with a slap on the wrist.

Hi, my solicitor got it adjourned as I didn't have my insurance details with me as I was never told to bring them so its put back till February so I can produce that I got insurance the day after the offence, but Im just curious if there was no hope of a decent outcome surely my solicitor wouldn't of had it adjourned?

MarkAnthony

flynn2426 wrote: »

I had a solicitor today actually, and I'm not stupid

Let examine the evidence on that one:

- Got pulled for having no Insurance / NCT;
- Insults a legal professional giving you advice for free;
- Insults a moderator of the forum, in a thread requesting legal advice which was probably already on probation as it was;
- Picks fight with someone who argues for a living.

Not sure I'm buying it OP :pac:

Pat Mustard

flynn2426 wrote: »

I had a solicitor today actually, and I'm not stupid obviously having insurance now is different to when the offence was committed, if your going to comment again could you refrain from commenting blantley stupid comments

Your story doesn't make a lot of sense to be honest.

You basically admitted that you didn't have insurance in your OP. Now you are saying that matters will be put back for production of insurance cert.

You never explained that you were hiring a solicitor.

There are gaps in your story.

flynn2426

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Let examine the evidence on that one:

- Got pulled for having no Insurance / NCT;
- Insults a legal professional giving you advice for free;
- Insults a moderator of the forum, in a thread requesting legal advice which was probably already on probation as it was;
- Picks fight with someone who argues for a living.

Not sure I'm buying it OP :pac:

Hardly picking a fight when I said he was already blantley stating the obvious was i? And if ur not here to give advice instead of pounding on ur keyboard like a keyboard warrior just keep going ur way pet

flynn2426

The Mustard wrote: »

Your story doesn't make a lot of sense to be honest.

You basically admitted that you didn't have insurance in your OP. Now you are saying that matters will be put back for production of insurance cert.

You never explained that you were hiring a solicitor.



There are gaps in your story.

Got insurance the day after the incident, hired a solicitor, was put back cause they want proof I got insurance day after the incident

Pat Mustard

flynn2426 wrote: »

Got insurance the day after the incident, hired a solicitor, was put back cause they want proof I got insurance day after the incident

For the plea in mitigation, I presume. Fair enough.

Best of luck.