Speeding driver ordered to pay £11,000!!
Discussion
HantsRat said:
Pete317 said:
OK, so the guy's a dick.
But if we charged every dick £11K simply for being a dick then the rest of us could probably retire.
Trouble is, it takes an even bigger dick to do so.
Would you have rather paid the 11k yourself as a tax payer? I thought not. But if we charged every dick £11K simply for being a dick then the rest of us could probably retire.
Trouble is, it takes an even bigger dick to do so.
But not if it's wasted on a shoddy pissing contest.
Sheepshanks said:
It's a deterrent to other people who may seek to challenge.
The Police and prosecuting authorities have threatened in the past that if you take them on over alleged speeding and lose then your costs will be heavy.
I disagree, you should be able to defend yourself without the fear of un-proportional costs. The Police and prosecuting authorities have threatened in the past that if you take them on over alleged speeding and lose then your costs will be heavy.
Although This story reminds me of the comment Max/Bernie made about the £50 million fine given to Maclaren - 1 million for spying, 49 million because Ron is a Tw@
Edited by Black_S3 on Friday 15th May 15:03
Black_S3 said:
Sheepshanks said:
It's a deterrent to other people who may seek to challenge.
The Police and prosecuting authorities have threatened in the past that if you take them on over alleged speeding and lose then your costs will be heavy.
I disagree, you should be able to defend yourself without the fear of un-proportional costs. The Police and prosecuting authorities have threatened in the past that if you take them on over alleged speeding and lose then your costs will be heavy.
Even if you keep it simple, you already get spanked if you elect to go to court rather than accepting a fixed penalty.
hora said:
Theres more to this case than meets the eye. The Defence must have said 'how can you be sure with a R8/question whether it'd work with the shape/be accurate and we'd need you to test it on the exact car for you to be 100% sure'? The Prosecution must have then felt this bloke wasn't going to get away with it. Hence they hired a R8.
Look at it this way. If the Prosecution had spent 10k on hiring a car etc and LOST - what would you say? Thats too much risk.
They did it for a reason. Agree?
We used to have speeding/licence-losing Solicitors sharing the same building as us. In the gravel carpark at the rear at least once a day someone would pull a handbrake turn. People would knock on our reception (can't see the bloody sign?!) and constantly speak to me rudely (hi mate, here bout my tickets etcetc) even though I said 'IM NOT XXX Solicitors'!!!
So it makes you wonder those who face a licence loosing event- what the bloody ell do they do in the cars every day?!
Look at it this way, it is and should be up to tax payers to pickup the bill for the prosecution that is being brought to protect every one of us. What's next? You are billed for police time when caught speeding?Look at it this way. If the Prosecution had spent 10k on hiring a car etc and LOST - what would you say? Thats too much risk.
They did it for a reason. Agree?
We used to have speeding/licence-losing Solicitors sharing the same building as us. In the gravel carpark at the rear at least once a day someone would pull a handbrake turn. People would knock on our reception (can't see the bloody sign?!) and constantly speak to me rudely (hi mate, here bout my tickets etcetc) even though I said 'IM NOT XXX Solicitors'!!!
So it makes you wonder those who face a licence loosing event- what the bloody ell do they do in the cars every day?!
Edited by hora on Friday 15th May 15:48
R8VXF said:
flemke said:
HantsRat said:
Pete317 said:
OK, so the guy's a dick.
But if we charged every dick £11K simply for being a dick then the rest of us could probably retire.
Trouble is, it takes an even bigger dick to do so.
Would you have rather paid the 11k yourself as a tax payer? I thought not. But if we charged every dick £11K simply for being a dick then the rest of us could probably retire.
Trouble is, it takes an even bigger dick to do so.
Regardless of who paid for it, why was it necessary to burn £11k in the first place?
In light of the scarce resources of the Police/justice system, were the person-hours spent on this amusement justified? Did the officials truly have nothing better to do with themselves?
I believe that there is an offence of "Wasting Police Time". This instance seems a perfect example of that.
Sheepshanks said:
flemke said:
Regardless of who paid for it, why was it necessary to burn £11k in the first place?
In light of the scarce resources of the Police/justice system, were the person-hours spent on this amusement justified? Did the officials truly have nothing better to do with themselves?
It's a deterrent to other people who may seek to challenge.In light of the scarce resources of the Police/justice system, were the person-hours spent on this amusement justified? Did the officials truly have nothing better to do with themselves?
The Police and prosecuting authorities have threatened in the past that if you take them on over alleged speeding and lose then your costs will be heavy.
A few years ago I was pulled at a Trafpol speed trap in Sussex. I was accused of speeding, which I did not think that I had done. I had thought the limit was 60, whereas the Trafpol insisted that, "It is 40 here".
Luckily for me, I did not have my licence on me, and thus was given 7 days to produce. If I had had my licence on me, I probably would have accepted a fixed penalty notice on the spot.
The 7 days' gap gave me the chance to go back and inspect the site. In doing this I became convinced that the legal speed limit had in fact been 60, not 40.
I got a specialist solicitor and spent nearly a year struggling with the government and CPS bureaucracy. In the end, the CPS accepted that the limit had been 60, not 40. (In the interim, the local authority had gone in there and changed the signs, after which it really was 40.) The local authority had to pay me my costs, which were in the thousands.
My point is that I was also lucky in another way: I could have afforded to pay court costs if I had lost. Many people would not have been able to pay those costs if had they lost, and, as the specialist solicitor told me at the time, "You were in the right, the prosecution was wrong, but that is no guarantee that the magistrate will understand the specific law and dismiss the case."
It's great to dissuade the genuine jerks who are simply trying it on, but it is deeply unfair to scare off potentially innocent people simply because they lack the means to bear a loss.
flemke said:
Yes, it is a deterrent to piss-takers, but it also is a deterrent to people who genuinely believe that they were, and, in some cases, who actually were innocent of the alleged offence.
A few years ago I was pulled at a Trafpol speed trap in Sussex. I was accused of speeding, which I did not think that I had done. I had thought the limit was 60, whereas the Trafpol insisted that, "It is 40 here".
Luckily for me, I did not have my licence on me, and thus was given 7 days to produce. If I had had my licence on me, I probably would have accepted a fixed penalty notice on the spot.
The 7 days' gap gave me the chance to go back and inspect the site. In doing this I became convinced that the legal speed limit had in fact been 60, not 40.
I got a specialist solicitor and spent nearly a year struggling with the government and CPS bureaucracy. In the end, the CPS accepted that the limit had been 60, not 40. (In the interim, the local authority had gone in there and changed the signs, after which it really was 40.) The local authority had to pay me my costs, which were in the thousands.
My point is that I was also lucky in another way: I could have afforded to pay court costs if I had lost. Many people would not have been able to pay those costs if had they lost, and, as the specialist solicitor told me at the time, "You were in the right, the prosecution was wrong, but that is no guarantee that the magistrate will understand the specific law and dismiss the case."
It's great to dissuade the genuine jerks who are simply trying it on, but it is deeply unfair to scare off potentially innocent people simply because they lack the means to bear a loss.
So you get to claim your costs but the prosecution isn't. Tad unfair...A few years ago I was pulled at a Trafpol speed trap in Sussex. I was accused of speeding, which I did not think that I had done. I had thought the limit was 60, whereas the Trafpol insisted that, "It is 40 here".
Luckily for me, I did not have my licence on me, and thus was given 7 days to produce. If I had had my licence on me, I probably would have accepted a fixed penalty notice on the spot.
The 7 days' gap gave me the chance to go back and inspect the site. In doing this I became convinced that the legal speed limit had in fact been 60, not 40.
I got a specialist solicitor and spent nearly a year struggling with the government and CPS bureaucracy. In the end, the CPS accepted that the limit had been 60, not 40. (In the interim, the local authority had gone in there and changed the signs, after which it really was 40.) The local authority had to pay me my costs, which were in the thousands.
My point is that I was also lucky in another way: I could have afforded to pay court costs if I had lost. Many people would not have been able to pay those costs if had they lost, and, as the specialist solicitor told me at the time, "You were in the right, the prosecution was wrong, but that is no guarantee that the magistrate will understand the specific law and dismiss the case."
It's great to dissuade the genuine jerks who are simply trying it on, but it is deeply unfair to scare off potentially innocent people simply because they lack the means to bear a loss.
Black_S3 said:
R8VXF said:
o you get to claim your costs but the prosecution isn't. Tad unfair...
Our legal system basis itself on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It is weighted that way to ensure justice is not just for the rich amongst other things.R8VXF said:
flemke said:
Yes, it is a deterrent to piss-takers, but it also is a deterrent to people who genuinely believe that they were, and, in some cases, who actually were innocent of the alleged offence.
A few years ago I was pulled at a Trafpol speed trap in Sussex. I was accused of speeding, which I did not think that I had done. I had thought the limit was 60, whereas the Trafpol insisted that, "It is 40 here".
Luckily for me, I did not have my licence on me, and thus was given 7 days to produce. If I had had my licence on me, I probably would have accepted a fixed penalty notice on the spot.
The 7 days' gap gave me the chance to go back and inspect the site. In doing this I became convinced that the legal speed limit had in fact been 60, not 40.
I got a specialist solicitor and spent nearly a year struggling with the government and CPS bureaucracy. In the end, the CPS accepted that the limit had been 60, not 40. (In the interim, the local authority had gone in there and changed the signs, after which it really was 40.) The local authority had to pay me my costs, which were in the thousands.
My point is that I was also lucky in another way: I could have afforded to pay court costs if I had lost. Many people would not have been able to pay those costs if had they lost, and, as the specialist solicitor told me at the time, "You were in the right, the prosecution was wrong, but that is no guarantee that the magistrate will understand the specific law and dismiss the case."
It's great to dissuade the genuine jerks who are simply trying it on, but it is deeply unfair to scare off potentially innocent people simply because they lack the means to bear a loss.
So you get to claim your costs but the prosecution isn't. Tad unfair...A few years ago I was pulled at a Trafpol speed trap in Sussex. I was accused of speeding, which I did not think that I had done. I had thought the limit was 60, whereas the Trafpol insisted that, "It is 40 here".
Luckily for me, I did not have my licence on me, and thus was given 7 days to produce. If I had had my licence on me, I probably would have accepted a fixed penalty notice on the spot.
The 7 days' gap gave me the chance to go back and inspect the site. In doing this I became convinced that the legal speed limit had in fact been 60, not 40.
I got a specialist solicitor and spent nearly a year struggling with the government and CPS bureaucracy. In the end, the CPS accepted that the limit had been 60, not 40. (In the interim, the local authority had gone in there and changed the signs, after which it really was 40.) The local authority had to pay me my costs, which were in the thousands.
My point is that I was also lucky in another way: I could have afforded to pay court costs if I had lost. Many people would not have been able to pay those costs if had they lost, and, as the specialist solicitor told me at the time, "You were in the right, the prosecution was wrong, but that is no guarantee that the magistrate will understand the specific law and dismiss the case."
It's great to dissuade the genuine jerks who are simply trying it on, but it is deeply unfair to scare off potentially innocent people simply because they lack the means to bear a loss.
Sheepshanks said:
Black_S3 said:
Sheepshanks said:
It's a deterrent to other people who may seek to challenge.
The Police and prosecuting authorities have threatened in the past that if you take them on over alleged speeding and lose then your costs will be heavy.
I disagree, you should be able to defend yourself without the fear of un-proportional costs. The Police and prosecuting authorities have threatened in the past that if you take them on over alleged speeding and lose then your costs will be heavy.
Even if you keep it simple, you already get spanked if you elect to go to court rather than accepting a fixed penalty.
Devil2575 said:
Sheepshanks said:
Black_S3 said:
Sheepshanks said:
It's a deterrent to other people who may seek to challenge.
The Police and prosecuting authorities have threatened in the past that if you take them on over alleged speeding and lose then your costs will be heavy.
I disagree, you should be able to defend yourself without the fear of un-proportional costs. The Police and prosecuting authorities have threatened in the past that if you take them on over alleged speeding and lose then your costs will be heavy.
Even if you keep it simple, you already get spanked if you elect to go to court rather than accepting a fixed penalty.
Edited by flemke on Saturday 16th May 15:14
Devil2575 said:
Legal aid is not available to a lot of people. That isn't a driving issue, it's a general problem with access to justice.
Legal aid isn't available for speeding. The general rule is that the offence must be imprisonable. The applicant's means are irrelevant if the offence doesn't qualify for legal aid.OP, a curious case. Defendant is probably £20k down. I'd be interested in further details. Who defended it?
agtlaw said:
Devil2575 said:
Legal aid is not available to a lot of people. That isn't a driving issue, it's a general problem with access to justice.
Legal aid isn't available for speeding. The general rule is that the offence must be imprisonable. The applicant's means are irrelevant if the offence doesn't qualify for legal aid.OP, a curious case. Defendant is probably £20k down. I'd be interested in further details. Who defended it?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff