...the sole reason that he doesn't want to have a soliciter is that he can't afford to...
This case has a direct impact on his livelihood and he's hard up, so he ought to qualify for legal aid.
....But still, what he did wasn't for gain...
Pure conjecture on your part, so of next-to-no value to the proceedings.
He can say that on his own behalf, in which case it becomes of value to the proceedings, but he risks being cross-examined about it.
The solicitor, using his rights of audience, can say in mitigation: "Mr Driver instructs me that he made no gain from this transgression, which in itself was inadvertent."
The bench will either accept what they or told, or ask the solicitor to expand upon it.
I can see what Pat is trying to do, but like it or not, the court doesn't really have a mechanism which allows her to do it.
Last edited by: ifithelps on Tue 18 May 10 at 18:33
|
