Discussion
Having read the Order again, paragraph 5(d) requires that a video be uploaded to youtube. It clearly states that it must show someone presenting and reciting a copy of the terms of the injunction. The only one I can find is this which is non-compliant because it contains no such presentation or recital - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVCgDx4xOzE&fe...
The Order also requires the Claimants proper officer to give written notice to the court that the steps in paragraph 5 have been completed. This gives rise to several questions.
- Was such notice given?
- Has a compliant video been uploaded?
- If so, where is it and how does one find it?
- If no compliant video has been uploaded does this breach nullify the service of the injunction and accompanying power of arrest?
- If the proper officer has given the written notice what will be the consequences, if any, for him/her as a result of this incorrect declaration?
If the Order is a nullity, presumably any police warnings pursuant thereto are ultra vires. In which case the ensuing threats of arrest are just hot air - http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/02/23/15-w...
A similar injunction appears to have been obtained for locations in Nottinghamshire - http://news.nottstv.com/nottingham-consortium-secu...
As usual the irresponsible actions of a minority make it more difficult for peaceful enjoyment to be had by genuine enthusiasts.
I remain of the opinion that if you drive sensibly (e.g. don't speed or cause excessive noise) there are no grounds for the police to hassle you because your actions re paragraph 3 of the Schedule must lead to a consequence listed in paragraph 4. One follows from the other. Paragraph 3 alone (e.g. driving in convoy) is insufficient.
The Order also requires the Claimants proper officer to give written notice to the court that the steps in paragraph 5 have been completed. This gives rise to several questions.
- Was such notice given?
- Has a compliant video been uploaded?
- If so, where is it and how does one find it?
- If no compliant video has been uploaded does this breach nullify the service of the injunction and accompanying power of arrest?
- If the proper officer has given the written notice what will be the consequences, if any, for him/her as a result of this incorrect declaration?
If the Order is a nullity, presumably any police warnings pursuant thereto are ultra vires. In which case the ensuing threats of arrest are just hot air - http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/02/23/15-w...
A similar injunction appears to have been obtained for locations in Nottinghamshire - http://news.nottstv.com/nottingham-consortium-secu...
As usual the irresponsible actions of a minority make it more difficult for peaceful enjoyment to be had by genuine enthusiasts.
I remain of the opinion that if you drive sensibly (e.g. don't speed or cause excessive noise) there are no grounds for the police to hassle you because your actions re paragraph 3 of the Schedule must lead to a consequence listed in paragraph 4. One follows from the other. Paragraph 3 alone (e.g. driving in convoy) is insufficient.
ks!
This is (again) an example of a bad law or by-law created to get support for targeting one thing but could be used to target other things that the law was not designed for.
It's a very worrying trend.
Nowadays there are too many laws to really claim that ignorance is no defence. The laws are there by consent of the people not because of them.
It's a very worrying trend.
Nowadays there are too many laws to really claim that ignorance is no defence. The laws are there by consent of the people not because of them.
This is (again) an example of a bad law or by-law created to get support for targeting one thing but could be used to target other things that the law was not designed for.
It's a very worrying trend.
Nowadays there are too many laws to really claim that ignorance is no defence. The laws are there by consent of the people not because of them.
It's a very worrying trend.
Nowadays there are too many laws to really claim that ignorance is no defence. The laws are there by consent of the people not because of them.
I just thought it was a bit of posturing to put the willies up youths wheel spinning their Novas and being a right royal PIA to the vast majority of people who live there. The concrete speed bumps entering the McDonalds/Halfords area on the A5 are a less subtle way that makes me wince every time I enter that car park. Sounds like it would be difficult to really convict someone on the basis of the court order.
I doubt its bad "policing" as I'm pretty sure it was the council that went to court and some local Councillor is making a name for himself, and it it does move said youths on, then he's succeeded.
I doubt its bad "policing" as I'm pretty sure it was the council that went to court and some local Councillor is making a name for himself, and it it does move said youths on, then he's succeeded.
Truffs said:
This is (again) an example of a bad law or by-law created to get support for targeting one thing but could be used to target other things that the law was not designed for.
It's a very worrying trend.
Nowadays there are too many laws to really claim that ignorance is no defence. The laws are there by consent of the people not because of them.
It's not a law or a bylaw. It's a High Court injunction - with a power of arrest and punishable with up to 2 years' imprisonment - for being a passenger or driver in a car - when you did absolutely nothing wrong or even knew about the existence of the injunction, but another person in your group (or perceived group) drove over the speed limit in a car with a loud exhaust. Strict liability too. It's a very worrying trend.
Nowadays there are too many laws to really claim that ignorance is no defence. The laws are there by consent of the people not because of them.
agtlaw said:
It's not a law or a bylaw. It's a High Court injunction - with a power of arrest and punishable with up to 2 years' imprisonment - for being a passenger or driver in a car - [b]when you did absolutely nothing wrong[\b] or even knew about the existence of the injunction, but another person in your group (or perceived group) drove over the speed limit in a car with a loud exhaust. Strict liability too.
Presumably a high court injunction has its own law or authority enabling it to create high court injunctions?And technically the bit in bold is not true, you only feel nothing wrong has been done. People fall foul of laws they don't know about and think they've done nothing wrong all the time.
Whats the real issue here? The half cocked attempt to wind up a few kids or the slippery slope of court orders being made and we could all theoretically end up doing a stretch for simply breathing?
It's arguably true. You don't have to be the driver to be arrested. You can be an innocent passenger. Similarly, you don't have to be the driver actually speeding, etc to be arrested. Presence in a group (2 or more cars) is sufficient if somebody in the group breaches the terms of the injunction then everyone present is guilty of a strict liability 'offence'. "I did nowt wrong" isn't a defence if you're there with a guilty person. "I didn't know about it" isn't a defence, although one poster postulates that the publicity terms of the injunction are incomplete. The gravamen of the 'offence' appears to be mere presence?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff