question to the lawyers or those practising law

Postby **jeepers** » February 2nd, 2016, 2:20 pm

The scenarios goes like this:
John and Jane were involved in an accident. More than a year after john was summons to court for dangerous driving. However Jane dont want the court procedure and both Jane and John prefer to handle matters outside the court.

question- does it have any legal way to settle this matter outside court seeing as the case is already in court?

Im thinking about speaking with the police of magistrate but i think this can be considered obstruction of justice and can lead to more issues.

P.s The case has not started yet. trial that is

EmilioA · Postby **EmilioA** » February 2nd, 2016, 2:32 pm

Not a lawyer but there seems ot be some confusion here.

Dangerous driving is a criminal charge. Jane have no say over the prosecution. Its the State prosecuting John. This is entirely separate from whatever money John owes Jane.

killercow · Postby **killercow** » February 2nd, 2016, 2:47 pm

I'm not exactly sure what the relation is between the incident with John and Jane and the summons for dangerous driving a year after. However, if John and Jane are before the court and John and Jane have both agreed that they would like to sort out their issues outside of the court then at the magistrates' discretion he/she can take a number of different approaches:

1. The magistrate can dismiss the matter and allow both parties to settle their dispute outside of court seeing as vehicular accidents are civil matters and not criminal.

2. The magistrate (depending on the severity of the matter among other things) can have both parties go through mediation.

3. The magistrate can continue with the case if he/she feels that there is no amicable way between the two parties to settle the matter.

It is also important to note that as EmilioA mentioned above, dangerous driving is a CRIMINAL offence and that will be between police/prosecutor and defendant (John). Jane has no jurisdiction there.

Postby **jeepers** » February 2nd, 2016, 2:51 pm

okay. So john need to discuss with a lawyer and not police nor magistrate? The john lawyer will bring it forward to the magistrate? Or a lawyer aint necessary ?

killercow · Postby **killercow** » February 2nd, 2016, 3:08 pm

jeepers wrote:okay. So john need to discuss with a lawyer and not police nor magistrate? The john lawyer will bring it forward to the magistrate? Or a lawyer aint necessary ?

If John and Jane are sure they want to handle things outside of court then they can both ask the magistrate to settle it outside. A lawyer at this point is purely and solely optional based on the situation you described.

MaxPower · Postby **MaxPower** » February 2nd, 2016, 3:10 pm

Is john jeepers?

racedriverpro · Postby **racedriverpro** » February 2nd, 2016, 3:10 pm

If outside=in the bedroom then it's worth a shot.

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

Postby **jeepers** » February 2nd, 2016, 6:25 pm

MaxPower john is john bruh..
racedriverpro prob if jane was at least a 5/10 bedroom was worth the shot for john.

konartis · Postby **konartis** » February 2nd, 2016, 7:06 pm

All jane has to do is inform the prosecution that she doesn't wish to offer her evidence in the matter, if john was charged then its maybe they both were in an accident and jane was the victim and was not compensated or suffered injury and the police submitted the file and charges were recommend against john, so if thats the case, jane has to give evidence as to what transpired and supporting evidence for the prosecution to prove the case....therefore she "has a say"

So she can speak to the complainant in the matter and let him/her know of the intention not to give evidence....the complaint would then inform the prosecution on the day of the matter

The prosecution would then indicate to the magistrate that the VC wishes to adopt a "certain position" in the matter, she would be placed in the witness box, questioned why she doesn't want to give evidence...she wud say she forgive etc, they would ask if she was paid, forced etc....obviously no....

The magistrate would then ask the prosecution if they can proceed without Jane's evidence....the prosecution would say no....

Matter dismissed.....you can PM me for more info.

pugboy · Postby **pugboy** » February 3rd, 2016, 6:08 am

what kind of written statements were given to the police when the accident happened ?
can those stand up in court even if jane says she not going to court ?

i've been told to never give a written statement when making an accident report if it could be used against me.

rollingstock · Postby **rollingstock** » February 3rd, 2016, 3:38 pm

konartis wrote:All jane has to do is inform the prosecution that she doesn't wish to offer her evidence in the matter, if john was charged then its maybe they both were in an accident and jane was the victim and was not compensated or suffered injury and the police submitted the file and charges were recommend against john, so if thats the case, jane has to give evidence as to what transpired and supporting evidence for the prosecution to prove the case....therefore she "has a say"

So she can speak to the complainant in the matter and let him/her know of the intention not to give evidence....the complaint would then inform the prosecution on the day of the matter

The prosecution would then indicate to the magistrate that the VC wishes to adopt a "certain position" in the matter, she would be placed in the witness box, questioned why she doesn't want to give evidence...she wud say she forgive etc, they would ask if she was paid, forced etc....obviously no....

The magistrate would then ask the prosecution if they can proceed without Jane's evidence....the prosecution would say no....

Matter dismissed.....you can PM me for more info.

What toots you posting? Aren't you a lawyer?

Jane is a witness not a virtual complainant. This is a matter of the state vs John. If Jane refuses to give evidence, her statement can still be tendered and she considered a hostile witness.

My advice is to speak to a lawyer to handle the case. The only person that can drop the matter at this point is the DPP.

4kin4kar · Postby **4kin4kar** » February 3rd, 2016, 5:17 pm

Any pics of Jane?

konartis · Postby **konartis** » February 3rd, 2016, 5:40 pm

rollingstock wrote:
konartis wrote:All jane has to do is inform the prosecution that she doesn't wish to offer her evidence in the matter, if john was charged then its maybe they both were in an accident and jane was the victim and was not compensated or suffered injury and the police submitted the file and charges were recommend against john, so if thats the case, jane has to give evidence as to what transpired and supporting evidence for the prosecution to prove the case....therefore she "has a say"

So she can speak to the complainant in the matter and let him/her know of the intention not to give evidence....the complaint would then inform the prosecution on the day of the matter

The prosecution would then indicate to the magistrate that the VC wishes to adopt a "certain position" in the matter, she would be placed in the witness box, questioned why she doesn't want to give evidence...she wud say she forgive etc, they would ask if she was paid, forced etc....obviously no....

The magistrate would then ask the prosecution if they can proceed without Jane's evidence....the prosecution would say no....

Matter dismissed.....you can PM me for more info.

What toots you posting? Aren't you a lawyer?

Jane is a witness not a virtual complainant. This is a matter of the state vs John. If Jane refuses to give evidence, her statement can still be tendered and she considered a hostile witness.

My advice is to speak to a lawyer to handle the case. The only person that can drop the matter at this point is the DPP.

Yes, she is a VC...she wudve made a report of an accident, the police didnt charge john and site jane to support them, it was as a result of her making a report and it was investigated by the officer and john charged...

The evidence act caters for a statement to be used in the absence of the witness...but my experience is that magistrate isnt going to go to that lengths for a traffic offence....if he do as I say, the matter wud be over with at the next hearing.

rollingstock · Postby **rollingstock** » February 3rd, 2016, 6:01 pm

John was charged due to a breach of the mv&rt act, which resulted in injury or damage to Jane's property.
In the strictest letter of the law jane had no say in the furtherance of the matter, it's is directly the state vs John. Jane's evidence would be integral to the case however there would be other material evidence to support the charge.
John's choices are either to plead guilty and pay the fine or plead innocent and await a determination by the magistrate ; or if lucky a dismissal due to none appearance of the police complainant.

konartis · Postby **konartis** » February 14th, 2016, 9:03 pm

rollingstock wrote:John was charged due to a breach of the mv&rt act, which resulted in injury or damage to Jane's property.
In the strictest letter of the law jane had no say in the furtherance of the matter, it's is directly the state vs John. Jane's evidence would be integral to the case however there would be other material evidence to support the charge.
John's choices are either to plead guilty and pay the fine or plead innocent and await a determination by the magistrate ; or if lucky a dismissal due to none appearance of the police complainant.

Yea but 99.999% of the time a person is charged because the negligent party didnt settle the accident....so a court, knowing that the person does want anything further(compensated or otherwise) wud agree to dismiss the matter...and the prosecution would almost certain welcome this....its wasting the courts time.

konartis · Postby **konartis** » February 14th, 2016, 9:03 pm

rollingstock wrote:John was charged due to a breach of the mv&rt act, which resulted in injury or damage to Jane's property.
In the strictest letter of the law jane had no say in the furtherance of the matter, it's is directly the state vs John. Jane's evidence would be integral to the case however there would be other material evidence to support the charge.
John's choices are either to plead guilty and pay the fine or plead innocent and await a determination by the magistrate ; or if lucky a dismissal due to none appearance of the police complainant.

Yea but 99.999% of the time a person is charged because the negligent party didnt settle the accident....so a court, knowing that the person doesn't want anything further(compensated or otherwise) wud agree to dismiss the matter...and the prosecution would almost certain welcome this....its wasting the courts time.

rollingstock · Postby **rollingstock** » February 14th, 2016, 9:18 pm

What toots yuh talking? Settlement has nothing to do with prosecution for a beach of the mv&rt act.

Do some proper research or speak to someone more knowledgeable please.

konartis · Postby **konartis** » February 14th, 2016, 9:27 pm

rollingstock wrote:What toots yuh talking? Settlement has nothing to do with prosecution for a beach of the mv&rt act.

Do some proper research or speak to someone more knowledgeable please.

The man done get his advice already.... ;-)

rollingstock · Postby **rollingstock** » February 14th, 2016, 10:39 pm

It still don't change the fact that for someone who proclaims himself to be a lawyer you have a faint grasp for the law and would proceed to give advice that is based on flawed knowledge.

The police's interaction with any report of a road traffic accident hinges on any beach of the traffic laws, the settlement of the matter would rest on the parties involved and by extension their respective insurance providers and failing that private redress in the court.

The police would not lay charges on whether any party's vehicle was repaired but on the severity of damages /injury; and what beach of the law was committed if any.

So pray tell if the aggrieved persons vehicle is not repaired or the matter settled what offence is committed and what charge(s) would be laid? Please cite for me the statutory reference for edification?