Magistrate's Court - what's it like?

To add to the chorus below, I was a pedestrian witness to a (non-cycling-related) traffic accident many years ago now, probably about 15 from memory. The police took my statement at the scene (basically 'the bloke came over the brow of the hill far too fast and rear-ended the car on the other side that was stuck behind someone waiting to turn right').

Months later (6?) I got a letter telling me I'd be needed in court in about a month's time.  A week later, I got another letter telling me the case had been dropped. No explanation was offered.

I think such is the pressure on the court system, the CPS and police are keen to resolve what they regard as non-serious matters outside of court wherever possible. While that is itself understandable, in the case of incidents against cyclists that regrettably often means simply 'warning' the offender. Quite why they can't just issue 3 points in those cases is beyond me, but that's a separate issue.

Well, this was my experience today... I was in court as a witness against the driver in this incident, which some may recall from a while ago as NMOTD 549 on here. He was acquitted by the magistrates on the grounds that "there is insufficient evidence to prove the case of careless driving." The defendant relied on a number of points to make his case, amongst them that I definitely made no checks behind me whatsoever, even though you can see from my shadow on the video (and the prosecuting solicitor pointed out) that I made at least three clear headchecks prior to signalling and carefully beginning to pull across the road (something the defendant chose to characterise as "veering wildly into my right of way"). The defendant also claimed that my (admittedly fruity, but then I get like that when people try to kill me) bad language after the incident proved that I was in "an aggressive state of mind and probably not fit to be riding a bicycle on the public highway". But here's the real kicker: he claimed that he was not, as I stated, at least 40 m behind me when I began to pull out, apparently that was "completely untrue" (he should have a word with the missus, who was 40 m behind me at the time, and he was behind her), in fact I was "two to three metres ahead" when I pulled out. Leaving aside the fact that I rather enjoy life and I'm not in the habit of attempting suicide, he admitted to the court that he was travelling at 30 mph. At 30 mph, a car covers 13 metres per second. As can be seen on the video, he passes me three to four seconds after I signal and start to pull out, so had I been 2/3 m ahead of him when I pulled out, he would've had no alternative but to have hit me, it's literally a physical impossibility to (allegedly) dive in front of a car going 30 mph that is 2/3 m behind one and for the car either to stop or evade one, he would've had to react in 0.25 of a second to do that. The fact that it took him four seconds to catch up with me and make such a ridiculous close pass proves that he was shamelessly lying. Unbelievable. Many thanks to the Metropolitan Police traffic office for bringing the prosecution, and to the prosecuting solicitor who did a very good job of presenting the evidence, why the magistrates chose to ignore it in toto is a matter for them. It does make one wonder if it's actually worth sending in any evidence if this is going to be the result; I suppose I will have to invest in a rear-facing camera as well if magistrates are so incapable of judging on the clear physical evidence placed before them!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjU4cQRnPs0

https://3lib.net/book/5869963/41dcb8

There's a good section on magistrates courts in that book. 

I defended for 18 years, prosecuted for 15 and have given evidence on a number of occasions. Yes there's lots of hanging around. This isn't because dodgy deals are being struck as the detractors below would have you believe but because more than one trial will be listed in the same court room at the same time (blame austerity and the court closure program). The Court staff & Prosecutor will be trying to work out which cases should proceed. The witness waiting room will be shabby I'm afraid but it's no worse than any other room in the building, at least you don't have work there. Always ask for a copy of your statment so you can read what you told the Police, and don't  be afraid to ask for it more than once; the Prosecutor will be overrun with cases and other witneeses and may need reminding. Remember to look at the person asking you questions but always turn to the Magistrates to give them your reply (this also gives you time to think of your response). Asking for a glass of water before you start to avoid a dry mouth would also be sensible. As for how to answer questions, be firm and just tell the court what happened. If you tell the truth you never have to remember what you said. 

It seems to me from reading the comments, that the defence game is to enter a not guilty plea in the hope witnesses do not turn up, and then change to guilty when they do.

I had the same a couple of years ago - Driver pleaded not guilty so off I toddled to give my statement. I sat around for about 4 hours waiting to be called only to be told that they had showed him the video and miraculously he'd changed his plea. So a pain in the butt, but one I would do again if required - Take a book, maybe some sarnies and be ready for a wait.

St Albans Magistrate Court.

When you arrive you are directed to a rather miserable witness room. You will not be required to wait in the same space as the accused. You hang around for a couple of hours because the magistrates are running late and then going for lunch. Eventually a slightly grumpy court official turns up and tells you that you won't be required to give evidence as the miscreant has entered a guilty plea. You leave with the impression that deals have been done between prosecution and defence as to which charges will be pressed and which dropped if the accused cooperates. Sometime later you get a letter confirming your suspicions. You do at least get travel expenses and a meal allowance that will almost cover the price of a bad coffee.

It is quite unsettling even though you haven't done anything wrong. Remember that all you are doing is telling your version of events. When you answer any questions you may be asked remember to speak to the magistrates regardless of who asked you the question, it will seem odd directing your answer to someone other than the person who asked you the question. If you don't know or would like something explained or clarified don't be afraid to ask, take your time, think before you answer and only answer the question you have been asked and don't be afraid of silence, if you have answered the question and there is a silence don't feel that you have to say something else, the defence may be waiting to see if you get nervous and add something else, if you have said what you need to wait quietly for the next question. Try to relax, you are not on trial even though it may feel like you are. Read your witness statement before you take the stand and you will be fine 

Probably depends where you are. Cycling Mikey shows that London Magistrates are intent on punishing offenders, whereas in Lancashire the overwhelming impression is that the police/ CPS Axis is dedicated to delaying cases as long as possible in the hope the prosecution can be forgotten about and abandoned. The cyclist will have to push hard for a prosecution based on impeccable evidence to go ahead at all. I have only been once to the Preston Magistrates- I was told I didn't need to attend, and I only found out the date of the hearing by harassing the "SRU Court Presentation Officers" for over a year. I was suspicious, so I did attend incognito. I was right- dirty work was afoot...the hearing only took place because the offender had failed to attend the offered joke driving course by February 2020. I'm assuming it was the proper 'you have to be there in person' course then. The offender showed up looking like the Golf Professional he is, rather like a WWII spiv, and accompanied by 'counsel'. Counsel said that spiv agreed to attend the (now super-joke online no-tiresome-inconvenience) course by November 2021, the CPS/ Court Presentation Officer or whatever, demonstrated that she couldn't operate the computer system, and that was that. As far as I could make out there is another hearing in November, but maybe that will all be done by post?

Just to add, it's quite possible the defendent will submit a guilty plea and you won't have to give evidence at all. From what I gather, it's quite a common tactic to hope that the witness(es) fail to turn up and so the prosecution's case collapses, but if they see you have turned up then change to a guilty plea for a slightly more lenient sentence.  

I did this a couple of weeks ago, you'll be witness for the prosecution. There will be quite a lot of hanging around, I had to arrive 30 minutes early and the magistrates were running late so ended up waiting for an hour and a half. I told the staff I was a witness for the police when I arrived and they took me to a separate room so I wasn't sitting with the defendant. The prosecutor came in and talked me through what would happen, they basically just ask you questions designed to get you to repeat the statement you gave to the police. They should be able to give you a copy of your statement if you can't remember what you said at the time. The video will probably get played as well. The defendant (or solicitor if they have one) can ask you questions if they want to. I was in the dock and had to do the "promise to tell the truth" thing. I was probably only involved for 5 minutes, when I was done they said I could either leave or sit at the back until the end. You have to stand up when the magistrates come in and go out but the usher will tell you when to do this.