Guilty until proven innocent?

As I mentioned to someone previously, I have given all the information I possibly can to prove that I was not there. The police appear to have ignored this and are basing the case entirely on hearsay from "witnesses" who have given false statements. Obviously the police don't realise they're false but had they actually read them, they might notice that they don't make sense. And, if they bothered asking someone who wasn't known to those "witnesses", they'd realise that no one else is aware of any incident. I don't understand why it's been taken up in the first place.

I do not understand this case at all Pumpkin. If I understand correctly you are charged with leaving the scene of an accident that you allegedly caused. Your assertion is that you weren't there at that time. The Police must produce evidence as to why they think that you were there. They will produce witness statements to the effect that you were seen. You will have to demonstrate evidence that a. you were somewhere else and b. so was your car. The Police may well only produce the witness report that best serves their case. If so you might ask if they received any other witness reports. Have you seen these reports? When were they collected and do they corroborate the prosecutions assertions about you. Also, whilst you cannot afford a lawyer have you consulted the Citizens Advice Bureau in Atherstone who appear to be the closest one to you that can provide legal advice. I know that you don't rate the CAB, but in the absence of anything else they may be your best help. Finally, just how much would a lawyer cost. If you win then his fee might well be recovered from the other side. Have you tried phoning one and asking? They may well give you some free advice over the phone anyway.

Thank you for the BR. Your's was a most peculiar case and I am sorry that it ended in a bad judgement for you.

I think you're right there. The court were surprised when I pleaded not guilty because they hadn't had any information regarding the case before asking me to attend. Even though it was clearly stated to them that there was no evidence, I was still asked to go back because I didn't know why their "witness" had picked me out. That's the basis of their case.

That's easier said than done. As I'm not entitled to Legal Aid, I can't afford a lawyer at all, let alone a good one! I think if I had one, the case would have been thrown out. I'm suspicious as to whether they think they can get away with this because they know I don't have a lawyer. As I just said to "Lambs" I have, as far as I'm concerned, given all I can possibly give to prove that I couldn't have been where this was meant to have happened.

As I said to someone earlier, there is no way I can afford a lawyer. I don't know if this might go against me as obviously a lawyer knows more about the laws than I do. However, my family and I have been doing a lot of research and have reached the conclusion that the case shouldn't have gone to court in the first place according to law (and common sense!) and that it's now a case of harassment by the police, etc. all because they didn't check any facts in the first place. I still don't understand why they never so much as checked the times I would have been where I said I was.