Sutil will stand trial in a German court later this month

I'm going to jump in here...most of this thread baffles me TBH. Actually some of it is hilarious and some of it potentially libellous. "I read a source" - of course you did...

But as, i'm guessing, the only qualified lawyer commenting I will say the term "witness" does not necessarily mean that Lewis Hamilton saw or 'witnessed' anything of the assault as has been mentioned.

In legal parlance it means he was named by someone as being in the building where the assault took place at the time it happened, who could offer information about the events of the evening. That someone could have been Lux, or Sutil or the cloakroom assistant for all we know. 'Events' could cover who he saw in the same building, how much he saw people drinking etc.

Lewis Hamilton was asked if he could appear, he stated he could not and offered a written statement. All perfectly normal and happens every day in cases far more serious than this. He was never legally obliged or obligated to go to court.

What is slightly odd in this case is that it seems the entire judgement is based on the CCTV footage. That may well show the assalt, what it won't reveal is what is said. If Lewis Hamilton didn't actually hear the conversation, or only parts of it (is there a record for example of what language it was in??) then there's little point in him being asked to repeat what his written statement says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firstgear

Actually (and I'm not trying to be a pain here) I was thinking the exact opposite. If the video shows that he saw something (facing Sutil/Lux at the time, not having his back turned or speaking to someone else) wouldn't he be called as an eye-witnees, instead of just a witness?

---

Fair enough . Could be .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I am evil Homer

I'm going to jump in here...most of this thread baffles me TBH. Actually some of it is hilarious and some of it potentially libellous. "I read a source" - of course you did...

But as, i'm guessing, the only qualified lawyer commenting I will say the term "witness" does not necessarily mean that Lewis Hamilton saw or 'witnessed' anything of the assault as has been mentioned.

In legal parlance it means he was named by someone as being in the building where the assault took place at the time it happened, who could offer information about the events of the evening. That someone could have been Lux, or Sutil or the cloakroom assistant for all we know. 'Events' could cover who he saw in the same building, how much he saw people drinking etc.

Lewis Hamilton was asked if he could appear, he stated he could not and offered a written statement. All perfectly normal and happens every day in cases far more serious than this. He was never legally obliged or obligated to go to court.

What is slightly odd in this case is that it seems the entire judgement is based on the CCTV footage. That may well show the assalt, what it won't reveal is what is said. If Lewis Hamilton didn't actually hear the conversation, or only parts of it (is there a record for example of what language it was in??) then there's little point in him being asked to repeat what his written statement says.

---

Earlier in the thread , I quoted a court spokesperson as saying that a written statement was inadmissable .

He was formally asked to appear .
This is why it was necessary to formally ask to be excused .

Since you are a lawyer , can you enlighten us on what the consequences might be for Lewis if he was , in fact , a witness to this incident ?
If it is found that the evidence he might have given at the trial was key , and could have changed the outcome , and/or the sentence , could he be possibly be found to have interfered with the outcome ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

No idea - none of us was there, and there is insufficient information in the public domain to be able to draw any form of reliable confusion.

---

If I've learnt anything from 13 pages of this thread, it's that the only reliable thing here is confusion...
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

We also have the claim from Hamilton's lawyer that they contacted the court and offered a statement as they were not contacted in writing prior to reading articles in the media. Maybe they were written to shortly before the start of the trial which is why at late notice they were unable to attend?

---

That is entirely possible , but it doesn't seem to fit with the comments from Sutil's manager .

He seems to think that the combination of the testimony and the CCTV footage should put a whole different light on it .
Does that not fit with the idea of Hamilton's attendance being crucial to begin with , in the trial ?
Does it not fit with why the Sutils are angry he didn't show ?

I guess it would be possible that there was no formal request by the court until the last minute if the attendance was assumed .
A call for last minute confirmation from the Sutil lawyer might have prompted the official request at the last minute , if Lewis declined to show at that point .

The part that doesn't seem to fit is that Lewis was actually excused for the trial , yet Zimmerman seems to place a lot of weight on his testimony being necessary for the judge to understand and correct the judgement and sentence .

Perhaps the testimony was downplayed as a late add to the list ?
Doesn't seem plausable that any given lawyer wouldn't be able to argue against exclusion for a key witness for that reason alone .

Doesn't that point to the inclusion of the "didn't see anything" from Lewis , being the real reason , rather than just work ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I'm not a legal person but I hope it is common practise for a court to 'write' to a person if they expect them to attend a trial for the purpose of being a witness. Assuming they will attend is unprofessional and sloppy IMO but then again the German legal system may be very different for the British one with regards to how trials are handled. Requesting someone in writing should be the first thing that is carried out once a date has been set for a trial and it seems the court or Sutil's lawyer did not do this in good time if you believe Hamilton's legal team. Relying on the media to publish stories to inform potential witnesses of their requirements should not be an option.

---

Assuming incompetence on the part of Sutil's lawyers should be tempered with the likelyhood that his team would likely be pretty "high end" as well .
Some articles I have read have mentioned figures in the "tens of millions" , referring to what was offered to Lux as settlement before the trial .

While paying a load of money for a lawyer does not absolutely guarantee a perfect one , it perhaps makes it a little less likely it is so cut and dried as to suggest "sloppy and unprofessional" as a likelyhood .

It does seem a bit strange that it apparently came late , but more strange is how he was excused , given his seeming importance now .



On a parallel note , given that they knew full well the trial date , and the potential for thier driver to be called as a witness , why did his team schedule the launch when they did ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Earlier in the thread , I quoted a court spokesperson as saying that a written statement was inadmissable .

He was formally asked to appear .
This is why it was necessary to formally ask to be excused .

Since you are a lawyer , can you enlighten us on what the consequences might be for Lewis if he was , in fact , a witness to this incident ?
If it is found that the evidence he might have given at the trial was key , and could have changed the outcome , and/or the sentence , could he be possibly be found to have interfered with the outcome ?

---

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. :D

Here in the US if you were not summoned or subpeona'd by the court then you have no legal obligation to show up, regardless of the information you have available to you. If a court does issue a subpeona it is delivered usually in person by a clerk of the court, most often through the local sheriffs department. Depending on the type of subpeona you are required to furnish a written statement or appear in person in court.

Once again, here in the US failure to comply will result in charges against the person in most cases. In my opinion if Lewis had done anything against the courts will they would not be requesting he attend, they would be demanding he attend.

If it was found he gave false information or intentionally misleading information in a written statement or when talking to an officer of the court, that would be another issue and might result in other charges.

My personal opinion is that Lewis has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the court, but the court thinks that he might have information pertianing to who was the one (between Lux and Sutil) being aggressive and starting the altercation. There is a huge difference in legal terms between intentional and unprovoked assualt and accidentally cutting someone due to trying to block a punch while holding a glass. They could also be asking Lewis general questions about the evening before the event took place, to see if either of the people involved made misleading statements which might bring their integrity into question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

He was formally asked to appear .

---

Sorry, confused here. Are you suggesting he WAS subpoena'd, or asked to perhaps be a character witness for Sutil? If no subpoena, then he is not REQUIRED to attend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

This is why it was necessary to formally ask to be excused .

---

I don't think it was a formal request to be excused, it was more courtesy to say that he was unavailable on the hearing dates. Had he been subpoena'd, he'd HAVE to attend, or be in contempt.

As he was not held in contempt, we can rule that chestnut out, can't we.

We've even had the benefit of a qualified lawyer telling us how it works, but still you appear to know better.

Talk about a budding Vincent Laguardia Gambini......

“Through his lawyer, Mr Hamilton has given a sufficient reason to the judge,” a court spokeswoman is quoted by the Kolner Express newspaper. “The judge has excused him for Monday.”


Whether it was a subpeona , a summons , or some other tool which is supplied to the German authorities , I cannot say , but this seems rather obvious he was asked in some way , and that "sufficient reason" was required to get out of appearing .



He wasn't charged with contempt , because he was excused .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

He wasn't charged with contempt , because he was excused .

---

There is no issue here as has already been explained:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I am evil Homer

Lewis Hamilton was asked if he could appear, he stated he could not and offered a written statement. All perfectly normal and happens every day in cases far more serious than this. He was never legally obliged or obligated to go to court.

---

I fail to see any reason to even raise the issue of being "charged with contempt" :dozey: