Binding & Whackett Newlyn PLC

[zeke]

The solicitor has the final say on whether a case is prosecuted.

I don't think its wise to change 'must' to 'should' when reporting a case to the police before a private prosecution because it takes up my time making hopeless referrals.

I want quality work with the greater chance of success. Nobody makes money on hopeless cases.

[Syd Snitkin]

The solicitor has the final say on whether a case is prosecuted.

A person is free to go it alone.

I don't think its wise to change 'must' to 'should' when reporting a case to the police before a private prosecution because it takes up my time making hopeless referrals.

But then it's no different to when Sheila says you must make an appointment for a SD, or that you cannot send a SD by post. You can always refuse a client who hasn't first gone to the police, but you shouldn't be telling them that they must do so if they want to start a PP. You can clarify this is your own procedure.

You certainly shouldn't be advising that the DPP must consent to a PP, nor that a solicitor must be used. You should make it clear that a person is free to pursue it how they see fit but if they want to use your services then they must first go through the police and be rejected, and you will refer it to a solicitor if it's a viable case.

I want quality work with the greater chance of success. Nobody makes money on hopeless cases.

I think money has certainly been made on a few hopeless cases we can all cite.

[zeke]

But then it's no different to when Sheila says you must make an appointment for a SD, or that you cannot send a SD by post.

There is a big difference between sending a person to court to make an SD and a private prosecution.

Booking an appointment to make a SD has one outcome. The conviction and fine are reinstated with an impromptu hearing. A kangaroo court. Sheila knows this because she starts ringing the bailiff company.

[delta157]

Justice is not about profit!

Justice is about righting a wrong. Even qualified Solicitors offer a no win no fee scenario. Would this be something you would even consider?

The reasoning is that if you did, you might get more out of it.

Like experience and build a name, but paying for a service and getting it wrong as often as it's claimed will only damage a reputation IF you have one.

As are making bold claims and statements then not being able to deliver. Both of which can kill any business.

Any advisor worth their salt never uses 'must' it's always should, after all you should never tell a client what to do.

If you spent any reasonable time in a Criminal Court, you'd already know that recommendations go further than demands.

They are paying you after all, not the other way round.

Another good word to use is 'recommended' then give an explanation as to why!

As an observation only here, the saying 'a bull in a China shop' cones to mind.

As to the video, it was a deliberate attempt to flame the situation, flash your ID job done. Scuffles can cause serious injury or death, some bouncers already know this, to their detriment, as do Police Officers and the EA too.

After all, using words can resolve a conflict far easier than demanding.

Finally in a Court scenario the only person/s able to make demands are the Bench or Judge/s...

[Syd Snitkin]

There is a big difference between sending a person to court to make an SD and a private prosecution.

Booking an appointment to make a SD has one outcome. The conviction and fine are reinstated with an impromptu hearing. A kangaroo court. Sheila knows this because she starts ringing the bailiff company.

You know that's not what I'm saying. My point is that you are both happy to provide incorrect information regarding a legal procedure. It doesn't matter the seriousness or importance of the procedure - you advising someone that the DPP must consent to a PP the same as Sheila advising you cannot post a SD. They are both incorrect.

[zeke]

That's not what it says. The law says the DPP must consent to a warrant being issued .

[Syd Snitkin]

We are not talking about issuing a warrant, we are talking about starting a PP.

[Syd Snitkin]

But the CPS don't automatically take over a PP. Their consent is not needed to begin a PP.

That recently changed. The complaint must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions before it can be laid before the court.

Here is how to bring a private prosecution against a bailiff

This is what you said. Please understand.

[Syd Snitkin]

It would've been nice if Patto had explained why only a commercial property can be a relevant address but hey-ho, maybe tomorrow.

[John The Baptist]

Patto is an idiot of chimp proportions.

He can't even get it into his thick skull that bailiffs enforcing council tax have the authority to use the Schedule 12 procedure.

He is also a debt avoiding scumbag who deprives young children and vulnerable adults of much needed revenue.