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)Agreed. But the attempt to influence a witness is gonna be problematic.
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)Agreed. But the attempt to influence a witness is gonna be problematic.
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'."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.
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."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.
Bollocks.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 ****.