Is It Usual For Legal Aid Solicitors To Confer Before The Case?

[annieigma]

My granddaughter has a second visit to court coming up. i was at the first one, it was a legal aid solicitor, she is accused of pulling her ex partners girlfriends hair, which translates into assault when it gets to court. She turned up, and was given a legal aid solicitor. She told him the story, said she was not pleading guilty as they attacked her first. He listened to the story, then went off. came back and said my advice is to plead guilty. she refused, she said she had to go into a refuge three times now because of his violence, and had enough. He was once again off out of the room for thirty minutes, came back and said that if you mention refuge in the court, they will bring something else up that could mean you would have your children taken away.???? She has never been in trouble with the law before, and never had any investigation into the welfare of her children, which she brings up on her own. The time came for the court case, he again advised her to plead guilty, she went in, her solicitor immediately said he needed five hours to gather some information, (about what we dont know). the case was moved to a later date, as they said they could not wait five hours for him to sort something out. She came out of the court room and he had gone. I find this very worrying, it almost seems that he wanted the other party to win.

[EDDIE51]

It is normal for the solicitors to talk to each other before the case.
We can't comment on the actual case with no knowledge of the details and history.
But if your granddaughter did pull the other person's hair then she has committed an assault and the advice to plead guilty is correct.
If she was attacked first she is allowed to defend herself . But self defence must be 'in proportion' to the attack. It would be for the court to decide what level of self defence is 'in proportion'
I do not understand the bit about the refuge and why it should not be mentioned. Once again we are only getting one side of the story here and it is impossible to give more advice with so few details.
Remember the solicitor has seen the evidence that the other side will be using in court and he is giving advice based on the evidence he has seen.

[bednobs]

not knowing the details of the case is hard but i would be surprised if the fact he has been violent excuses the fact she assaulted someone else entirely.
also, if she did actually do it, it's probably right to plead guilty

[ummmm]

^^agree, plead guilty and let the solicitor argue it was self defense.

[New Judge]

"^^agree, plead guilty and let the solicitor argue it was self defense."

No no no no noooooooooooooo!

There is a statutory defence to allegations of assault and that is one of self-defence. To advance that defence a not guilty plea must be entered and the matter subject to trial. If the defence is successful a Not Guilty verdict will be returned, no conviction is recorded and the defendant is acquitted.

If a defendant pleads guilty then no defence to the allegation can be offered and a conviction results. In short, the defendant is accepting the offence was committed.

As has been mentioned, to give a reasoned answer is impossible without full details, which are not available to us (and probably not to you). The solicitor representing your grand-daughter has those full details including all the evidence against her. Part of his discussions with the prosecutor would involve examining the strength of the evidence against her and the likelihood of a successful “self-defence” argument. He would not encourage her to plead guilty if he believed there was a reasonable chance of her acquittal. If she wants to ignore his advice that is her privilege.