Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => News / Press Articles => Topic started by: John U.K. on October 25, 2023, 05:47:05 pm
-
I attended and I regard it as disgraceful.
-
It's a bit late for that, but it occurred to me on the day that I should have got a PCN of my own so that I could be joined as a party. You live and learn.
-
Then whatever ETA defence there is (is there one?) should call him as a material witness. Otherwise, with the greatest respect, he becomes the elephant in the room.
If Ivan was the reason behind the ETA acceptance of the CCTV defence and was responsible for an avalanche of successful cases I cannot appreciate the judge's remarks that there are no "exceptional circumstances" to grant him audience.
This attitude reflects what the TfL lawyers tried to do in an earlier meeting--"not legally qualified,therefore we are not listening to him and by the way he can not charge a fee".
This completely ignores the ETA judicial process that lay people can represent others in sometimes complex legal hearings. I find the remark by the judge that Ivan's client company should have engaged a lawyer to be rather a sad reflection of how ETA operates.
Surely there must be a way for Ivan to address the Court?
Mike
-
See they are still unwilling/unable to let Ivan speak although his client company can. Relegating him to a Mackenzie Friend because he isn't a lawyer is really pathetic given he and phantomcrusader spotted the glitch and Ivan developed the legal defence which resulted in this HC case.
Mike
The reason (as I understand it) is that unqualified representatives aren’t generally given a right of audience because they don’t owe professional duties to the court or their client. I’m sure there are more reasons and that it varies on a case by case basis but that is the general position.
-
See they are still unwilling/unable to let Ivan speak although his client company can. Relegating him to a Mackenzie Friend because he isn't a lawyer is really pathetic given he and phantomcrusader spotted the glitch and Ivan developed the legal defence which resulted in this HC case.
Mike
-
These sites carry reports. The first is regularly updated.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/transport-for-london-tfl-high-court-parking-tickets-cctv-b1116055.html#comments-area
Similar to Standard but less adverts
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/tfl-could-refund-500-000-065411720.html
No mention of barrister or case for LT - sounds as if CPS had to make their own case?
Case concluded 4p.m,. judgement reserved - expected in a few weeks.
-
All High Court hearings are open to the public unless the court has specifically ordered a private hearing, which would be in very limited circumstances such as matters involving national security and a few other scenarios where the need to maintain confidentiality overrides the open justice principle.
-
From the Royal Courts of Justice daily cause list 26 October 2023
BEFORE JUSTICE SWIFT 10:30AM COURT 1 AC-2023-LON-002373 The King (on the application of TRANSPORT FOR LONDON) v LONDON TRIBUNALS (ENVIRONMENT AND TRAFFIC ADJUDICA HEARING
As far I can see it is open to the public, should anyone be interested.