A speeding driver has to pay £11,000 for challenging his ticket
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-32733002
|
|
Doubt he's short of a bob or two.
|
>> Doubt he's short of a bob or two.
never mind, he's a bit shorter than he was.
|
Serves him right. Who did he think was going to pay?
Presumably the Prosecution would have been stuck with the bill if he had been proved to be correct.
|
There's two things that come out of this, one is the thought that three is a bit more to the case as I would have thought the camera maker would have properly tested the product before selling it.
The other one, which I don't like at all is the fact the miscreant was stuck with a very big bill leading to the suggestion that few traffic cases will be brought in that area as the penalty for not winning is now huge.
I'm struggling to think the car test even added £1500 to the bill, let alone more.
|
>>I'm struggling to think the car test even added £1500 to the bill,
I expect the comment "rented an airfield" might be a clue as to that.
|
If the airfield was solely rented perhaps, but 25 years ago, I organised a 'test day' on a race track - and a whole day's exclusive hire cost in the region of £200. You'd be pushing it to spend an hour testing a speed gun though.
What I have heard said elsewhere though amounts to an area that is prepared to prosecute and get a guilty verdict, regardless of cost.
|
>> The other one, which I don't like at all is the fact the miscreant was
>> stuck with a very big bill leading to the suggestion that few traffic cases will
>> be brought in that area as the penalty for not winning is now huge.
Its fine by me, he was taking the pish.
|
>> Its fine by me, he was taking the pish.
Very harsh and humourless, he was just trying his luck. I didn't see any suggestion in the report that he was driving dangerously. You're a hard man Zero.
Those Audi R8s go very well and make a nice noise too.
|
>> The other one, which I don't like at all is the fact the miscreant was
>> stuck with a very big bill leading to the suggestion that few traffic cases will
>> be brought in that area as the penalty for not winning is now huge.
This guy has wasted huge amounts of time for the police, the CPS and the court when in effect doing no more than trying to wriggle off the hook. The comment about 'can we call it 98' says it all.
It's an exceptional message for an exceptional case. An ordinary motorist with a reasonable but ultimately unsuccessful defence would pay a fraction.
|
>> This guy has wasted huge amounts of time for the police, the CPS and the court when in effect doing no more than trying to wriggle off the hook. The comment about 'can we call it 98' says it all.
I suppose that's right really. I wonder if a decent solicitor would have advised him to admit exceeding the speed limit to minimize official annoyance, and the fine? They are nice rapid motors those R8s.
At least this one did some proper speed, unlike the clumsy idiot in the white SUV who clipped the bike rider, who escaped fortunately without serious injury but could have been killed, and eventually got cornered in Friern Barnet by many fuzz cars? I imagine he had an interesting time when the BiB got their hands on him in, er, private. There was a big new cut on his forehead in the mugshot shown on TV.
|
We had a talk at work from a solicitor who specialises in transport law.
As some of you will know, the scale of fines has recently been adjusted; furthermore if one is rash enough to challenge a summons rather than just pay up, and if one is subsequently found guilty, prosecution costs are now pretty much unlimited.
Even if you get off, you can be left substantially short of funds because you can only claim a certain amount.
His advice was that it is usually a lot cheaper to pay up and take the fixed penalty, even if you know damn well you're innocent. It's all apparently driven by a need to maximise income, together with dissuading people from going to court in order to cut their workload.
|
>> It's all apparently driven
>> by a need to maximise income, together with dissuading people from going to court in
>> order to cut their workload.
It's about transferring the costs of the court system away from general taxation and onto the users. The weasel words of the Ministers concerned will be about fairness and dissuading 'unmeritorious' cases. The coalition tried it in the Employment Tribunal where the effect has been to decimate, amongst others, discrimination cases.
Bottom line is that access to justice for all of us is being eaten away.
The Human Rights Act is a powerful tool for folding government to account over exactly these sort of issues. Those who want it scrapped need to think very carefully what they wish for.
|
>> It's about transferring the costs of the court system away from general taxation and onto
>> the users. The weasel words of the Ministers concerned will be about fairness and dissuading
>> 'unmeritorious' cases. The coalition tried it in the Employment Tribunal where the effect has >> been to decimate, amongst others, discrimination cases.
>>
Is that "to decimate" as in:-
To decimate - To reduce by 10%, or
To decimate - To reduce by 90%?
Last edited by: Duncan on Sun 17 May 15 at 12:53
|
>
>>
>> Is that "to decimate" as in:-
>>
>> To decimate - To reduce by 10%, or
>>
>> To decimate - To reduce by 90%?
>>
Massively reduce. Will look up when I get home. President of the Emp Trib in Scotland was quite outspoken about it in her annual report.
|
>>
>> Bottom line is that access to justice for all of us is being eaten away.
>>
>>
I agree with you on this. Unfortunately, this is partly as a result of a lot of genuinely "unmeritorious" cases being launched in every type of court since the advent of "no win no fee" lawyers. As is always the case, the decent honest folk amongst us are the ones who are hit hardest by the cynical actions of the greedy few, both lawyers and litigants.
|
There will undoubtedly be more to this case than the apparent basic facts.
The driver might, for example, be well known to police for other things.
|
>> There will undoubtedly be more to this case than the apparent basic facts.
>>
>> The driver might, for example, be well known to police for other things.
I'm afraid that has no place in the justice system unless he has been convicted of other things. The police are not judges or juries, despite the fact the bloke is clearly an arrogant knob.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 17 May 15 at 12:13
|
>> I'm afraid that has no place in the justice system unless he has been
>> convicted of other things.
... and that's where you are wrong...again.
If there's many information reports on that car/driver, from various different police forces, then bearing in mind roads policing is somewhat sparse nowadays...then it shows a consistent pattern, one that might get you thinking 'this one needs some more attention'.
So you apply your powers more thoroughly. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact most decent people would appreciate that.
... and when I wrote 'well known to police for other things'... I also meant convictions... on the PNC (Police National Computer). So again, if someone has a long history of criminality, they'd get more attention than the average Joe.
I didn't write about criminality the first time and kept it vague deliberately, because none of this is known... in theory he could be a completely honest businessman type who thought he'd be a clever dick and got well unlucky...
... however, if I were a betting man, i'd wager 'there was more to it'.
|
however, if I were a betting man, i'd wager 'there was more to it'.
Yup, got to be the case. While there must be daftness, whose the daftness was and the background to the whole story is missing.
I knew somebody who got prosecuted for (I think) driving without due care and attention who probably could have got a not guilty verdict if he'd spent lots, but knew darn well the police had his card marked for lots of previous driving 'indiscretions' and reckoned that it was sensible to just accept this one.
|
>> >> I'm afraid that has no place
the justice system unless he has been
>>
>> >> convicted of other things.
>>
>> ... and that's where you are wrong...again.
"Again"?
>>ports on that car/driver, from various different police forces, then bearing
>> in mind roads policing is somewhat sparse nowadays...then it shows a consistent pattern, one that
>> might get you thinking 'this one needs some more attention'.
>>
>> So you apply your powers more thoroughly. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact
>> most decent people would appreciate that.
I was referring to this case, as you were. The sentence - about which this thread is about - has roger all to do with "reports" or suspicions. It has no place to play nor should it. As well you know it.
You shouldn't let your hatred of me cloud your judgment or opinions, Lord knows they are suspect enough as it is.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 17 May 15 at 15:43
|
>>ports on that car/driver, from various different police forces, then bearing
>> >> in mind roads policing is somewhat sparse nowadays...then it shows a consistent pattern, one
>> that
>> >> might get you thinking 'this one needs some more attention'.
>> >>
>> >> So you apply your powers more thoroughly. There is nothing wrong with that, in
>> fact
>> >> most decent people would appreciate that.
>>
>> I was referring to this case, as you were. The sentence - about which this
>> thread is about - has roger all to do with "reports" or suspicions. It has
>> no place to play nor should it. As well you know it.
You wrote: "I'm afraid that has no place in the justice system unless he has been convicted of other things".
The 'justice system' is the whole lot... so the cop on the street stopping someone, the case clerk filling out files, the court system...... all of it.
If you meant the convicting and sentencing bit in the court only... then you needed to be more specific.
Matey boy got himself convicted and the interesting bit was the monster costs involved ...no doubt because he tried to be clever with his expert witness..which was refuted rather strongly (and to a surprising degree) by the prosecution. That was the bit I was referring to ....not the courts actions.
>>
>> You shouldn't let your hatred of me cloud your judgment or opinions, Lord knows they
>> are suspect enough as it is.
You will have to try harder than that. I have no hatred of you. I do somewhat look down my nose at you, I'd agree that, but the rest of it is pity. If you 'suspect' my judgement or opinions, crack on.
Oh and what you posted before you edited it...99% of all men are and the 1% are liars.
>>
|
>>
>> The 'justice system' is the whole lot... so the cop on the street stopping someone,
>> the case clerk filling out files, the court system...... all of it.
>>
>> If you meant the convicting and sentencing bit in the court only... then you needed
>> to be more specific.
Sorry I forgot one has to spell everything out for you. Oh and by the way? Justice System? you need to check out what the word means, - it has nothing do with policing. If you are going to argue on semantics, at the very least get it right - you look a right idiot otherwise. Again.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 17 May 15 at 16:11
|
>> at the very
>> least get it right - you look a right idiot otherwise. Again.
>>
Yes, i'd be inclined to agree with you.
Have a look at this link:
tinyurl.com/no3qeg4
- Take a gander at 'Others in the Criminal Justice System'
- Then note the outfit sixth one down.
|
|
The outfit that has nothing to do with sentencing you mean? Now look at the title of the thread. I know we should take more care to spell things out for you in greater detail.
|
>> The outfit that has nothing to do with sentencing you mean? Now look at the
>> title of the thread. I know we should take more care to spell things out
>> for you in greater detail.
Still digging the hole then.
Your quote: "Oh and by the way? Justice System? you need to check out what the word means, - it has nothing do with policing".
Please respond to my post at 1748.
This thread has ignited discussion on the fate of a man who received monster costs.. and those costs were mounted because of the action of...wait for it...THE POLICE.
So, what a surprise, I mentioned it.
|
>
>> So, what a surprise, I mentioned it.
No-one questioned the fact of his guilt, no-one questioned the the arrest or why he was targeted, The thread is about the sentencing because he tried to plead not guilty.,
That has got nothingl to do with his previous, what the police know about his previous, it is about the sentencing. The old bill have no input in that. A point I merely pointed out, which you can not seem to accept.
Wibble away. Not interested.
|
>> Wibble away. Not interested.
>>
....and my post at 1748?
|
>> - Take a gander at 'Others in the Criminal Justice System'
>> - Then note the outfit sixth one down.
WP's link is from the website of the CPS. It includes both CPS and Police as part of the justice system.
While I can see where they're coming from I'd apply a stricter definition, one which reserves the administration and delivery of justice to the courts.
The prosecution and defence should be equally armed protagonists before those courts as should the employer and employee in front of the Employment Tribunal. Unfortunately we now have (and to some extent had in coalition) a government that wants to load the a***nal in favour of the state or the employer.
|
|
Well I'm glad I'm not a football supporter.!!! How could I discuss the Gunnners (is that right.) on here :p
|
|
And yet there is no problem supporting Scunthorpe.
|
|
Which is an issue - if I were to follow football, I'd be more of an Aresenal fan than a Scunthorpe one ;)
|
Someone near here is desperately trying to understand that before giving up and hitting the scowly button.
Scunthorpe is one of the two professional football teams I've ever paid to watch. Aresenal wasn't the other.
|
Going to Scunthorpe tomorrow to get the Sportage's first service.
Just saying like :)
|
|
There are well advertised and regular campaigns on the A55 to reduce speeds. Patrol cars still hide up the slip roads and the mobile camera vans operate from the bridges.
|
|
I removed Scunthorpe from the swear list quite few years ago.
|
>> I removed Scunthorpe from the swear list quite few years ago.
So, you hate a***nal then?
|
>>if I were to follow football, I'd be more of an Aresenal fan than a Scunthorpe one
I don't know how, and I don't know when, but one day I am going to include that line in a conversation. Although for obvious reasons I may honestly attribute it.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 17 May 15 at 23:23
|
Speeding driver ordered to pay £11,00 - Zero
