Book of Evidence Expiry

Whitecarstones

"X" was charged with three counts under the bla bla act on March 24th. The charge sheet said that X had to appear in court on April 2nd. But X gets a call on the 25th March by the Detective to say the date on the sheet to go to court was wrong. That it was actually the 9th.

X goes to court on April 9th. The book of evidence is not yet ready. So the case is postponed for 6 weeks. May 21st.
X does not hear from his solicitor in the week leading up to the 21st. So on the 20th he rings the solicitor.
The solicitor is very flippant and rushing x on the phone. He tells x that he had received a call from the detective on May 19th asking would x sign on a plea of guilty because the book of evidence wouldn't be ready for may 21st. He said no.
X is very annoyed that his solicitor did not inform him of the phonecall.
Afterwards X begins to think about the book of evidence. X does some research and looks at law aswell as precedent cases. He realises that they only have 42 days. He does find out that the court can grant an extension but there should be good reason to do this.
X sees two cases - a murder, and fraud, that was thrown out because the evidence was not ready, and had no viable reason for not being ready.

X says to himself that he wants it thrown out. He cant think of any reasonable excuse for the book not to be ready, as it is a very straight forward case - no witnesses etc. He is well aware that if the case is thrown out the detective can recharge him.

But x is so annoyed that it isn't ready that he wants it to be thrown out. The solicitor only arrives to court five minutes before starting so x only had a brief conversation with him. X insists that he wants it fought. The solicitor says "ah it will only be put back two weeks, and possibly another two weeks. Again X quotes other cases and wants it to be fought. They are interrupted by the judge arriving so they take their seats.

When x's case is called out, the garda (not the investigating detective) simply asks the court for an extension until the 8th of July. The solicitor for X says nothing so without question the judge approves the extension.

X is distraught that his wishes were not fulfilled and chastises his solicitor who once again shuts him down.

X has no other option but to now wait until 8th July. It has been now hanging over him for years, and his mental health is in severe decline.

Does x need a new solicitor? How can a judge possibly approve a six week extension for a cas:pac:e which is easy and the book should be done?

Claw Hammer

Whitecarstones wrote: »

Does x need a new solicitor? How can a judge possibly approve a six week extension for a cas:pac:e which is easy and the book should be done?

X needs to stop trying to be an expert. The solicitor likely knows the form of the judge in question. Most likely there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that the extension would not be given. Even if the case was struck out, so what?

Fian

Claw Hammer wrote: »

X needs to stop trying to be an expert. The solicitor likely knows the form of the judge in question. Most likely there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that the extension would not be given. Even if the case was struck out, so what?

Just to clarify this - if a case is struck out it can be re-entered after the book of evidence is prepared. It is absolutely normal for books to be late and generally cases won't get struck out until the delay is egregious. Even then the case will not normally be struck out but will be marked peremptory on the next occasion - which is essentially a warning that it will be struck out if book is not ready.

But bottom line - even if struck out it doesn't mean the case goes away, unless there is a fundamental problem with available evidence which is reason behind book not being prepared it will come back.

Peregrinus

X needs a new solicitor because he doesn't have confidence in his current one. The current solicitor's judgment that an application for a strike-out would be ill-judged, would be unlikely to succeed, even if successful, would achieve nothing of value was probably correct, but he failed to communicate this to his client, address his client's concerns or set them at rest. Given what's at stake for X here, it's important for him to have a solicitor who he trusts.

X possibly wants a more exhaustive and time-consuming relationship with his solicitor than most defendants do, and he will have to pay for that. But X is the client; this is not an unreasonable thing for him to want, and there is no reason why he shouldn't look for a solicitor who will provide it.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

X possibly wants a more exhaustive and time-consuming relationship with his solicitor than most defendants do, and he will have to pay for that.

X is most likely on legal aid and is only going to get what he pays for.

Irishphotodesk

Sounds a bit like X is trying to pick bits and pieces of law and apply them irrespective of what the legal position or view is.

As pointed out, if the book of evidence not being ready was only going to result in the matter being re-entered if/when it is ready then it would have been a waste of effort, what satisfaction would X have gotten if they were re-charged ?

In my opinion X should go off and study law and then feel comfortable knowing they have a better understanding of why some legal positions/decisions are not always obvious.

Ps. I have no legal training

Whitecarstones

Whitecarstones wrote: »

X has no other option but to now wait until 8th July. It has been now hanging over him for years, and his mental health is in severe decline.

What has been hanging over him for years? He has only been charged a couple of months?