Not accepting on the spot fine

[Lois]

As I understand it you are within your rights not to accept an on the spot fine such as for speeding, thus exercising your right to a fair trial.
If you were to do this, are you likely to end up paying more than the original fine was worth??

[Plotloss]

Yes because if you lose you end up with court costs etc and I think the fine is bigger as well.

[imbecile]

IMO the only fair thing to do would be to have the Fixed Penalty set at the maximum sentence for the crime.

[rewc]

imbecile said:

IMO the only fair thing to do would be to have the Fixed Penalty set at the maximum sentence for the crime.

There would then be no 'incentive' to accept the fixed penalty. Everybody would elect to go for trial where there would always be a chance of getting off. THE FPN system is designed to keep prosecutions outside of the court system thus saving both sides costs. it is of course also designed to allow maximum profits for the camera partnerships for little outlay as they do not have to so vigerous in enforcing their procedures as they would if it went to court.
Isn't Tony Blair introducing this system for all 'minor' offences with Policemen acting as judge and jury?

[Dwight Vandriver]

At the moment the FPN or Conditional Offer using the correct term, for speeding is set at £60 and 3 points. The matter is resolved within days.

At a Magistrates Court the maximum fine that can be imposed is £1000, discretionary disqualification and 3 - 6 points. On top of this are costs of the CPS Prosecutor presenting the case and this is at no set fee and varies about the country. Up here (NE) anywhere between £35 - £50. Length of time to be dealt with could involve months.

The arguement of those that be is that the Conditional Offer is to speed up the administrative procedure for the prosecution of the offence of speeding, frees Court time and for those that wish to accept they have committed the offence to have it dealt with expeditiously and without hassle and at a less fee than what may possibly be awarded at Court.

The converse argument is that the CO is nothing more than a 'Dick Turpin' exercise and has little to do with justice in that it applies pressure for those who may well be in the clear to accept the lesser penalty etc.

There is credence in both camps.

dvd

[smeggy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not yet.....

[imbecile]

rewc said:

imbecile said:

IMO the only fair thing to do would be to have the Fixed Penalty set at the maximum sentence for the crime.

There would then be no 'incentive' to accept the fixed penalty. Everybody would elect to go for trial where there would always be a chance of getting off. THE FPN system is designed to keep prosecutions outside of the court system thus saving both sides costs. it is of course also designed to allow maximum profits for the camera partnerships for little outlay as they do not have to so vigerous in enforcing their procedures as they would if it went to court.

That's the whole point of my devious little plan... Force the courts to do their damn jobs and sentence properly except when the offence warrents a maximum sentence. And in this case, frankly there's no reason we can't bring in FPNs for every single possible offence...

[GKP]

Dwight Vandriver said:

The arguement of those that be is that the Conditional Offer is to speed up the administrative procedure for the prosecution of the offence of speeding, frees Court time and for those that wish to accept they have committed the offence to have it dealt with expeditiously and without hassle and at a less fee than what may possibly be awarded at Court.

So they agree that sometimes speed can be a good thing?

[deva link]

rewc said:

There would then be no 'incentive' to accept the fixed penalty.

I hummed and harred about what to do when I was zapped in somewhat unreasonable circumstances, but in the end, what weighed heavily on me is that a fixed penalty is simply that - a penalty - and it's somewhat meaningless.

If you go to court, you get a conviction. You then open a can of worms when applying for jobs, going to the US etc etc about whether you need to declare it or not. I know it's not a big deal, but all things being equal, I prefer just to be able to say 'No' to any such questions.

[jasandjules]

Yep.

Good to know that if a bloke is accused of murder and pleads not guilty, but then is found guilty at trial, he doesn't pay extra trial costs at all.. In fact, he doesn't pay a penny....