tinyurl.com/6b7ayxv
Thought Rattle would have posted this - saw it on the front page when down in Manchester yesterday.
Speeding drivers jailed after they returned a NIP giving a false name and address for a driver.
|
|
People don't seem to grasp how seriously the courts view perjury. To risk jail for three points and sixty quid is madness.
|
Growth industry in this city, Bob....Motoring scams.
Might even be a family business....big family !
Ted
|
Been very busy so not been checking the news. This scam is just typical these days. My late grandad got caught up in one of the crash for cash scams a few years back.
It is one reason car insurance is so high in Manchester because of these criminals.
|
It never ceased to amaze me how many people without an MOT, would panic when given a producer, then get a dodgy one 'down the pub'.
They'd go from an exceptionally minor offence that has no penalty points on a licence and a minimal fine, if that (often only a letter of caution and no prosecution)..to either:
1, Handling Stolen Goods (if a stolen one)...or
2, Uttering a Forged Instrument (if a forged one)
both of which are criminal offences and end up with a criminal record.
Madness.
|
Another example of cautions inappropriately used for serious offences?
"Judge Taaffe criticised police for not bringing 116 motorists who had dodged fines to court and instead handing out cautions.
He said: "How anyone can be cautioned for an offence that's akin to perverting the course of justice is frankly beyond me."
|
It depends on how seriously you view speeding convictions, but more importatnly how you think the judiciary and law makers can justify prosecution by technology, and the abuse of your basic human right to silence when accused.
Modern day speeding covictions are akin to the laws and customs in convicting witches.
As far as Perjury goes, its happens daily, every case in every court, and not just by the defence or the accused. Every defendent who pleads not guilty to a case and is found guilty, has by definition, perjured themselves.
|
Every defendent who pleads not guilty to a>> case and is found guilty, has by definition, perjured themselves.
>>
No.
A plea of not guilty is legalese for saying "Let the evidence be heard".
|
No its not, its saying "I didn't do it"
Lets look at the other side. If you are found not guilty, all the witnesses for the prosecution should then be brought up for perjury.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 8 Apr 11 at 15:27
|
Or "What I admit I did does not constitute the offence with which I am charged," or "I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to prove my guilt, and I am therefore exercising my right not to incriminate myself." Both essential options in a system that wants to offer a fair trial. And in any case, the defendant is not under oath when the plea is entered.
I agree, though, that in the kind of case that hinges on, say, a defence of "I wasn't there," which is subsequently proved to be a lie, it seems odd that perjury is not added to the charge sheet. In many cases, perjury carries a greater penalty than the original offence. Perhaps it's a legal concept of hierarchy of offences similar to the one that means a murderer is not also convicted of attempted murder.
|
I've sat through cases in which the defendant says he cannot remember precisely what happened.
In dangerous or death by dangerous driving cases, it is known as an automaton defence.
The barrister will not advise his client to plead guilty in those circumstances.
Hence as Duncan says (above) it's: "Let the evidence be heard."
|
Clearly your defence varies, its pointless saying "it wasnt me" or "I wasnt there" in some cases, but then thats what lying is all about. A lie needs some degree of truth to make it believable.
Coming back to speed cameras the "it wasnt me" defence is morally valid, and the legal requirement to grass someone else up if it wasnt is equally not "morally valid"
If you can prove* it wasnt you, the case should fail for lack of evidence.
*Ok your evidence might be lies but if the prosecution cant discredit it it falls from "perjury" to "truth"
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 8 Apr 11 at 15:57
|
Completely disproportionate to the offence committed.
I understand that the rule of law needs to be upheld and that perjury and/or perverting the course of justice undermines that, and so therefore has to be taken seriously.
However, the lie told has to be put into context. Nobody lied to questions from a police officer or lied to the court, and certainly not in relation to a serious offence, they just gave false information on a speeding ticket.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, pretty much all criminal trials involve some lying.
So, you can burgle dozens of people or smash some defenceless woman's face in for fun, and then lie to the police and lie to courts, and be caught out lying, and get a suspended sentence.
But if you lie on a speeding ticket you get 6 months inside.
The cautions handed out by the police seem to be perfectly proportionate, the prison sentences are ridiculous.
|
|
Speeding is not a serious offence? Perhaps not until someone is injured. But this was a very deliberate attempt to avoid the consequences of speeding. And as it was a court matter, it was lying to the court. The cautions are risible.
|
>> Speeding is not a serious offence? Perhaps not until someone is injured. But this was
>> a very deliberate attempt to avoid the consequences of speeding. And as it was a
>> court matter, it was lying to the court. The cautions are risible.
Of course it's not a serious offence, which is why it is typically punished with 3 points and a £60 fine.
Lying about burgling a house or beating a woman up in the street is equally a very deliberate attempt to avoid the consequences, and yet you can easily walk away from that with a suspended sentence.
The effects on the people involved and their families is completely disproportionate to the offence of lying on a speeding ticket response.
|
|
There are a range of punishments so it clearly can be serious. Too dogmatic to say it cannot be serious. As to the offence of perjury, it stands alone. They and others who have lied on oath or given false statements sometimes get what they deserve.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Sat 9 Apr 11 at 09:50
|
Whatever you may feel about the jailing of the fellow in question, the fact that this guy retained his liberty is an absolute disgrace. I would have given him five years at least -
www.bdpost.co.uk/news/barking_driving_examiner_guilty_of_bribery_escapes_jail_sentence_1_859482
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Sat 9 Apr 11 at 11:09
|
>> There are a range of punishments so it clearly can be serious. Too dogmatic to
>> say it cannot be serious.
I didn't say it cannot be serious. I said that in this case no serious offence had been committed. It is you who suggested that speeding is always a serious offence.
Had anyone involved in the case been looking at a driving ban, or had they all been looking at 3 points and a £60 fine?
>> As to the offence of perjury, it stands alone.
It stands alone from the issue of speeding as a separate charge, but it is not unaffected by the context of the lie told. In this case it is a response on a speeding ticket, not lying to the police or the courts when directly questioned, and not in response to a serious offence.
Anyway, you are missing the point. You can commit a much more serious offence, and be court lying to the police and the courts, and still not get 6 months in prison.
My point is that it is completely disproportionate to the offence committed.
|
|
Perjury attracts prison because it undermines the justice system. Whether the speeding was "seriuos" or not, and we have no facts available, is another matter. Clearly very purposeful attempts to avoid punishment by lying attracts the power of the court. The judge made the point in the trial. This is not new. "The drivers – family men and dads – arranged to have prosecution paperwork requesting the name of the person behind the wheel at the time of an offence sent to bogus motorists at false addresses." "Jailing him for six months, District Judge Taaffe told him: "The message has to be sent out loud and clear that attempts to circumnavigate the law will not be tolerated." Too many people push their luck: the consequences are theirs.
|
>> Perjury attracts prison because it undermines the justice system. Whether the speeding was "seriuos" or
>> not, and we have no facts available, is another matter. Clearly very purposeful attempts to
>> avoid punishment by lying attracts the power of the court.
I don't know if you read my original post properly or not, but I say
"I understand that the rule of law needs to be upheld and that perjury and/or perverting the course of justice undermines that, and so therefore has to be taken seriously."
so, yes, I get it.
The point is that there are different levels of lying to the authorities, not just a blanket "you lied, so you go to prison".
If it is a blanket "you lie, so you go to prison", then a burglar who is caught lying to the courts should automatically have a 6 months in prison added to their sentence.
I never said that a criminal offence hadn't been committed, I said the the sentencing wasn't proportional to the details of the offence.
As I said at the start, completely disproportionate to the offence committed.
|
>>
>>
>> As I said at the start, completely disproportionate to the offence committed.
>>
Maybe, maybe not.
But every adult knows what the law regards as perjury and what the almost certain outcome is.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
|
>> But every adult knows what the law regards as perjury and what the almost certain
>> outcome is.
>>
>> If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Yeah, that's a very catchy phrase, but it doesn't help to determine whether a punishment is proportional, does it?
You could say the same to a shoplifter, who nicks a loaf of bread and then gets the full 7 years, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" - doesn't make it proportional.
And the outcome isn't certain, is it? Again, how can somebody who burgles or assaults somebody, and then blatantly lies to the court, under oath, get away with a suspended sentence, and yet somebody that lies on a speeding ticket gets 6 months.
I'd be surprised if people don't see a big discrepancy there.
|
>> As I said at the start, completely disproportionate to the offence committed.
Yeah but the current somewhat dodgy (1) methods of enforcing speed limits require that lying be punished in order to prop them up.
(1) For example, if you truly do not know who was driving at the time of the offence, you will be prosecuted, and the only way to avoid that is to potentially and knowingly lie by choosing a person.
|
>> (1) For example, if you truly do not know who was driving at the time
>> of the offence, you will be prosecuted, and the only way to avoid that is
>> to potentially and knowingly lie by choosing a person.
The chances of that being the case, I would think is extremely low.
If it was a case of being one of 2 people, then surely you would come to an agreement to the most likely (or the person with the least to lose) to take the hit?
|
NortonES2 said:
>> Perjury attracts prison because it undermines the justice system.
I guess that is the point. Were the punishment minor, then we would almost all lie to get off some charge. And lying would destroy the enforcement of speed limits via tickets were it to spread.
But it can seem a bit odd that someone lies to get off a possibly minor speeding charge, and gets prison, whereas right scrotes who have done something really bad will get a suspended sentence.
|
>> NortonES2 said:
>>
>> >> Perjury attracts prison because it undermines the justice system.
>>
>> I guess that is the point. Were the punishment minor, then we would almost all
>> lie to get off some charge. And lying would destroy the enforcement of speed limits
>> via tickets were it to spread.
I very much doubt if the people who got police cautions will be doing it again, and just publishing the fact that the cautions had been handed out, who be a wider deterrent.
I could even understand going as far as giving people a proper conviction and criminal record, maybe even with a suspended sentence, to hammer home the integrity of the courts, but putting people in prison for this is ludicrous, when scumbags get suspended sentences for much worse initial crimes and much more blatant lying to the courts.
|
...I very much doubt if the people who got police cautions will be doing it again...
The problem is the caution is arguably a lesser punishment than the speeding conviction.
It is likely some of these nip scammers were looking at a ban under totting up, so they have royally 'got away with it'.
Unless they were prosecuted for speeding as well, but I have the impression they were not.
It says in the report the cautioned motorists dodged their fines:
"Judge Taaffe criticised police for not bringing 116 motorists who had dodged fines to court and instead handing out cautions."
Last edited by: Iffy on Sun 10 Apr 11 at 10:19
|
There IS something strange with our system.
Forget the speeding element, that is a red herring. If someone threw some litter, then they commit a minor offence. If however the tell a pack of lies and write on an official form and/or submit that information to a court (to avoid a summons) then they could easily commit the very serious offence of Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice and that would come from a minor offence.
The courts come down hard on it, as lying to the court is seen as breaching the bedrock of our legal system....so far so good.
However. Day in day out courts listen to evidence in a trial where there isn't a slight difference of opinion, a witness hasn't made an honest and simple mistake or someone has presumed what they've seen/heard is something else...there is eveidence given that is 100% at the opposite pole...in which case someone is lying.
Zero is quite correct. Sod all is done about that, there's a collective head in sand approach, it's almost as if the system we have allows you to tell a pack of lies in an attempt to 'get off'. Imagine being the one giving evidence from the other side, who has given the 'oath' and meant every word of it, yet is being cross examined by someone who is intelligent, well educated, has done many years at law school to get that far, probably doesn't believe his/her client anyway, but goes with the flow because 'that's the system'. For some reason (money?) it is very rare for a defence solicitor/barrister to decline to represent their client in those circumstances i.e. they believe they're as guilty as sin (with some reason) and it would professionally embarrass them to represent them in any other capacity than under a Guilty plea.
Indeed there are some outfits that will tell you what you need to say, rather than listen to your story, then advise legally.
Then there's the folk who when giving the 'oath' will pretend they are not religious and will 'affirm' rather than swear on their holy book...so that when they lie, they are not actually breaching their oath to their God or equivalent. Everyone in that system knows very well it goes on..there's a polite cough and the head is back in the sand again.
Double standards are everywhere.
However it still isn't right to tell a pack of lies to get off speeding.
|
>>Then there's the folk who when giving the 'oath' will pretend they are not religious and will 'affirm' rather than swear on their holy book...so that when they lie, they are not actually breaching their oath to their God or equivalent.
That seems a particularly pointless evasion. If you're going to lie, just lie. I imagine it is far more common for liars to take the oath than not.
Though I count myself atheist, I was brought up with Quakerism - Quakers affirm, on the basis that the 'oath' is not necessary for someone who is truthful in the first place, and pointless for someone who isn't! Why a court should assume that someone is truthful because they promise to be is beyond me too.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 9 Apr 11 at 21:20
|
Jurors also take the oath, or affirm, or speak over whatever other religious book the court happens to have to hand.
In my experience, coppers are suspicious of anyone who affirms.
"There's always one teacher/social worker on a jury," is a typical remark.
Actually, there's something in that.
Some of those who affirm do have a bit of the 'beard and tweed jacket with patched arms' about them.
And that's just the women.
|
>> Jurors also take the oath, or affirm, or speak over whatever other religious book the
>> court happens to have to hand.
>>
>> In my experience, coppers are suspicious of anyone who affirms.
Why? It would seem that they are more likely to be non-religious and therefore have stronger critical reasoning skills and be less likely to believe any old fairytale.
|
...Why? It would seem that they are more likely to be non-religious and therefore have stronger critical reasoning skills and be less likely to believe any old fairytale...
Hardly.
Those who take the oath are unlikely to be religious zealots, it's just the simplest thing to do in what is for most people an unfamiliar and slightly stressful situation.
I have friends who are neither anti nor pro organised religion who have taken the oath when called for jury service.
I might fall into the same category myself.
The point about the affirmers is they can come over a bit 'full on'.
Same as jurors who ask questions - very tiresome.
What the court staff - and judge - would like to tell them is: "You are not here for that, you are here only to reach a verdict.
"We don't care what it is, just reach one, and make it sooner rather than later."
|
>> Same as jurors who ask questions - very tiresome.
>>
>> What the court staff - and judge - would like to tell them is: "You
>> are not here for that, you are here only to reach a verdict.
>> "We don't care what it is, just reach one, and make it sooner rather than
>> later."
Those court staff, and judges, should probably find a different career.
Jurors are supposed to reach the best decision they can, and if that includes asking questions to clarify their understanding, than that is what they should be doing.
Depressing, but no surprising, to find that many people who work in the legal system are just as lazy, unmotivated and arrogant as those that work elsewhere.
Oh, and if the jurors can't stand up for their convictions when it comes to their beliefs, they probably won't stand up for them in the jury room either.
Turn up, take the oath, don't ask questions, go along with what everybody else says, go home early...jeez, don't pick trial by jury :)
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sun 10 Apr 11 at 11:00
|
...Depressing, but no surprising, to find that many people who work in the legal system are just as lazy, unmotivated and arrogant as those that work elsewhere...
Bit harsh.
The attitude also indicates a detachment which is vitally important when dealing with jurors.
As in: "You are here to reach a verdict, we want to know what that verdict is, but we don't want to know how you reached it."
It is taken as read each juror takes a responsible attitude to his or her role.
|
>> The attitude also indicates a detachment which is vitally important when dealing with jurors.
>>
>> As in: "You are here to reach a verdict, we want to know what that
>> verdict is, but we don't want to know how you reached it."
>>
>> It is taken as read each juror takes a responsible attitude to his or her
>> role.
Yes, and as long as the jurors aren't put under pressure to not do what they feel they need to (including asking questions), that's fine.
Having done jury service myself a couple of times, my impressions are that most jurors don't have a very good attitude and just want to get their 2 weeks over and done with, and that there are a handful that take a more active role, and they strongly influence the deliberations and probably the outcome too.
|
We should bin the simple jury system IMO..and swap it for a form of professional jury system.
Some jurors will be a Not Guilty vote from the time they opened their letter advising them of their obligation, they cannot bring themselves to do otherwise because of their anti establishment views or their upbringing mixing with criminal behaviour.
Some will no doubt look at someone's dress, demeanour, skin colour etc...and make a sweeping generalisation.
How many jurors in complicated fraud trials and similar have no idea of what is going on?
How many amateur Miss Marples or Columbos have it all worked out on their own terms, regardless of what a barrister has stated in court? They must be right, that's what happens on t.v.
How many studiously listen to the facts presented and then make an educated decision? Or does the loudest and most opinionated in the room take over, assisted by the lethargy of the ones who just want to get home soon?
|
>> swap it for a form of professional jury system.
... preferably not soon to be joined by a professional witness system like the one that used to thrive in Trinidad. The freelance witnesses used to tout for business outside the court building.
:o}
|
It is to be hoped the various extremes of jurors as outlined by Westpig cancel each other out in any given panel.
It's bound to happen to a degree, Mr Anti-Establishment Criminal juror's not guilty vote is balanced by Mr Daily Mail's guilty and hang 'em vote.
I've sat through dozens of criminal trials over the years and never once have I seen what I thought was a not guilty defendant convicted.
There's something in the saying: "He's bound to be guilty of something, otherwise he wouldn't be here", although he might not be guilty of exactly what he's charged with.
I've seen many guilty people acquitted.
This usually happens because the system is biased heavily in the defendant's favour, and because defending counsel tend to be more skilled and better prepared than prosecutors.
So the guilty person is made to look not guilty, and if the jury is doing its job properly, it must acquit.
Outright perverse jury verdicts do happen, but in my experience they are rare.
Last edited by: Iffy on Sun 10 Apr 11 at 14:55
|
|
.
Last edited by: Iffy on Sun 10 Apr 11 at 14:55
|
>> We should bin the simple jury system IMO..and swap it for a form of professional
>> jury system.
Dangerous ground, who gives whom the jobs, and politicians will Not be able to keep their meddling light fingers out of it.
|
Fines appear to be a waste of time
"Each year Magistrates’ Courts impose over one million fines, with a
value of £350 million.
Fines are due immediately after the defendant is found guilty but
there is no incentive to pay immediately. Only one out of twenty
offenders pays the fine on the day of the hearing
1. Only 50 per cent of fines are paid within six months
2.In 2004-05 £75 million of fines were cancelled. The cost of court hearings
to cancel fines was about £6.8 million and the cost of initially enforcing
cases which were ultimately cancelled was just under £21 million
3.One reason for cancelling fines is that courts do not have the necessary
information on offenders’ means to pay at the time the fines are fixed.
Reducing the number of legally cancelled fines cases by 25 per cent
would save £6.9 million annually. Prompter payment of fines would yield
a further annual saving of just under £1 million.
The use of the standardised “Statement of Means” (MC 100) forms
varied from 5 per cent in some areas to 67 per cent in others
4.Filling in forms can be a challenge – only 1 in 5 working age adults has
literacy and numeracy skills at levels equivalent to a good pass at GCSE5."
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Mon 11 Apr 11 at 15:50
|
There is only one thing a crook fears...and that is prison*.
Anything else and I mean anything...is a let off.
To the rest of us, a conviction and any form of punishment e.g. fine/community order/ suspended sentence etc...we'd be mortified. If you have no morals and couldn't give a wotsit for anyone else, then why would the fine etc worry you?
When you sit in management meetings that try to combat crime, there's a marked decrease when the main players are locked away...and it rises again when they're out. That is an absolute fact.
I wish our politicians would either accept they are talking out of their hats and build more prisons..or..be honest and tell us they are willing to accept more crime, because they feel we can't afford more prisons. Giving a previously convicted thief a community sentence is akin to urinating into the wind.
But try riding a m/c up a dual carriageway at a high speed. If the speed were high enough you could end up in clink. Crazy, crazy system.
* and even that's a doddle nowadays. I understand there's more spent on their daily meals than there is in the average hospital. Nice.
|
PP wrote
>> Fines appear to be a waste of time.....
That looks like a quote PP. Do you have a source?
|
Speeding drivers jailed for NIP scam - Robin O'Reliant
