It may be, but that’s a different charge and I don’t believe OP has been charged with it (although I admit that I haven’t read the whole thread)
- Status
"An entity must not engage in legal practice in this jurisdiction, unless it is a qualified entity"
If that is the actual wording of the offence, then the charges are not only warranted, they will succeed when prosecuted. This is all about "representation".
"We act for ...", "We request ...", "We are instructed ..." - These all imply that "A" is representing "B". The fact that "A" is an individual and that "A" is the same individual as "B", is totally irrelevant. By sending letters that claim, or in any way imply, that "A" is representing "B", "A" has engaged in "legal practice" and did so whilst not being a "qualified entity".
If the above is the correct wording for the offence, then you have no chance of successfully challenging the charges or having them dropped. It's just not going to happen on it's own.
Given that there are also three counts of attempting to influence a witness and these appear to be related to the same events, your best chance is to get professional representation and see if they can organise a plea bargain to have one of the sets of charges dropped, which would obviously mean pleading guilty to the other set. This is by far your best option.
If that is the actual wording of the offence, then the charges are not only warranted, they will succeed when prosecuted. This is all about "representation".
"We act for ...", "We request ...", "We are instructed ..." - These all imply that "A" is representing "B". The fact that "A" is an individual and that "A" is the same individual as "B", is totally irrelevant. By sending letters that claim, or in any way imply, that "A" is representing "B", "A" has engaged in "legal practice" and did so whilst not being a "qualified entity".
If the above is the correct wording for the offence, then you have no chance of successfully challenging the charges or having them dropped. It's just not going to happen on it's own.
Given that there are also three counts of attempting to influence a witness and these appear to be related to the same events, your best chance is to get professional representation and see if they can organise a plea bargain to have one of the sets of charges dropped, which would obviously mean pleading guilty to the other set. This is by far your best option.
Last edited:
Scruff, you're taking an overly literal view of the law which is unsupported in current judicial thinking. The object of the legislation is to capture 'A representing B', not 'A representing A' (unless in conjunction with A holding itself out as a solicitor, for example). Poor choice of wording? Absolutely. But if it is clear that it is 'A representing A' then it is no worse than walking around referring to yourself in the third person, or perhaps using the royal 'we'.
I think it would more come down to whether a person acting reasonably would look at that letter and form the opinion that it was from a solicitor. That takes a totality of consideration - not just isolated wording.
1. You can't take an "overly literal" view of the law - that's just silly. If that was true, then all law is ambiguous and can be flushed down the toilet.
2. The objective you state is only one objective. It's not only about catching unqualified people who represent others, it's also about people claiming to be qualified when they aren't - regardless of whether or not they are representing others.
3. The Police and Prosecutor are clearly interpreting the law differently to you. They don't prosecute unless they believe that it is more likely than not the charges will succeed.
4. "But if it is clear that it is 'A representing A'" - that's the whole point - that issue is NOT clear explictly because of the use of the "royal 'we'". Furthermore, the OP has claimed here that he regularly refers to himself in the third person - and yet he hasn't done that once in this entire thread. His claim is nonsense and very easily disproven.
It should also be noted that given some statements the OP has made here, ignorance of the law is not a defence.
There is no doubt that the charges are warranted and if the prosecutor is any good at his/her job, they shouldn't have any problem prosecuting them.
2. The objective you state is only one objective. It's not only about catching unqualified people who represent others, it's also about people claiming to be qualified when they aren't - regardless of whether or not they are representing others.
3. The Police and Prosecutor are clearly interpreting the law differently to you. They don't prosecute unless they believe that it is more likely than not the charges will succeed.
4. "But if it is clear that it is 'A representing A'" - that's the whole point - that issue is NOT clear explictly because of the use of the "royal 'we'". Furthermore, the OP has claimed here that he regularly refers to himself in the third person - and yet he hasn't done that once in this entire thread. His claim is nonsense and very easily disproven.
It should also be noted that given some statements the OP has made here, ignorance of the law is not a defence.
There is no doubt that the charges are warranted and if the prosecutor is any good at his/her job, they shouldn't have any problem prosecuting them.
I think your argument is misconceived as it is inconsistent with the object of the legislation, but that’s why there are judges I guess. Docupedia’s response accurately and elegantly identifies the issues with your position, so it isn’t necessary to repeat them in another post.
Scruff, there is a thing called the Interpretation Act regarding the purpose of legislation.
Do you think the legislation is their to charge people representing themselves, or to legislate against those people making out they are a solicitor and charging fees to people?
I am not worried about this charge at all, IF the judge is fair.
Sammy01, there was no ATTEMPT to influence a witness. I am only guilty of being a dumb ****.
Do you think the legislation is their to charge people representing themselves, or to legislate against those people making out they are a solicitor and charging fees to people?
I am not worried about this charge at all, IF the judge is fair.
Sammy01, there was no ATTEMPT to influence a witness. I am only guilty of being a dumb ****.
@Scruff - You might want to do some research on 'purposive' or 'substantive' versus 'black letter' legal interpretation. Purposive is the view currently gaining favour.
This is a text that may assist: https://lr.law.qut.edu.au/article/download/376/365/376-1-736-1-10-20120927.pdf
This is a text that may assist: https://lr.law.qut.edu.au/article/download/376/365/376-1-736-1-10-20120927.pdf
Bollocks.
You were out to intimidate one or more witnesses
by threatening to sue them for defamation
if they made (or continued with) a reasonably well founded complaint to police.
I shall be very interested indeed to see the outcome of this charge.
- Status
