NIP Technicality

[HD Adam]

Well done AGT Law.

Couple of points.

1. I love the duality of this. If someone hits your car in a car park, you might have a job getting the Police interested. Private land and all that.
Have a hoon on a car park and whammo, you're nicked Sonny.

2. Why can't local councils try and provide a safe area for this?
Where I live, there's usual gatherings of the Fast & Furious wannabees on public roads causing an annoyance. The Police crack down regularly.
Yet, the local council have lots of empty land fit for purpose.
Why not tell them "Do it here and nowhere else". Have the Police in attendance to offer tips and point out that the insurance doesn't cover them when they run out of talent.

[blueg33]

Steve H said:

So, your son commits an offence, admits to it, gets summoned to Court and then fights it due to a technicality? I am not hear to judge you or your family but I really do despair of our society.

I disgaree. The rules apply to both sides. If the Police are allowed to ignore proceedure then why should the public be expected not to ignore their side of the bargain?

[TooMany2cvs]

Steve H said:

So, your son commits an offence, admits to it, gets summoned to Court and then fights it due to a technicality? I am not here to judge you or your family but I really do despair of our society.

<shrug> Dunno about you, but I'd rather live in a society where the letter of the law, when it comes to procedure, has to be carefully followed rather than made up on the spot, and I'd far rather one guilty person goes unpunished than one innocent person gets fitted up.

I'd also suspect, reading between the lines of GT3's comments, that the fear of god has been truly put up said son by this whole procedure, and a lesson has been learnt. Which is, after all, the whole point of the exercise.

[Steve H]

TooMany2cvs said:

Steve H said:

So, your son commits an offence, admits to it, gets summoned to Court and then fights it due to a technicality? I am not here to judge you or your family but I really do despair of our society.

<shrug> Dunno about you, but I'd rather live in a society where the letter of the law, when it comes to procedure, has to be carefully followed rather than made up on the spot, and I'd far rather one guilty person goes unpunished than one innocent person gets fitted up.

I agree, but he was not innocent, he admitted the offence and due to a technical error he got away with it. I know that it is not on the same level but would your opinion change if a burglar was caught in your house but got away with the offence if say, he was not cautioned by the officer at the right time and his solicitor used this to get him off? (I appreciate that the offences are miles apart but surely the same rule must apply)

[neelyp]

Steve H said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Steve H said:

So, your son commits an offence, admits to it, gets summoned to Court and then fights it due to a technicality? I am not here to judge you or your family but I really do despair of our society.

<shrug> Dunno about you, but I'd rather live in a society where the letter of the law, when it comes to procedure, has to be carefully followed rather than made up on the spot, and I'd far rather one guilty person goes unpunished than one innocent person gets fitted up.

I agree, but he was not innocent, he admitted the offence and due to a technical error he got away with it. I know that it is not on the same level but would your opinion change if a burglar was caught in your house but got away with the offence if say, he was not cautioned by the officer at the right time and his solicitor used this to get him off? (I appreciate that the offences are miles apart but surely the same rule must apply)

Then your anger must surely be aimed at the officer who did not do their job correctly.

[TooMany2cvs]

Steve H said:

I agree, but he was not innocent

Well spotted. See if you can see how that might fit into the sentence you're referring to.

And neelyp is bob-on. I'd be pissed off at the Police for having tripped over their own shoelaces and let the bloke walk.

[Steve H]

TooMany2cvs said:

Steve H said:

I agree, but he was not innocent

Well spotted. See if you can see how that might fit into the sentence you're referring to.

And neelyp is bob-on. I'd be pissed off at the Police for having tripped over their own shoelaces and let the bloke walk.

Believe me this is not a rant at the OP and his son but more of a rant at the system and how this is allowed to happen. My main point being that an offence is admitted to but a technicality lets them go free. We all have to make sure that we do our jobs properly, Police included but it was an admission of guilt.

And sorry toomany, its been a long day and I don't really understand you when you say "see how it fits into the sentence"

[TooMany2cvs]

Steve H said:

And sorry toomany, its been a long day and I don't really understand you when you say "see how it fits into the sentence"

Two people are referred to in...
"I'd far rather one guilty person goes unpunished than one innocent person gets fitted up"
Which do you think might possibly be GT3jr?

[Steve H]

TooMany2cvs said:

Steve H said:

And sorry toomany, its been a long day and I don't really understand you when you say "see how it fits into the sentence"

Two people are referred to in...
"I'd far rather one guilty person goes unpunished than one innocent person gets fitted up"
Which do you think might possibly be GT3jr?

I understand and obviously he is the guilty person going free but his son was in no way being fitted up because he admitted the offence. I also agree that procedure has to be followed to avoid innocent people being wrongly accused of any crime but if we are talking about a person admitting the offence and even going to court and admitting the offence but getting off because of a technicality I do worry.

As I have said, the OP's son is not being criticised here it is the system I find remarkable.

edit to add, I have no idea if in this particular case the OP's son went to Court and admitted the offence.

Edited by Steve H on Monday 15th December 17:42

[johnao]

Steve H said:

So, your son commits an offence, admits to it, gets summoned to Court and then fights it due to a technicality? I am not here to judge you or your family but I really do despair of our society.

However much we might despair of an individual case we must be grateful that the Rule of Law is alive and well.

Taken from the first line of the Wiki entry - Rule of Law: "The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to arbitrary decisions by individual government officials."

If, what transpires to be an arbitrary decision, [ie. in this case, action taken by a police officer which is technically incorrect], is made because the law is too complex or not properly understood by a "government official" [in this case the police officer], then perhaps the law needs to be simplified or the training of police officers improved.

If the Rule of Law is not applied then we're staring into the abyss of arbitrary, authoritarian state enforcement and a compliant judiciary.

Now, we all know of the common law principle whereby judges will not sit in judgment of extremely minor transgressions of the law [De Minimis Non Curat Lex]. But, my understanding is that principle applies to minor transgressions of the law not to technical errors in the prosecution process affecting an individuals rights.

[Eclassy]

Well done to OP and his son. Citizens arent the only ones getting off on technicalities. I remember a case where a policeman got away with 'unecessarily' doing 140mph on a prisoner run due to a technicality.

One would have expected a policeman who should be more honest than your average citizen to have held his hands up and taken the punishment but did he? hell NO. He escaped prosecution by using the exemption rules.

[Steve H]

johnao said:

Steve H said:

So, your son commits an offence, admits to it, gets summoned to Court and then fights it due to a technicality? I am not here to judge you or your family but I really do despair of our society.

However much we might despair of an individual case we must be grateful that the Rule of Law is alive and well.

Taken from the first line of the Wiki entry - Rule of Law: "The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to arbitrary decisions by individual government officials."

If, what transpires to be an arbitrary decision, [ie. in this case, action taken by a police officer which is technically incorrect], is made because the law is too complex or not properly understood by a "government official" [in this case the police officer], then perhaps the law needs to be simplified or the training of police officers improved.

If the Rule of Law is not applied then we're staring into the abyss of arbitrary, authoritarian state enforcement and a compliant judiciary.

Now, we all know of the common law principle whereby judges will not sit in judgment of extremely minor transgressions of the law [De Minimis Non Curat Lex]. But, my understanding is that principle applies to minor transgressions of the law not to technical errors in the prosecution process affecting an individuals rights.

I agree that the Rule of Law is important but, and I am only using the OP's son's case as an example here:

Judge: So do you admit to the crime of driving your car in an anti social way on the night of 5th December 2014?
Offender: Yes Sir I do, but I was not given a NIP at the time
Judge In that case, you are free to go
Offender: But I admit the offence
Judge: Nothing I can do, you are still free to go!

[Cooperman]

Steve H said:

So, your son commits an offence, admits to it, gets summoned to Court and then fights it due to a technicality? I am not here to judge you or your family but I really do despair of our society.

edit for spelling

Edited by Steve H on Monday 15th December 16:42

So are you happy when a conviction is secured on a technicality, as in the case of the care worker who got a COFP for £100 and 3 points for using her mobile phone in a parked car which was out of gear with the handbrake on, but with the engine running?
It has to work the other way as well you know.

[Steve H]

Cooperman said:

Steve H said:

So, your son commits an offence, admits to it, gets summoned to Court and then fights it due to a technicality? I am not here to judge you or your family but I really do despair of our society.

edit for spelling

Edited by Steve H on Monday 15th December 16:42

So are you happy when a conviction is secured on a technicality, as in the case of the care worker who got a COFP for £100 and 3 points for using her mobile phone in a parked car which was out of gear with the handbrake on, but with the engine running?
It has to work the other way as well you know.

I may not have made this very clear....................the OP's son ADMITTED the offence

edit to add.. he coughed to it, gave himself up, spilt the beans, sang like a canary! this is what I am basing my opinion on. Not when people profess their innocence

[TooMany2cvs]

Steve H said:

but his son was in no way being fitted up because he admitted the offence.

I didn't say he was...

[herewego]

Did you not point out the fatal error to the CPS prior to the court case?

[Pothole]

Cooperman said:

Steve H said:

So, your son commits an offence, admits to it, gets summoned to Court and then fights it due to a technicality? I am not here to judge you or your family but I really do despair of our society.

edit for spelling

Edited by Steve H on Monday 15th December 16:42

So are you happy when a conviction is secured on a technicality, as in the case of the care worker who got a COFP for £100 and 3 points for using her mobile phone in a parked car which was out of gear with the handbrake on, but with the engine running?
It has to work the other way as well you know.

It has, as Collette Carpenter could tell you.

[Elroy Blue]

Eclassy said:

Well done to OP and his son. Citizens arent the only ones getting off on technicalities. I remember a case where a policeman got away with 'unecessarily' doing 140mph on a prisoner run due to a technicality.

One would have expected a policeman who should be more honest than your average citizen to have held his hands up and taken the punishment but did he? hell NO. He escaped prosecution by using the exemption rules.

Christ. If your going to have one of your usual anti-Police rants, at least TRY and get at least one fact right.