From the point of view of banks and businesses which deal with individual consumers and which now more frequently find themselves embroiled in disputes with litigants in person, some of the key challenges include:
•The majority of litigants in person have difficulties understanding and dealing with court procedures and legal issues in their case.
•Around half of litigants in person are personally vulnerable in some way, which makes negotiation of the legal and procedural requirements of self-representation more difficult.
•Problems created by litigants in person can include a refusal to engage with proceedings and, on occasion, aggressive and disruptive behaviour. (Litigants in person do not have the one-step 'remove' from a personally emotive case that a legal professional can provide).
•Some hearings are taking significantly longer, because lawyers and judges are taking time to explain rules and processes to litigants in person.
•Those hearings that are taking less time are not being resolved quickly due to a lack of lawyers indulging in spoiling tactics and debating technicalities - rather these hearings (many of which are crucial case management conferences) are collapsing as litigants in person are overawed and unable to cope.
•Litigants in person sometimes seek to rely on 'bad' research - increasingly using the internet and misunderstanding the law or trying to import US or other legal concepts into UK civil litigation.
•Litigants in person can be unfamiliar with the concept of openness in disclosure and with the lawyer's overriding duty to the court.This can lead to mistrust and litigation being unnecessarily combative and cumbersome.
•Represented parties can feel disadvantaged and, to some extent, even unheard, when litigants in person are allowed to speak out of turn and interject in court proceedings, whereas their legal representative follows due process
There is now a positive obligation on the court, when it is exercising any case management powers, to have regard to the fact that a party is unrepresented;
It is now mandatory for the parties and the court to take any relevant multi-track/fast-track standard directions as their starting point when drafting case management directions;
The court must adopt a form of procedure at any hearing which is appropriate to furthering the overriding objective; and
At any hearing where the court is taking evidence, the court may question witnesses, or may cause such questions to be put to witnesses, as it considers proper.(This latter provision is intended to deal with the problem, noted in the case of Otuo v Brierly earlier this summer, of a lack of proper focus within many-a litigant in person’s witness evidence.)
Parties and practitioners should note, however, that the introduction of new CPR 3.1A is not intended, in any way, to limit the existing and enduring wide ambit of CPR 3.1 (2) (m).
Elizabeth Watson responds:
Are Walker Morris having a laugh?
Nita Benfield responds:
well........the judge COULD question witnesses if there was ANY for the bank or they bothered turning up. Cheeky fuckers! We ARE the only MAN in ANY court unless there is an injured party present. Everyone else IS an actor.
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
That would be the Elizabeth OTF Watson who managed to get herself jailed for contempt of court would it?
My attitude to representing myself in court is to ask...
1) Do I have the necessary grasp of the legal principles at work in the case?
And
2) If I f**k it up badly will I go to jail?
If the answer is 'yes' to 1) and 'no' to 2) I'll give it a go... Otherwise I'll find a lawyer.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
the courts doesn't like LIP, as it takes money away from the lawyers and people go to court that would usually never get near a court room, so clogs up the system
I think its great, everyone who is summoned or has a court case, should go,
I'm not sure the courts are bothered by LIPs who know what they're doing. It's LIP who turn up with self-important 'lay-advocate' gobshites like Colon, Ebert, Poe, Culinane, Hayes and their ilk who piss them off.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
The courts and indeed other lawyers will work with Litigants in Person who do engage. I have had experience of this being a litigant in person who recently negotiated a substantial settlement (just under six figures from a multi-million pound company). I know they did not give that money without them knowing their was a case to answer and I also know they did not do that out of charitable sympathy (I also know it was a complicated issue that was compounded by a catalogue of errors).
The problem is that a lot of people don't know or don't bother to know what the law is. The article does a good job of identifying what I would also consider to be the pitfalls from self representation based on my own experience.
Now I can accept that I am likely to be the exception rather than the rule, most people don't self litigate for such sums, because of the difficulty involved and those that do are usually doing so after having exhausted the avenues available for legal representation (which at that time I also had, I can't discuss much of the case due to a confidentiality clause in the settlement, although some is public knowledge and available on Bailii).
I also know that my case didn't go to court, because we were able to negotiate a settlement before that stage. In order to do that, by myself, I had to adopt a sense of duality during the negotiations, I had to be my own representation and I had to avoid emotive traps and considerations. It was not an easy thing to do, it involved divorcing my emotional self from the proceedings so that I could fully engage in them for my own benefit. Had my emotions come into play I do not doubt that I would have found the notion of agreement abhorrent.
The main problem with those involved in FMOTL, OCPA, SovCit and other similar arguments is that they often recruit an advocate who tells them what they want to hear. Tom Crawford didn't want to hear the truth that he had lost his case in the Godsmark ruling, and Mr Ebert told him that he really hadn't. If Tom Crawford had gone to anyone with any real ability for this sort of thing, he doubtless would have been properly appraised of his situation and of what the prospects were. This leads to hopeless causes being advanced, which makes a mockery of one of the important aspects of a common law system, which is that it is reasonably predictable because cases set precedents.
The second issue the courts have is likely going to be one that comes down to the skill of the advocate in preparing an argument. Take Hainings case against Gillard. The vast majority of Hainings submitted argument had no actual relationship towards Gillard and failed to disclose a reliable cause of action. That was likely to be because Haining had no real grounds and also because he lacked the ability to clearly articulate those grounds. It is the latter aspect that poses a risk of causing an injustice.
Let us suppose that after his court action, Haining is approached by a person who is suffering from an abusive ex partner who is clearly harassing her, let us further suppose that he agrees to aid them by helping them with an injunction. The risk would be that through his clear lack of skill, talent and intelligence, Haining would fail to get an injunction when someone both deserves it and should achieve it. The danger is that these morons can take a winning position and lose it. Which creates an injustice and will make the situation worse.
The final complaint is going to be one of how they tie up court resources long after the matter should have been abandoned or settled by making frivolous arguments, or simply by ignoring the issue completely. This can get them thrown into jail for a couple of days because they went 9mph over the speed limit, can saddle them with an onerous and rising bill for additional legal expenses and wastes the time of the court (which delays justice for other cases that do have legal merit).
longdog wrote:I'm not sure the courts are bothered by LIPs who know what they're doing. It's LIP who turn up with self-important 'lay-advocate' gobshites like Colon, Ebert, Poe, Culinane, Hayes and their ilk who piss them off.
but that's the thing, most are idiots, and just clog up the courts with pointless cases, ie tom and his gay take that tribute group
fat frank wrote:ie tom and his gay take that tribute group
I beg your pardon...
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
Errr... Yes... I'm aware of that. It's the use of the word 'gay' as an insult I was referring to.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
No, you weren't. Please don't compound the original error by lying about it. The use of gay, immediately before a reference to a tribute act for a boy band made the original intent quite clear. Longdog is quite right to point out that 'gay' being used as an insult is derogatory towards people who are homosexual and that he finds the use of the term insulting. He is quite right to take that position and has already posited his views on the matter. Let's not use gay as an insult.
longdog wrote:Errr... Yes... I'm aware of that. It's the use of the word 'gay' as an insult I was referring to.
That's fair enough but i feel you're posts contain too much bad language. May as well leave out the ** as we all know the "word".
Just saying.
Except that's not the same thing at all.
Using f**k is simply a nod to the rule here against unnecessary obscenity... It's not language which gratuitously insults a whole swathe of the population.
Let's say for the sake of argument we are discussing a video and I refer to "The black guy just to the left of the giant panda"... There's nothing offensive in that if it is perfectly descriptive and distinguishes them from the white guy just to the left of the panda or the black guy just to the right of the panda. If there's nobody else in the video apart from one black guy and a panda then the guy's colour is irrelevant so why mention it? If I call the guy "The n**ger next to the panda" that's offensive regardless of whether I use '**' or 'ig' and would probably and quite rightly get me chastised or banned... See the difference?
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
Happy to see that you guys are trying to moderate yourselves and keep it civil. I agree with longdog and peanut. Well, only this one thing peanut, you have other offenses to answer for.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".
44. It is clear to me from reading this documentation and from observing Mr Ragozzino and Mr Reed in court that he has not been at all well-served by the assistance of Mr Reed as his McKenzie friend, since Mr Reed has been responsible for pouring yet more fuel on the flames rather than assisting Mr Ragozzino to present his defence with suitable moderation. However, unfortunately for Mr Ragozzino, he has allowed himself to be used as a mouthpiece by Mr Reed, and cannot disclaim responsibility for what he has allowed himself to be associated with.
45. In my view it is quite clear that all of these matters amount to seriously aggravating features.
Oyston & Anor v Ragozzino [2015] EWHC 3232 - the wealthy owners of a soccer club suing a fan who defamed them on club messageboards. Defendant lost, in no small part because his McKenzie Friend urged him into very bad decisions. £40,000 damages ($61,000, or 20 Re's)
