Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

[MissFM]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

Discreet cough: Just want to pop my spoke in here, meaning no disrespect but I think some of the comments above do miss the point of the adversarial legal system that we have in the UK.

Barristers are trained to be impartial (the cynic might say to destroy their own conscience) and have the overriding responsibility to represent their client's interests to the best of their ability.

Therefore, a win for interests other than one's own in the past is simply a demonstration of the Barrister's skill not a reflection of his bias (the latter being the judges' preserve lol).

The fact that a barrister won for the bad guy with no real legal foundation actually indicates that he's good at what he does:tinysmile_kiss_t4:

[bluebottle]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

The problem is the adversarial legal system that we currently have, MissFM. The Chief Justice for Plymouth, HHJ Paul Darlow, is on record as being in favour of an inquisitorial legal system where the principal objective to to find out what happened and who is to blame is the secondary objective. Personally, the current system we have is more administrative than it is just. The UK is, primarily, a Common Law jurisdiction, but vested interests have seen to it that Common Law has been gradually sidelined.

[MissFM]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

I don't disagree with you at all, BB - but the OP was asking for recommendations for a "good" barrister and we are where we are and.....

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

The system is far more than just adversarial as that suggests both sides have an equal opportunity to argue their case. This did not happen in Manchester County Court on June 22 2011.

Royle was given carte blanche to explain a procedure he had completely misread to a judge who admitted that he knew nothing about about parking enforcement. He was then able to represent his client - Bolton Council - flanked by Marstons representatives who fed him the 'knowledge' he was short on. In return those who assisted the opposition weren't allowed to say anything. The poor litigant in person was left to flounder in a sea of legal arguments he barely understood.

If a barrister can't win under such one sided circumstances, when will he do so?

Its hardly a 'victory' and the hopelessly inept judgment this farce made inevitable was never sustainable and rightly thrown out by DJ Thomas in Bromley County Court 18 months later.

Royle's boasting about it three years later on his website is not only the ultimate in prolonged self deception, it is also a high profile advertisement to the rest of the world that worryingly he hasn't learned anything with the passage of time. Only somebody who lacks knowledge in parking enforcement would be unable to spot his own embarrassing persistence of ignorance.

Please remember the OP asked if anybody knew a good barrister. My experience is that Royle doesn't fit the requirements whatever his qualifications in those parts of the law he is legally qualified in.

Royle certainly isn't legally trained in parking. Having basic knowledge of parking regulations would help, but then if he did attain even that modest level, he would be forced to torpedo his firmly held beliefs of three years ago.

[MissFM]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

FP, whilst I respect your views and the passion with which you hold them (and also agree that the judicial system in the Uk is often unfair) I think this statement:

he would be forced to torpedo his firmly held beliefs of three years ago.

shows what I believe to be a fundamental misapprehension.

What a barrister argues in court are not (necessarily) "firmly held beliefs" - they are arguments expedient to the client's case. If the Barrister didn't take advantage of a biased judge then he would not be doing the best for his client. These are not moral imperatives but pragmatic ones.

[bluebottle]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

FP, whilst I respect your views and the passion with which you hold them (and also agree that the judicial system in the Uk is often unfair) I think this statement: shows what I believe to be a fundamental misapprehension.

What a barrister argues in court are not (necessarily) "firmly held beliefs" - they are arguments expedient to the client's case. If the Barrister didn't take advantage of a biased judge then he would not be doing the best for his client. These are not moral imperatives but pragmatic ones.

Strictly speaking, bias on the part of a judge brings into question whether that judge is fit to act as a judge. It also brings into question the equitable jurisdiction of the courts. Any barrister worth their salt should report a biased judge to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) or, at the very least, advise an opponent or client to make a complaint to JACO.

[MissFM]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

You are, of course, absolutely correct BB.

However, when the OP asked if anyone knows of a good barrister it's maybe not fanciful to assume that they are asking for recommendations to someone proven effective in court rather than a morally incorruptible saint who will challenge the system even if it means compromising their clients' temporal interests.

[bluebottle]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

You are, of course, absolutely correct BB.

However, when the OP asked if anyone knows of a good barrister it's maybe not fanciful to assume that they are asking for recommendations to someone proven effective in court rather than a morally incorruptible saint who will challenge the system even if it means compromising their clients' temporal interests.

The only practising barrister I know who is good is, unfortunately, not public access.

[MissFM]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

The only practising barrister I know who is good is, unfortunately, not public access.

Perhaps the OP could get referral through a solicitor?

[EXC]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

Discreet cough: Just want to pop my spoke in here, meaning no disrespect but I think some of the comments above do miss the point of the adversarial legal system that we have in the UK.

Barristers are trained to be impartial (the cynic might say to destroy their own conscience) and have the overriding responsibility to represent their client's interests to the best of their ability.

Therefore, a win for interests other than one's own in the past is simply a demonstration of the Barrister's skill not a reflection of his bias (the latter being the judges' preserve lol).

The fact that a barrister won for the bad guy with no real legal foundation actually indicates that he's good at what he does:tinysmile_kiss_t4:

^^^^ This.

[bluebottle]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

Perhaps the OP could get referral through a solicitor?

Technical problems with the Bar Council website at present, so will try again later.

[wales01man]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

Good taste in music EXC just need someone on this thread with a good taste in Barristers

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

I'd like to think that the judge HHJ Holman was merely ignorant, though the impression that he was biased isn't one that can be dismissed. No need to report him - he retired 2 days after delivering his verdict. As for any misapprehensions about barristers, I have been able to credit barristers who have been clever and quick witted in explaining their client's case even if I never agreed. If only I could give Royle credit for any cleverness in what were most certainly were his highly conspicuous beliefs.

He must have believed what he wrote in his skeleton arguments otherwise he surely wouldn't have made them his central points for fear of having this prime 'evidence' dismissed as the nonsense they were. Royle wasn't clever, but as was stupid as he was, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. That may well be the antipathy of clever.

I'll keep this as short as possible but the main point on which he relied was forlorn. This is an extract from his second skeleton argument 'The judge (previous hearing) saw a copy of the warrant. He was satisfied as to its existence. If the Claimant seeks to argue that a copy of the warrant produced from a computer record is invalid, then that is not so - see CPR 75.4.3'. To which he added in his second skeleton argument 'The judge saw a copy of the warrant. It was a copy pursuant to CPR 75.4.3.'.

Putting aside the fact that neither judge actually saw a genuine warrant as what they read was a document printed by Marstons which purported to be a 'warrant', and that Royle seemed to believe that there were two warrants and that one is a copy of the other even though only one appeared, the fact is that Royle then argued this was 'a copy pursuant to CPR 75.4.3'. In short Royle inexplicably believed that CPR 75.4.3 was the key to the preparation of warrants. He went on to say 'where proceedings are on foot under Pt 75, this must include the production of a warrant'. The underlining was Royles.

And there you have it - the reason for biggest single court error in parking enforcement. Royle convinced HHJ Holman that CPR 75.4 was concerned with warrants.

The TEC has confirmed that CPR 75.4 has nothing to do with warrants which do not form part of CPR until 75.7.3 - and then only for local authorities to prepare. HHJ Holman and Christopher Royle convinced themselves that CPR 75.4.3 allowed local authorities to send information to baliffs to prepare warrants. A month after this judgment Lord McNally informed the House of Lords that 'bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings'. (CPR 75).

I could add far more particularly in relation to Orders for Recovery which neither HHJ Holman nor Royle knew anything about (and indeed still appear to know nothing about), so that when the word 'Order' appeared in CPR 75.3 it was foolishly taken by both to mean 'warrant'.

That is the danger of people who know nothing about parking enforcement suddenly thinking they are experts. Between them these Laurel and Hardy clones have corrupted the enforcement procedure and led the MoJ to now think CPR 75.4 refers to warrants. All it takes is one email to the TEC guys.

Its little wonder then when Royle's name cropped up, I could hardly recommend him as a 'good barrister'.

[ploddertom]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

Barristers at best can be a lottery. Last one I faced was so confident he was going to win against me as Litigant in Person came unstuck when I revealed a little known case, afterwards he thanked me for drawing it to his attention so he could use it in future. They are not infallible.

[Guest]

Re: Anybody know a good barrister ready to go to court

Interesting thread, barristers represent both sides of course, so simple arithmetic says they are wrong 50% of the time, even I can do better than that