Normally built Company Director overturns Speeding fine.
Discussion
Goatie less, proportionately built Company Director of a Signage company gets speeding fine overturned:
http://www.nottinghampost.com/man-caught-speeding-...
http://www.nottinghampost.com/man-caught-speeding-...
I think there have been similar cases before.
When the police and powers that be play technicalities it seems ethical and proportionate for members of the public to also play technicalities.
The police are to monitor how closely motorists pass bicyclists when there's currently no law specifying the distance. There are laws covering the signage and limits and a member of the public has held them to it.
When the police and powers that be play technicalities it seems ethical and proportionate for members of the public to also play technicalities.
The police are to monitor how closely motorists pass bicyclists when there's currently no law specifying the distance. There are laws covering the signage and limits and a member of the public has held them to it.
Edited by carinaman on Friday 16th September 17:50
"He did plead guilty in an earlier hearing, which he told the Post was based on "advice" from the prosecution, but Nottingham Magistrates confirmed he withdrew his earlier guilty plea ahead of his hearing on Wednesday, when the court ruled in his favour."
"Mr Edwards was given an absolute discharge at Nottingham Magistrates' Court on Wednesday September 14"
To get an absolute discharge he either pleaded guilty or was found guilty. A fact missing from the article. From the sound of it, he was found guilty and the court found special reasons not to endorse. Probably the correct result from the very brief facts reported.
"Mr Edwards was given an absolute discharge at Nottingham Magistrates' Court on Wednesday September 14"
To get an absolute discharge he either pleaded guilty or was found guilty. A fact missing from the article. From the sound of it, he was found guilty and the court found special reasons not to endorse. Probably the correct result from the very brief facts reported.
Sheepshanks said:
Seems a bit random. Can you even plead not guilty to something you admit you did?
Of course you can.He admitted to driving at the speed claimed (39mph) but plead not guilt to commuting the offence of exceeding the speed limit, on the basis that the limit signage was not in accordance with legal requirements.
Mandat said:
Of course you can.
He admitted to driving at the speed claimed (39mph) but plead not guilty to committing the offence of exceeding the speed limit, on the basis that the limit signage was not in accordance with legal requirements.
That's right, then he was found guilty but no fine/points/costs.He admitted to driving at the speed claimed (39mph) but plead not guilty to committing the offence of exceeding the speed limit, on the basis that the limit signage was not in accordance with legal requirements.
Having just been told by a police officer (or someone imitating one) that I am due to be reported for ignoring what it turns out was also an obscured sign, this is incredibly good news.
I'm not surprised it took so long, not when money is involved..
"The Post asked Nottinghamshire Police how many speeding offences had been recorded on the road since that date but was told the information was only available via a Freedom of Information request."
Shock!
I'm not surprised it took so long, not when money is involved..
"The Post asked Nottinghamshire Police how many speeding offences had been recorded on the road since that date but was told the information was only available via a Freedom of Information request."
Shock!
Digby said:
Having just been told by a police officer (or someone imitating one) that I am due to be reported for ignoring what it turns out was also an obscured sign, this is incredibly good news.
I'm not surprised it took so long, not when money is involved..
"The Post asked Nottinghamshire Police how many speeding offences had been recorded on the road since that date but was told the information was only available via a Freedom of Information request."
Shock!
It's incredibly good news he was convicted?I'm not surprised it took so long, not when money is involved..
"The Post asked Nottinghamshire Police how many speeding offences had been recorded on the road since that date but was told the information was only available via a Freedom of Information request."
Shock!
And why would you be shocked that the information The Post required would only be available via a FOI request?
I know how much it stings for some when what was undoubtedly a deliberate attempt to fleece motorists backfires (used to be 40, now 30, sign not clear....a familiar tale; unless most councils are just stupid?) but you will have to play your word games with someone else today because I'm celebrating.
Digby said:
I know how much it stings for some when what was undoubtedly a deliberate attempt to fleece motorists backfires (used to be 40, now 30, sign not clear....a familiar tale; unless most councils are just stupid?) but you will have to play your word games with someone else today because I'm celebrating.
Why would it sting? I'm genuinely quite happy for courts to listen to all the evidence & happy for the judicial process to play out. I'm fine with the outcome, which ever way it goes, at the end of that process.
The questions were genuine (but your response predictable nevertheless.)
Digby said:
vonhosen said:
..your response predictable nevertheless
I wish they didn't have to be. What this guy has been through are the very reason they are. Maybe you need to start asking why....but you won't, of course.Councils must just be stupid.
What do you mean?
He was above the limit & has been to court where he was convicted for the offence of exceeding the limit. The court decided an absolute discharge was appropriate in this particular case.
I'm fine with that (as the legal course has been played out & come to it's conclusion), you seem to be too.
So what's the problem?
You still haven't answered why you are shocked that The Post's request for information requires a FOI request.
vonhosen said:
You still haven't answered why you are shocked that The Post's request for information requires a FOI request.
Because, as history shows, you can often expect.."..this response serves as a formal notification of refusal of your
request on the basis that Essex Police does not hold, for the purposes of
FOIA, the specific data in a readily accessible format. That is to say,
this data is not extractable from a central database or held in a
spreadsheet. To ascertain whether this information is held would entail a
manual search of Essex Police records; a process which would be likely to
exceed the appropriate limit (as mentioned at section 12 of the FOIA) in
terms of cost/time (£450 or the equivalent in time of 18 hours)"
It's my way of saying "Good luck with that" should anyone try.
And also as history shows, in terms of reimbursement, you either hit a brick wall or have yet another lengthy battle on your hands...or a point-blank refusal.
Still, it can happen; drivers have been refunded, although many have not.
Digby said:
vonhosen said:
You still haven't answered why you are shocked that The Post's request for information requires a FOI request.
Because, as history shows, you can often expect.."..this response serves as a formal notification of refusal of your
request on the basis that Essex Police does not hold, for the purposes of
FOIA, the specific data in a readily accessible format. That is to say,
this data is not extractable from a central database or held in a
spreadsheet. To ascertain whether this information is held would entail a
manual search of Essex Police records; a process which would be likely to
exceed the appropriate limit (as mentioned at section 12 of the FOIA) in
terms of cost/time (£450 or the equivalent in time of 18 hours)"
It's my way of saying "Good luck with that" should anyone try.
And also as history shows, in terms of reimbursement, you either hit a brick wall or have yet another lengthy battle on your hands...or a point-blank refusal.
Still, it can happen; drivers have been refunded, although many have not.
I think it's reasonable to expect to have to pay a fee for a FOI request to be investigated.
I think it's reasonable to expect that there may be a refusal where the information is not held or in a readily accessible format etc.
Having made a request, if any expense is incurred, such as an employee's working time in servicing that request, I think it's reasonable to expect a fee to be retained.
vonhosen said:
I think it's reasonable to expect to have to submit a FOI request in order for such information to be researched.
I think it's reasonable to expect to have to pay a fee for a FOI request to be investigated.
I think it's reasonable to expect that there may be a refusal where the information is not held or in a readily accessible format etc.
Having made a request, if any expense is incurred, such as an employee's working time in servicing that request, I think it's reasonable to expect a fee to be retained.
Really, how strange, That request should be "business as usual" and if they don't hold the information they should say so and stop avoiding the question.I think it's reasonable to expect to have to pay a fee for a FOI request to be investigated.
I think it's reasonable to expect that there may be a refusal where the information is not held or in a readily accessible format etc.
Having made a request, if any expense is incurred, such as an employee's working time in servicing that request, I think it's reasonable to expect a fee to be retained.
speedyguy said:
vonhosen said:
I think it's reasonable to expect to have to submit a FOI request in order for such information to be researched.
I think it's reasonable to expect to have to pay a fee for a FOI request to be investigated.
I think it's reasonable to expect that there may be a refusal where the information is not held or in a readily accessible format etc.
Having made a request, if any expense is incurred, such as an employee's working time in servicing that request, I think it's reasonable to expect a fee to be retained.
Really, how strange, That request should be "business as usual" and if they don't hold the information they should say so and stop avoiding the question.I think it's reasonable to expect to have to pay a fee for a FOI request to be investigated.
I think it's reasonable to expect that there may be a refusal where the information is not held or in a readily accessible format etc.
Having made a request, if any expense is incurred, such as an employee's working time in servicing that request, I think it's reasonable to expect a fee to be retained.
vonhosen said:
The request is taking somebody away from business as usual, they aren't doing Police work, they are diverted from it to service your request.
The info should be freely available putting unnecessary obstructions in the way takes more time than simply dealing with what should be no more than hitting a couple of buttons to release the data held. Or are you saying the police don't have the data readily available to justify their actions ?vonhosen said:
I think it's reasonable to expect to have to submit a FOI request in order for such information to be researched.
I think it's reasonable to expect to have to pay a fee for a FOI request to be investigated.
I think it's reasonable to expect that there may be a refusal where the information is not held or in a readily accessible format etc.
Having made a request, if any expense is incurred, such as an employee's working time in servicing that request, I think it's reasonable to expect a fee to be retained.
I disagree. What's the point of saying the information is only available through a FOI request? If you dont have it save everyones time say so, if you do have it release it, if it would cost too much to finf it out say so. The fee for a FOI is hardly significant and no doubt most of it is used up by the cost of the administration.I think it's reasonable to expect to have to pay a fee for a FOI request to be investigated.
I think it's reasonable to expect that there may be a refusal where the information is not held or in a readily accessible format etc.
Having made a request, if any expense is incurred, such as an employee's working time in servicing that request, I think it's reasonable to expect a fee to be retained.
In this sort of case it would be far better for the authority to be open, they might be respected more for it.
speedyguy said:
vonhosen said:
The request is taking somebody away from business as usual, they aren't doing Police work, they are diverted from it to service your request.
The info should be freely available putting unnecessary obstructions in the way takes more time than simply dealing with what should be no more than hitting a couple of buttons to release the data held. Or are you saying the police don't have the data readily available to justify their actions ?No problems with people having the information if it's available and they pay a modest fee to offset some of those costs.
It depends on what the request is (you can't second guess what all the weird & wonderful requests people are going to make) as to whether data would be held or in an easily researched or retrievable format.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff