McKenzie friend/Assistant

[Rainmaker]

Hi guys,

Just a question about unrepresented parties (either side) in court proceedings, specifically small claims at County Court.

What is the current situation regarding McKenzie friends/assistants? I HAVE done some digging and McKenzie v McKenzie [1970] 3 W.L.R. 472 and R v Leicester City Justices [1991] 3 W.L.R. 368 supported the right of a defendant (or indeed claimant) to have an adviser/assistant (previously referred to as a McKenzie friend) present with them in open court.

However, Lord Woolf later and further ruled that it was a matter of discretion whether a judge allowed an assistant/McKenzie friend into open court at all. This ruling went against previously established case law, and cited a case from 1991 (no reference available, cited http://www.fnf.org.uk/times.htm ).

So, especially for OC and Atte, what is the current thinking regarding the presence of lay assistants for otherwise unrepresented parties in court?

I ask because I have been asked to act in this capacity for a relative undertaking a civil prosecution against a large organisation. Said relative is quite nervous about appearing alone in a strange place versus a smart lawyer and the defendant. He wishes for me to take notes, and proffer quiet advice/suggestions while organising and passing papers as necessary.

On this topic (and indeed partly responsible for it), I attended a County Court hearing three years ago with my then new partner who had been served with a possession order after her landlord decided he'd like to sell the property she rented with her three young children. We decided that she would be best served attending the possession hearing to request the longest time possible to vacate her house, and seek new accommodation. The district judge in that case ordered me to the back (public seating section) of the court, and even when requested (by my partner, the defendant) that I stay on as her assistant the order was upheld and she was left to face the solicitor and judge alone, clueless and afraid.

So, what's the score your worships? :D Would I generally be allowed to act in the assistant capacity for this upcoming small claims hearing? Might I have to persuade the judge using, inter alia, McKenzie v McKenzie et al. to allow my presence (without recourse to wasting court time or winding the judge up!)?

Thanks in advance guys,

Lee

[VinnyP!]

Hi,
I am sure OC and Atte will be along soon but this was discussed here (http://www.5ive-o.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12348) with some useful advice from OC.

Good luck with the case.

[Rainmaker]

Hi Vinny,

I thought I'd read something here a while back - a search turned up nothing (that I could find anyway) however. Sorry.

Still the question of whether a Claimant or Defendant is allowed an assistant stands. Although the Collier v Hicks 1831 is 'the' case (and doesn't precedence of case law go by age?), I've read as above that Lord Woolf unearthed a case from 1991 and thus ruled against the legal right to an assistant in court.

I would have thought that the 1831 case would have had precedence, but apparently not?!

Cheers.

[Kris]

Rainmakier, frommy expereinece of this it's been very much up to the individual court and judge concerned whether they are prepared to let you act as a litigation frioend or not. I've had several small claims court cases where I have been allowed to assist a client in theis way and, even spak for them, but also had a fair few where I have been told in no uncertain terms to sit down, shut up and not say a word. aving said that it's beena few years since I have done this (it was after 1991 though) so things may have changed.

Mels mum is probabaly a lot more up to date on this than me so fingers crossed she 'll see the thread offer her advice.

For legal precedence though it is the most recent case by the highest court that sets the precedence not the oldest case.

[oldcodger]

As I posted in the thread referred to by VinnyP there is a lot of misinformation around.

I have lost count of the number of motoring cases where someone says that they are a McKenzie friend and will be conducting the case for the defendant. To which the response is - no you aren't and no you won't.

The whole business of having a friend to assist predates McKenzie by over a hundred years and allows the friend to ASSIST you.

In theory its not necessary to ask permision to have the assistance of a friend. Sadly the field has been spoiled by those who have taken very poor advice - see my comments in the thread VinnyP referred to. So it is a good idea to tell the Judge that you are nervous and worried that you may miss something, and it is your intention to have your friend beside you who will make notes and may on occasion draw your attention to something.

[Jollygood]

....where someone says that they are a McKenzie friend and will be conducting the case for the defendant. To which the response is - no you aren't and no you won't.

OC, don't beat around the bush..just come out with it and say what you mean. :D:roflmao:

[oldcodger]

I always say it nicely so as not to upset anybody. :)

[Rainmaker]

Thanks for the input, guys; and again sorry I missed that older thread :)

[firefly]

Hi,
I am sure OC and Atte will be along soon but this was discussed here (http://www.5ive-o.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12348) with some useful advice from OC.

Good luck with the case.
<sniffs> ...and I didn't even get a mention, despite all that useful info..:(

[atte]

Oh Don't worry your mentioned a lot.