This is the reality of the lifestyle of today. Those that don't have will take from those that have
You exaggerate Tron. If you were right, those that have would have had it, so to speak, because they are substantially outnumbered. Most people try to be decent and there is the rule of law here. The law and the legislature have always had to adapt to circumstances and the struggle to resolve or suppress contradictions in society - which are always with us - is sometimes more difficult than at others. But it's never a pushover because everything keeps changing.
AE's attitude is correct in my opinion.
|
|
Don't worry, you will only get called if they plead not guilty, and then want to contest the statement you made. If they do plead not guilty, it may be because their defence sees pound signs in their eyes and tells them they might be in with a chance. I think courts have improved the security in the last decade, so you don't wait in the same area as their homies etc..
|
Don't worry you will only get called if they plead not guilty.... If they do plead not guilty it may be because their defence sees pound signs in their eyes and tells them they might be in with a chance. >>
some defendants will plead not guilty on principle to see if some or all of the witnesses turn up. If a crucial witness doesn't attend, they may wriggle off...if sufficient witnesses do attend they can still plead guilty at the trial.. and still gain some benefit from the court for pleading guilty i.e. lesser sentence for pleading guilty.
don't forget the vast majority of crooks by far see this system as an occupational hazard, so they don't take it personally when a victim gives evidence, they see it as an inevitable consequence of their system....and then move on to the next one when they're out....it is exceedingly rare for a crook to go back to a victim after a sentence, (because they gave evidence at the trial)...and nowadays in the most unlikely event they did there are specific offences to cover it, which makes it quite easy for them to be whisked back to jail.
Ultimately if you are/were to be an important witness and the trial judge thought you were not going to attend, he/she could issue a witness summons, which means you have to attend...(lady in Cornwall recently got 14 days imprisonment for ignoring witness summons).
They will be more worried about you (as a witness) than you'd imagine...and IMO this element is like a hand of poker....i.e. who has the most front to hide the nerves and show the other party they aren't really bothered (even if they are).
Good Luck.
|
As Westpig says, the important thing is to turn up. If you don't, then your evidence won't be heard (there's no provision for reading statements unless the defence agrees). If you've been warned to attend trial, your evidence is not agreed.
The good news is, as WP implies, when you do attend then it's (perversely) less likely you'll actually have to give evidence.
|
Thanks guys
For your info, I intend to attend and eyeball them .... like you say, they are probably (hopefully...!) more bothered by me than I am of them ....
Thanks for our supportive comments
jdc
|
JDC, how's your son doing now? Does he know you've been called as a witness?
Most courts should now have access to a witness care unit, who could put you in touch with the relevant support services if he shows any signs of being upset about it all again (and you and your wife as well for that matter).
Best of luck with it all...I have a feeling that being able to 'eyeball' them and see them convicted would be good closure for me too.
|
Hi PG
My son is fine - still a bit spooked about noises outside (like me ..!) but generally absolutely fine.
He knows about the witness issue. We contacted the witness support unit to express our concerns and they have been great, really supportive and understanding.
Like I said, 70+ other witnesses from other events puts the whole thing in perspective.
Thanks for your concern again.
jdc
|
|
|
Tron's statement could have been written at any time in history, it's the way of the world.
|
|
|
