Off to Court

[shouldbeinbed]

Been an expert witness for 15 years, Witnesses usually get an easier run than the pro's Stay calm & take it easy, answer with enough info but keep to the point and don't waffle. Protracted silences between questions are a tactic to make you babble, dont, just quietly wait for the next question, if they imply they expect more info/conjecture from you, simply state that you have answered the question as fully as possible.
If the defence do pick at you, let it wash over, don't take it personally its just another trick of the trade, as is playing at being your sympathetic friend and guide.
You address your answers to the judge and the jury not the lawyers, a good tip is to stand facing the judge and turn to receive the question from counsel before swinging back to answer to the decision makers.
You can take any notes made at the time (contemporaneous in court parlance) in with you, if you wish to use them ask the Judge if you can refer to them, s/he will probably ask if they were made at the time and OK you to refer from then on as you wish. The court wants your best testimony, its not a memory test per-se. Case notes are a regular and expected part of expert testimony, most infrequent witnesses don't think to make notes.
I doubt you'll need 99% of this tho.

 

[benb]

Let us know what happens - after it has finished.

 

[Peowpeowpeowlasers]

I have to go to court on 1 October to give evidence against the registered keeper of a vehicle I filmed doing something extremely naughty a while back.

I'm slightly annoyed because if a job comes up that day, I'll have to turn it down. This could cost me significantly, making me think that the next time I witness someone doing something similarly stupid, I'll just not bother reporting it.

 

[smokeysmoo]

might be best to wait til it's not 'sub judicae' or however it's spelt!

Well if you don't know we've got no chance

 

[Crankarm]

If your pics show the driver committing an offence then he will plead guilty just before the date of the hearing or on the day as advised by his solicitor as is his right. You will have had a wasted day but I think it unlikely you would have to give evidence. Often a defendant will plead not guilty in the hope that witnesses will fail to show and the case will be thrown out. I wouldn't worry about talking about the case it's only going to be heard in the magistrates court not a crown court which you would have to be mindful of as of course a Crown Court has a jury and jurors may be influenced. But yes techically you could still be in contempt of court even if the hearing is in the magistrates court. I wouldn't worry about being cross examined as a witness. Counsel who badger witnesses in the magistrates court tend to upset the magistrates which is what they don't want to do. Just state what you saw, clearly and firmly. If you don't know to a question then say so. Simples. Hopefully you won't have to go as the driver will plead guilty just before.

 

[benb]

I have to go to court on 1 October to give evidence against the registered keeper of a vehicle I filmed doing something extremely naughty a while back.

I'm slightly annoyed because if a job comes up that day, I'll have to turn it down. This could cost me significantly, making me think that the next time I witness someone doing something similarly stupid, I'll just not bother reporting it.

What wonderful civic and community responsibility you have.

 

[Red Light]

In all the good advice above there is one cardinal rule you must stick to. Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It's not your job to try and get him convicted. It's not your job to subtlety adjust what you saw to be helpful to the prosecution and unhelpful to the accused. If it's unhelpful to the prosecution but the truth then tell it as it was.

I've seen many witnesses come unstuck because they have been trying to make the case for the prosecution or defence. That's the lawyers job not yours. The truth is always self consistent while any embroidery or concealment always leaves loose threads hanging. Barristers are excellent at spotting them and then pulling on them until the whole thing unravels.

And I would agree with not discussing it here although not with having the thread removed as that would smack of cover-up with collusion by the mods.. If you carry a camera expect to be asked why you do so, whether you post them on the Internet, whether you discuss them on the Internet or on cycling forums. And unfortunately now when you answer truthfully a good barrister will make you appear to be a cycling fanatic with an agenda whose evidence should be treated with great caution. You can be asked in Court what forums you post on, what your username is and what you said about the case - and if you don't reply truthfully (and you can't not reply) then they have everything they need to check after the trial and go for an appeal on the basis of a witness lying under oath. Calling the driver a barsteward who is going to get prosecuted will not have helped your credibility as a disinterested witness and is all the defence need to have your evidence thrown out - sorry..

Next time keep schtumm.

 

[fossyant]

I hope to take in my statement I made on the day as this is a truthful account of the events I saw. There is nothing in my post about the incident other that I'm going to court.

I shall be referring to what I said originally, and I do expect the other side to question me. The camera is on my phone, hence why I had it - I actually asked the 'victim' if it was OK as this would help him.

 

[Maz]

I had to give witness at a court once (traffic accident). It was down in Cambridge, so had to take the day off work to be there.

The lawyer/barrister/solictor/whatever who was defending the driver (who actually abandoned his car and fled the scene of the accident!) said to me in true High Court finger-pointing drama style:

"I put it to you, Mr.Maz, that when you saw the traffic lights, it was not on red, but indeed on green, thus making my client innocent of any charges against him."
"No, the light was definitely on red." I said
Then in a barely audible voice he says "Oh. Alright then. Er, no further questions."

It was comical (but I didn't dare laugh).

 

[trampyjoe]

And unfortunately now when you answer truthfully a good barrister will make you appear to be a cycling fanatic with an agenda whose evidence should be treated with great caution.

You mean an agenda for safer roads for cyclists? Yeah, wouldn't want people to to believe someone who doesn't want to get killed when out on a bike!

 

[DrLex]

Any Counsel who uses the phrase "I put it to you" is either a hack or fresh out of Bar school. Usually framed as "Now isn't it right that..." or "the truth of the matter is that...". Unless the defendant is pretty wealthy, you're not going to be facing the cream of the Criminal Bar here.
As Red Light has it, you're more likely to have your credibility called into question by the suggestion that by cycling with a camera, you're anti-car.
Hope you don't have to spend too long in court waiting to give evidence; depressing places.

 

[fossyant]

As Red Light has it, you're more likely to have your credibility called into question by the suggestion that by cycling with a camera, you're anti-car.

I don't - it's on my HTC phone ! So that's sorted !

 

[Norm]

Geez, after the grilling on here, appearing in court will be a piece of cake!

 

[classic33]

One thing that isn't allowed in a court, unless asked for is a personal opinion. They can be subjective. All the OP has said so far is that he is off to court & what, in his opinion, the outcome will be. Everything else is subjective & without merit.

 

[fossyant]

Case was today. We don't know the outcome although its finished as they broke for lunch after the driver the cyclist and myself had given evidence. The case will be finished now, and we are to phone back next week.

Lets just say having taken photographs on my phone totally undid everything he said. He said his car was facing down the road, then prosecution solicitor butted in and showed the photographic evidence.

The driver represented himself and came up with some crazy accusations towards myself and the injured rider. He had accused the injured rider of racing me and the other rider, not the case. He kept going on about where the car was, but I explained that the car had not moved since it stopped after hitting the cyclist. I was accused of telling the rider to stay down because he could make a big component claim. I had told the rider to stay down as he went head first into the ground, had marks on his shoulder, cuts to the face and hands and needed medical attention. I had then gone back to my bike to call an ambulance as the driver had refused to do anything, and I made sure the magistrates were told that.

The driver said I had gone in the ambulance with the rider to hospital, I explained that I had remained on scene to give the officer my statement, then spoke to the landlord about storing the guys bike, then I had cycled to work (why would I have left my bike).

The driver was trying just about anything to say we were wrong or colluding. Anyway, the support staff said they couldn't believe what he was saying as they had heard all the evidence (we could chat about it after we were dismissed). Oh and the driver has admitted liability on the civil PI case.

The driver was going on about the injured cyclists bike not being in the pictures, but it was in one leant against a bollard. I explained that the bike was next to the rider, but we had left it there until the police had arrived and it was the officer how moved it. The guy was trying everything to say he had not performed an illegal u-turn leading to the driving without care and attention charge.

Will update when we have the verdict. As said the case is now complete so I can talk about it.

Just unbelievable.