Magistrates committal hearing...........A few questions regarding my case.

[nemo321]

Hi, Following my previous question,

I have been accused of an either way offence that, after charged, I pleaded not guilty, the magistrates decided it was suitable to be heard in crown court.
The next step is a committal hearing, which as far as I am aware is where the magistrates officially commit the case to crown court?
I have read that they look at the evidence and as long as their is sufficient evidence the case will go ahead.
There is the injured party's statement and his girlfriends statement
(considered to be biased?) both wrongly accusing me. Also a friend that didn't see anything of any real relevance. The CCTV is of very poor quality and doesn't show much, and no independent witnesses.

Basically if my friend (guilty of what I have been accused of) owns up for his actions, will the cps review the case? And would it get thrown out at the committal hearing? I have "No Commented" till now.

My solicitor is telling me to wait till the trail but obviously I don't even want to go to court, im not sure if she wants it to go so that she gets paid.....

Should he own up now to the police? Or make a statement to my solicitor and wait till trial. If he owns up now will my charge be dropped or will it still be committed to crown?

Im just after some different opinions of people who know a thing or two about this subject.

[New Judge]

Whilst the magistrates do indeed have the power to have the prosecution discontinued for lack of evidence, in practice they very rarely do so these days. It is most unlikely that there is insufficient evidence to see a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution. If that were so the CPS would not have authorised charges.

Unless your solicitor insists there will be no examination of the evidence at the committal hearing. If your solicitor agrees that the committal papers are in order the hearing will be extremely brief and you will be committed for trial.

The quality of the evidence against you (i.e. whether the witnesses are lying) is a matter for the trial, not for the committal hearing.

[FredPuli43]

The commital proceeding is a formality nowadays. Your case will go straight to Crown Court. In the old days, and theoretically now, the defence could make a submission that there was no sufficient evidence to send the case to trial. This was only very rarely done because a) the magistrate(s) would commit on the barest evidence b) the defence, by their submission, often alerted the prosecution to gaps and deficiencies in the evidence, which the prosecution would put right before trial, making things worse for the defence and c) if the submission succeeded, the defendant was discharged but that discharge was NOT an acquittal. The prosecution were at perfect liberty to try again if they found further or better evidence or (in theory) even if they didn't.
Therefore your solicitor is telling you to wait to the trial.
What your co-defendant does is a matter for him but you shouldn't be speaking to him to influence him one way or the other, if you are so tempted.

[shoota]

'It may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something that you later rely on in court' were the words that would have been read out to you when the Police statement was taken (if my memory serves me right).
Based on the details you have given in this and other posts I am not sure that your solicitor is giving you good advice. Has she explained her strategy to you?
Re-read the last posts from ex-dc, he dealt with cases such as this on a regular basis as a DC.
I would be very worried about just turning up on the day of my trial and producing a witness who said they did it.
If this evidence comes to light early enough and is verifiable then the expense of a court case may be avoided completely.
I would seek a second opinon or and explanation of your solicitors reasoning.

[shoota]

Sorry -or AN explanation

[nemo321]

Thank you for your replys.
The main question here is, If there is just hearsay evidence against me, and the guilty party comes forward to the police, and confesses that he is solely responsible for the injury that I have been accused of, then is there a chance the magistrates will not be prepared to commit the case to a crown court trial?
If there is a chance of this happening, I will put pressure on him to own up sooner rather than later. Or should I be doing this regardless?

[New Judge]

No, there is not much of a chance.

I’ve read your earlier question where you described the incident. The evidence of the injured party and his girlfriend is not “hearsay”, it is first-hand evidence. Hearsay is “second hand” evidence (for example, I might say “Fred told me he saw Bert hit Joe”). I did not see Bert hit Joe so I cannot give evidence to that effect as it would be hearsay.

If the situation changes between now and your committal hearing (i.e. if the person you suggest is guilty makes a confession) the CPS may review the matter. However, they have no obligation to discontinue the case against you even if such a confession is forthcoming. They may decide that the issue of who is being truthful is a matter for trial. All the magistrates have to do (if they are asked) at the committal hearing is to establish if the evidence the Crown says it has is sufficient to support a prosecution. They do this by "taking it at its highest" (that is, at its most damning against you). As I said earlier, they do not assess the quality of that evidence.

Be guided by your solicitor.

[nemo321]

Hi all........Was in magistrates today for the committal and the CCTV was not served so my solicitor requested the CCTV and a section 6(1) committal.
There are two witness statements which tell lies so yes on the face of it a case to answer, but if the CCTV is produced and it shows im innocent will the case be thrown out? or what will happen if it isn't produced?

Is there something not quite right about the CCTV not being produced? Do you think the police/cps realise it wasn't me and are now trying to hide their mistake?

Also consider this, there is a police officers statement that says that just after the attack/my arrest the victim told him at the time off the attack he
" was just pulled from behind and hit over the head!"
Whereas his statement that was made two weeks later goes into every detail of how I stood in front of him aggressively and "bottled him"