New courts to deal with traffic offences
Discussion
singlecoil said:
RSoovy4 said:
singlecoil said:
RSoovy4 said:
Perec said:
RSoovy4 said:
The gubberment thinks that too many people are putting up defences to these sort of offences (how DARE they) and this cannot be allowed to continue, so they're setting up "sausage factory" courts to prevent Defendants having their day in court to mount a proper defence in a proper court.
I stand to be corrected by a legal expert such as yourself, but it would be quite unusual to defend a guilty plea wouldn't it?As stated above, not guilty pleas will still be heard by the magistrates; a scenario in which defence would be more traditional.
Silver said:
Out of curiosity, is there a tendency for motorists challenging FPNs to plead guilty even if they have a genuine appeal for fear of incurring further costs should they be ruled against?
Yes of course. Moreso if they have been in front of a bench of magistrates before and realised that it's fairly difficult to extract justice without expensive representation. Magistrates presume guilt unless the defendant can demonstrate innocence and the CPS will happily spend taxpayers money on a hired gun if there appears any risk that a defendant won't be a pushover.
I would certainly just pay up unless I was quite confident that my defence was watertight.
McWigglebum4th said:
singlecoil said:
McWigglebum4th said:
Double the fines and remove the points for FPNs
Then we know where the system stands
It would keep both sides happy
Not sure if serious...Then we know where the system stands
It would keep both sides happy
Fixed penalty notice
singlecoil said:
Yes, I was pretty sure that's what the initials meant. But if there were no points then drivers who were well off enough to not worry about the fines could carry on offending with impunity.
Where i fail to see the problemThey got lots more cash
Where people drive like total dicks beyond the realms of FPNs then we can have real policing
McWigglebum4th said:
singlecoil said:
Yes, I was pretty sure that's what the initials meant. But if there were no points then drivers who were well off enough to not worry about the fines could carry on offending with impunity.
Where i fail to see the problemThey got lots more cash
Where people drive like total dicks beyond the realms of FPNs then we can have real policing
Where I live in the US, a speeding ticket is usually dealt with in court. Typically this is because it results in zero points, but at the expense of a higher fine. Most people think it is a better system - people do slow down to the point that they're getting a ticket maybe once every few years. It avoids the insurance rates going through the roof which is what most people worry about.
When the Police give out the ticket it gives the address of the court. You can pay the fine or get a court date. In some areas I have seen the options be "plead guilty" or "plead guilty with an explanation". Note there is no "I'm innocent" option. But you get a court date, the court typically puts every speeding / traffic offence ticket in one court room and it's just one case after another.
Typically what happens is the Policeman who gave the ticket finds the people he gave the ticket to and asks them to step outside. A two minute explanation of the process is often ended with "so, do you want to avoid the points?". And at that point, everybody knows that they can't avoid the points for the Policeman not being there because he is, they know the Police have all the calibration certificates and the film of the offence, so they go back in and tell the truth.
So back in court you are called, the judge asks what happened. Typically somebody might say "I was running late for a meeting, I broke the speed limit, I ap..." and before they have time to say anything else the judge asks how many tickets they've had in the past two years. Bear in mind that they have the records in front of them so they know the answer already. "None, your honour". The gavel bangs. "Impeding traffic, $145 fine, next" and they are done. A zero point ticket and the Police department gets some extra funding from somebody who will probably focus on driving within the law a little harder from then on. Surely that is the true objective in all of this.
When the Police give out the ticket it gives the address of the court. You can pay the fine or get a court date. In some areas I have seen the options be "plead guilty" or "plead guilty with an explanation". Note there is no "I'm innocent" option. But you get a court date, the court typically puts every speeding / traffic offence ticket in one court room and it's just one case after another.
Typically what happens is the Policeman who gave the ticket finds the people he gave the ticket to and asks them to step outside. A two minute explanation of the process is often ended with "so, do you want to avoid the points?". And at that point, everybody knows that they can't avoid the points for the Policeman not being there because he is, they know the Police have all the calibration certificates and the film of the offence, so they go back in and tell the truth.
So back in court you are called, the judge asks what happened. Typically somebody might say "I was running late for a meeting, I broke the speed limit, I ap..." and before they have time to say anything else the judge asks how many tickets they've had in the past two years. Bear in mind that they have the records in front of them so they know the answer already. "None, your honour". The gavel bangs. "Impeding traffic, $145 fine, next" and they are done. A zero point ticket and the Police department gets some extra funding from somebody who will probably focus on driving within the law a little harder from then on. Surely that is the true objective in all of this.
Blimey. That sounds like an unnecessarily protracted way of extracting $145 from the motorist using up a great deal of everyone's time, clogging up the Courts with administration and taking Police (literally) off the streets for extended periods over what you seem to be saying is a black and white clear cut matter.
I can't believe people think it is such a good system because of the way it takes up their time and takes Officers off patrol. From your post it sounds like they like it because the fine is small (for most citizens), doesn't involve any penalty points on their licences and (perhaps most importantly) doesn't affect their insurance premiums. The actual process itself sounds just as inefficient as many others.
I can't believe people think it is such a good system because of the way it takes up their time and takes Officers off patrol. From your post it sounds like they like it because the fine is small (for most citizens), doesn't involve any penalty points on their licences and (perhaps most importantly) doesn't affect their insurance premiums. The actual process itself sounds just as inefficient as many others.
OllieC said:
just suggests to me that traffic offences are often not a 'real' crime
What do you mean? Going to work and driving a car, earning money and helping the economy is the kind of undesirable behavior we must eliminate. Much better if everyone was on benefits or in some public sector non job.This is the kind of rubbish that really boils my piss. The country has gone to hell, the economy is being bogged down by the lead balloon thats the EU, the kids go uneducated, the NHS is a failure, but hey wait up. The idiots in charge have re-organized the way we pick on those that provide. We live in a car based economy, so we have an anti car gummint. Its time the motorist bit back.
scenario8 said:
Blimey. That sounds like an unnecessarily protracted way of extracting $145 from the motorist using up a great deal of everyone's time, clogging up the Courts with administration and taking Police (literally) off the streets for extended periods over what you seem to be saying is a black and white clear cut matter.
I can't believe people think it is such a good system because of the way it takes up their time and takes Officers off patrol. From your post it sounds like they like it because the fine is small (for most citizens), doesn't involve any penalty points on their licences and (perhaps most importantly) doesn't affect their insurance premiums. The actual process itself sounds just as inefficient as many others.
Whether you think it's inefficient or not, everybody gets their time in court if they want it, and the Police are staffed to take this into account. It is a black and white manner in many cases, but it is a good way of not alienating the public. And the system works very efficiently, the court times are set for the convenience of the Police, not the public. Given that or the British system I'd pick the US one.I can't believe people think it is such a good system because of the way it takes up their time and takes Officers off patrol. From your post it sounds like they like it because the fine is small (for most citizens), doesn't involve any penalty points on their licences and (perhaps most importantly) doesn't affect their insurance premiums. The actual process itself sounds just as inefficient as many others.
In theory it could be a good thing, I give you this example.One of my staff 21 year old appears to have fallen asleep around 4.30am and drifted into a car coming the other way. No one hurt but being young the police officer advised he pleaded guilty to Dangerous driving and he would get points.
So he goes to magistrates court having pled guilty, where upon the magistarate tells him it has to go to a higher court as a custodial sentance is what they want but cannot issue.
He is a great young lad who made a mistake, not drunk and certainly not a dangerous driver, we have video as all our drivers are filmed so can prove normally he is fine.
So far whilst waiting for the court date he has had his licence suspended for three months and has to take an extended driving test, has had to attend a probation officer meeting weekly, as they cannot be sure he won't reoffend? Difficult with no car and is now verging on depression at the thought of a spell inside and the delay.
If these new courts could do everything in one session it would be better for cases like this one.
But why stop at this, why not have weekend courts for the drunks? Instead of providing sleep off buses and giving lifts home, bang them all up overnight and heavy fine drunk and disorderly next morning or at most two days after would raise a lot of money and might stop A&E looking like a warzone at the weekends, our city and town centres smelling like a urinal in the morning and might make the centres attractive to those who do not want to witness the worst of behaviour.
So he goes to magistrates court having pled guilty, where upon the magistarate tells him it has to go to a higher court as a custodial sentance is what they want but cannot issue.
He is a great young lad who made a mistake, not drunk and certainly not a dangerous driver, we have video as all our drivers are filmed so can prove normally he is fine.
So far whilst waiting for the court date he has had his licence suspended for three months and has to take an extended driving test, has had to attend a probation officer meeting weekly, as they cannot be sure he won't reoffend? Difficult with no car and is now verging on depression at the thought of a spell inside and the delay.
If these new courts could do everything in one session it would be better for cases like this one.
But why stop at this, why not have weekend courts for the drunks? Instead of providing sleep off buses and giving lifts home, bang them all up overnight and heavy fine drunk and disorderly next morning or at most two days after would raise a lot of money and might stop A&E looking like a warzone at the weekends, our city and town centres smelling like a urinal in the morning and might make the centres attractive to those who do not want to witness the worst of behaviour.
I'm not sure you have the full story, Spaximus. If he's pleaded guilty to Dangerous and the Mags have declined jurisdiction, he'll have an interim disqualification in place until he can be properly sentenced by the Crown Court (typically within a month or so). His meeting probation will not be a weekly thing, but in order to produce a 'pre sentence report' to help the Judge decide on an appropriate sentence.
The minimum he can expect is not 3 months, but 12 off the road, and the requirement for an extended retest, as you mentioned.
In any case, I doubt Dangerous would be one of the offences referred to a fast track 'sentencing court'.
The minimum he can expect is not 3 months, but 12 off the road, and the requirement for an extended retest, as you mentioned.
In any case, I doubt Dangerous would be one of the offences referred to a fast track 'sentencing court'.
It is the full story, the Mags have suspended his licence for three months after which he will have to undergo the extended test. The next court up will undoubtedly extend the ban to 12 months and then any additional sentance. He has had to go weekly to the probation officer as I see his appointment card and I stress he is a great young man who has made an error he is not a reckless person who deserves everything thrown at him.
I and many others have written referances for him in the hope he gets a none custodial sentance.
But if these courts have no power to sentance when there is a guilty plea what is the point?
I and many others have written referances for him in the hope he gets a none custodial sentance.
But if these courts have no power to sentance when there is a guilty plea what is the point?
Someone's not telling you the truth.
You cannot be sentenced at Magistrates then sentenced again at Crown Court for the same offence.
You should also note that the minimum sentence for Dangerous Driving is 12 months disqualify not 3.
It sounds to me as if your 21 year old has committed multiple offences and dressed them up as one to make it look better for you.
In any case, you haven't got the full picture, I assure you.
You cannot be sentenced at Magistrates then sentenced again at Crown Court for the same offence.
You should also note that the minimum sentence for Dangerous Driving is 12 months disqualify not 3.
It sounds to me as if your 21 year old has committed multiple offences and dressed them up as one to make it look better for you.
In any case, you haven't got the full picture, I assure you.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff