Crown Court appearance

beyond the blue

beyond the blue

Messages
1,944
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been summoned to appear in Crown Court in 3 weeks time as a "professional witness" in a very serious case. I've never been to any type of court before and must admit that I'm getting quite nervous about the whole thing. I was wondering if anyone on here has done anything similar and can offer any advice as to how you are treated etc. I do have a slight involvement with the case but as mentioned the police said the CPS would call me as a "professional witness" whatever that entails.:confused:
 
If he has a clever assed lawyer they will try to turn it round as your fault ,I got punched a few years ago by a drug addict just before two police officers arrested him ,they witnessed tHe whole thing to ,in court his solicitor asked me if I made a habit of assaulting people in the street .
Naturally he got done for it but then had the cheek to say to the judge CLASSIC ! I suppose this means I can't join the police force :thinking::thinking:
 
do not be bullied by solicitors or barristers, stand your ground. Do not comment on things you are unsure of, stick only to what you know. If asked about your thoughts on what other people have said, don't comment.

They will try to intimidate you, don't let them.
 
to add, stay calm and think your answers through before answering.
 
fracster said:
do not be bullied by solicitors or barristers, stand your ground. Do not comment on things you are unsure of, stick only to what you know. If asked about your thoughts on what other people have said, don't comment.

They will try to intimidate you, don't let them.
Click to expand...

This is what worries me.. How do i not give my thoughts if asked for them?
 
beyond the blue said:
This is what worries me.. How do i not give my thoughts if asked for them?
Click to expand...
stick only to what you are sure of. If asked to comment on things you are not sure of, say so.

To echo the post above , be honest and portray that honesty to the whole court.
 
beyond the blue said:
This is what worries me.. How do i not give my thoughts if asked for them?
Click to expand...

You are not there to give your 'thoughts', if you are called as an 'expert witness' you are there to give your expert opinion.
If your expert opinion provides solid evidence against the accused then the defence barrister will do his/her utmost to either discredit your evidence (you are wrong or unqualified) or show that other opinion exists that counters yours.
All you can and should do is tell the complete truth to the best of your ability, even if that truth supports the 'other side'.
As said above 'tell the truth'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I've been an professional witness loads of times, although never in the Crown Court, but in the county court, magistrates court and the high court. Its a piece of cake, but then I used to love it, best part of my job.

I once had an awkward barrister who cross examined me for over 45 minutes on my knowledge of the children's act it was a bit like competition fencing defense and parry, all good sport.

Don't be nervous be sure of what you have to say and do not let the defense barrister take you of track. If the questions they ask are not in your remit then simply refer them to the relevant authority.
 
Last edited:
beyond the blue said:
Thanks for your advise guys. Am I correct in thinking that I can attend a crown court session as a spectator to enable me to at least get the feel of the atmosphere there?
Click to expand...
Yes there is a public gallery :)
 
Hi Neil

Over the years I have done 3 stints on jury service at Crown Court and I must say it was a real eye opener.

As a professional witness the jury will be expecting you to be impartial and explain the facts as they pertain to the case.

As said above be honest and tell the truth. Just like in real life the jury will see through anyone not being truthful, or suspect their evidence/testimony enough to disregard it or treat it with caution.

The other side may try to discredit your testimony but depending what it is I did see the other side declare "no questions" after some evidence was given.

Going along to have a look from the public gallery is probably a very good idea if you have been lucky enough to have never set foot in a court before - I know I hadn't before I was on a Jury and it was very interesting to see how the court functions.

Good luck

David
 
Take a good book, there's a great deal of waiting.
Giving evidence?
It's not like the telly. There is no banging on the bar, and the "I put it to you Mr Blue, that you are lying through your teeth, and in fact it was you that murdered Miss Scarlet, in the Study with the rampant rabbit!" doesn't happen like that.
In fact mostly you'll find its an anticlimax.There is no 'clever' barrister leading people to confessing they have made the whole thing up. It's simply a over acted interview with an audience.
 
Talk to the CPS. I can't imagine the CPS barrister taking the case will not want to talk to you before the trial starts. He/she is likely, as it is a serious case, to be well experienced and can advise you.

Dave
 
To echo what has been said above, just stay calm, and answer the questions honestly. If you dont know something, say you dont know. Dont try and talk your way round it just to give an answer.

Ive been in this situation just once (a long time ago). I was a witness against a guy that was fraudulently claiming that he had been injured in a car accident. He couldnt work, walk without a stick, leave his house, drive a manual car etc etc etc. While I was being questioned, the guys Barrister was pretty much having a rant about needing in depth medical training to be able to prove that the guy had been 'putting it on'. After the rant, he just said to me. "Can you please outline to the court, the details of the medical training you have received"? I hadnt had any medical training, of course, so just had to say that I hadnt. He was obviously trying to discredit me, but as it turns out, he got done anyway.
 
Be prepared that the hearing will probably not run to schedule and there may be an adjournement

the mos serious court case I know of details of the hearing involved my mother who was on the jury regarding a bus conductor who became involved in a row over a fare, was knocked to the ground and only then was it realised his skull was not as thick as normal, si it became manslaughter/murder

None of the witnesses could agree as to which of the two men involved actually struck the fatal blow, so they were aquitted
 
Bernie174 said:
Take a good book, there's a great deal of waiting.
Giving evidence?
It's not like the telly. There is no banging on the bar, and the "I put it to you Mr Blue, that you are lying through your teeth, and in fact it was you that murdered Miss Scarlet, in the Study with the rampant rabbit!" doesn't happen like that.
In fact mostly you'll find its an anticlimax.There is no 'clever' barrister leading people to confessing they have made the whole thing up. It's simply a over acted interview with an audience.
Click to expand...
As above. Basically, the opposing barrister is just trying to get your agreement to his questions.
"Do you agree Mr.Smith that your test result could also have been caused by ****"
To which your answer might be
"Yes, that's possible"
Or "Yes, it's possible but very unlikely"
or "I suppose that anything is possible, but it would be incredibly unlikely"
or "No, that could never happen"
Bernie174 said:
If its 'Judge Rinder', keep your back away from him!
Click to expand...
:) These TV shows are a complete joke.

Another joke of different kind, a couple of weeks ago I was hanging around at a Crown Court, uniformed police officers came in, no security search. Judges came in, no search. Everyone else who came in had to walk through the metal detector archway and there was a very perfunctory search of briefcases, I don't think it would have been possible to bring in anything bigger than a complete set of chef's knives without some risk of it being noticed...
After the metal detector archway, the usual waving around of the hand held metal detector - which wasn't working. Good old G4S security:(
 
Guidance here:-

http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/going_to_court/

Over the years I was cited to attend court a number of times to give evidence relating to my employment. Never a pleasant experience, but never dramatic. Delays - lots of them !

Stick rigidly to the truth. If asked a question and you do not know the answer then clearly say so. Don't try to give an answer to avoid sounding silly by not knowing.
 
In addition to casual homophobic remarks you'd probably be best advised to avoid racist and sexist comments too.
Click to expand...

What exactly are you on about?

Clearly there's things you don't know about the gentleman concerned, I wasn't commenting on his sexuality, which I am assured is an act. You'd be advised to clarify what I meant before leaping to an incorrect conclusion! Thanks for your pointless comment, for which I'll accept your apology.

Garry, yes, it is a complete mockery, just there to make money for advertisers.

As for searches, no, Police wouldn't be searched, anything they carry, they can carry into court, so a search is pointless. Judges are Judges and they aren't searched, probably because it's incumbent on everyone not to obstruct their passage. The public are fair game, but as you say, G4S.........
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
What exactly are you on about?

Clearly there's things you don't know about the gentleman concerned, I wasn't commenting on his sexuality, which I am assured is an act. You'd be advised to clarify what I meant before leaping to an incorrect conclusion! Thanks for your pointless comment, for which I'll accept your apology.
Click to expand...

It's a very good act then, which included marrying his long term boyfriend. But before I apologise, please feel free to clarify!
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Bernie174, post: 6730019, member: 41166"

As for searches, no, Police wouldn't be searched, anything they carry, they can carry into court, so a search is pointless. Judges are Judges and they aren't searched, probably because it's incumbent on everyone not to obstruct their passage. The public are fair game, but as you say, G4S.........[/QUOTE]

Does that include firearms? I served in an armed police force, and we had to deposit our firearms in the OC Court's safe on arrival, and retrieve them when we were leaving.
 
Bernie174 said:
What exactly are you on about?

Clearly there's things you don't know about the gentleman concerned, I wasn't commenting on his sexuality, which I am assured is an act. You'd be advised to clarify what I meant before leaping to an incorrect conclusion! Thanks for your pointless comment, for which I'll accept your apology.

Garry, yes, it is a complete mockery, just there to make money for advertisers.

As for searches, no, Police wouldn't be searched, anything they carry, they can carry into court, so a search is pointless. Judges are Judges and they aren't searched, probably because it's incumbent on everyone not to obstruct their passage. The public are fair game, but as you say, G4S.........
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting that either uniformed police officers or judges should be searched, obviously they shouldn't - my comment was about the total inadequacy of the security arrangements for the public, I could have got almost any kind of deadly weapon through if I had wanted to.
 
The local HO force can, and do but for protection only. MODplod/CNC etc, if they d
on't need them for prot, don't take them into court.
That's more a courtesy thing.

It's a very good act then, which included marrying his long term boyfriend. But before I apologise, please feel free to clarify!
Click to expand...

Gernerally, the camp act in public is an act. While not, they act like everyone else.
As for expanding, no, if you don't know you don't need to know. But in future, don't make accusations based on your own prejudices and misinterpretations please.
 
Bernie174 said:
Garry, yes, it is a complete mockery, just there to make money for advertisers.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a mockery.
A. it's an "entertainment" programme (loosely, I'll grant).
B. He's not a judge. :LOL:

At least Judy Sheindlin was a former judge (Though still a godawful show).
 
viv1969 said:
Of course it's a mockery.
A. it's an "entertainment" programme (loosely, I'll grant).
B. He's not a judge. :LOL:

At least Judy Sheindlin was a former judge (Though still a godawful show).
Click to expand...

I couldnt help but be reminded of a line from a film when reading this.

"Who made you Judge Judy and executioner?" :D

*Edit* Actually, it was the Simpsons.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Gernerally, the camp act in public is an act. While not, they act like everyone else.
As for expanding, no, if you don't know you don't need to know. But in future, don't make accusations based on your own prejudices and misinterpretations please.
Click to expand...

You can stop digging now, you're just making things sound worse.
 
Hardly, I am just wondering what you base your libelous statement on?

You are a prime example of what is wrong with the PC Industry. Leap to scream 'ism', when actually it isn't, it's simply your own prejudice Anyway, I am still waiting for you apology, or shall I just employ a solicitor?
 
Bernie174 said:
Hardly, I am just wondering what you base your libelous statement on?

You are a prime example of what is wrong with the PC Industry. Leap to scream 'ism', when actually it isn't, it's simply your own prejudice Anyway, I am still waiting for you apology, or shall I just employ a solicitor?
Click to expand...

I wonder if this is going to finish up in the Crown Court.;)
 
Bernie174 said:
Hardly, I am just wondering what you base your libelous statement on?

You are a prime example of what is wrong with the PC Industry. Leap to scream 'ism', when actually it isn't, it's simply your own prejudice Anyway, I am still waiting for you apology, or shall I just employ a solicitor?
Click to expand...

Do you actually read what you write before pressing "post reply" or does the froth get in the way? You go ahead and employ a solicitor if you feel strongly enough that you've been libelled, although you might be better off spending your money on some form of counselling or anger management.

No in the Country Court.

The first syllable is close.
 
Right.
Time to drop the who may / may not have implied what about whom, stop it with the personal insults before they go any further and let Neil have his thread back to get the answer to the question he initially asked.

Incidentally, yes RTM's have been received, but on the assumption that the solicitor's threats are a genuine intention - we will not be moderating, editing or deleting any of the previous posts and leaving anything open to misrepresentation or speculation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top