JP faces the sack for waiving 'victim fee'
Discussion
A magistrate is facing the sack after refusing to impose the controversial £15 victim's surcharge on a minor offender's court fine because it is 'morally wrong'.
And so it goes on...........
www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23392194-details/JP+faces+the+sack+for+waiving+'victim+fee'/article.do
And so it goes on...........
www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23392194-details/JP+faces+the+sack+for+waiving+'victim+fee'/article.do
Anybody point me to the legislation to allow this.
I heard about it and understand that so far the 'surcharge' will only apply to cases of speeding heard at Mags Court and then only to the second offence and on.
Fixed penaties/CO no doubt to come.
Have so far been unable to track it down. No doubt will be a little amendement to RTO Act 88 contained in the Bovine Order 2007.
dvd
I heard about it and understand that so far the 'surcharge' will only apply to cases of speeding heard at Mags Court and then only to the second offence and on.
Fixed penaties/CO no doubt to come.
Have so far been unable to track it down. No doubt will be a little amendement to RTO Act 88 contained in the Bovine Order 2007.
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
Anybody point me to the legislation to allow this.
I heard about it and understand that so far the 'surcharge' will only apply to cases of speeding heard at Mags Court and then only to the second offence and on.
Fixed penaties/CO no doubt to come.
Have so far been unable to track it down. No doubt will be a little amendement to RTO Act 88 contained in the Bovine Order 2007.
dvd
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2004/2004 Act allows surcharge to be added to FPNs ... but that's for the "future" says Reid - Streaky I heard about it and understand that so far the 'surcharge' will only apply to cases of speeding heard at Mags Court and then only to the second offence and on.
Fixed penaties/CO no doubt to come.
Have so far been unable to track it down. No doubt will be a little amendement to RTO Act 88 contained in the Bovine Order 2007.
dvd
Thanks for that Streaky - who would have thought that that Act (nowt to do with RT) would make a reference to penalties under Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Still does not help as all that sections 15/16 do is give the authority for an Order to be brought in and which will contain, or should, just exactly what is spelled out.
Still not found that Order.
dvd
Still does not help as all that sections 15/16 do is give the authority for an Order to be brought in and which will contain, or should, just exactly what is spelled out.
Still not found that Order.
dvd
vonhosen said:
Am I right in thinking that it is not specific to RTOA at all, that the surcharge applies across the board?
Bert
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
Am I right in thinking that it is not specific to RTOA at all, that the surcharge applies across the board?
Bert
Yep, any offence where you're fined at court.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 12th April 00:38
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
Am I right in thinking that it is not specific to RTOA at all, that the surcharge applies across the board? Bert
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 12th April 00:38
The News interviewed this Mag and I must say he was speaking sense, much more than we can expect from that pile of excrement one calls a government.
His argument was simply that charging (in the majority drivers and driving i.e. speeding charges) a third punishment on top of a fine and points would, in his mind, be overzealous and possibly illegal as these charges according to his instructions "were only to be levied against people who could/would pay" i.e. drivers.
He stated that the majority of people charged with affray, drunk and disorderly, etc only get a slap on the wrist and wouldn't pay anyway.
He also stated that in effect, speeding was a victimless crime, as he spoke about the "victims" of other crimes and excluded driving (i.e. speeding) offences
Seems that this Mag talks sense and has become a victim of Labours kneejerk legislation and peeceeism....
His argument was simply that charging (in the majority drivers and driving i.e. speeding charges) a third punishment on top of a fine and points would, in his mind, be overzealous and possibly illegal as these charges according to his instructions "were only to be levied against people who could/would pay" i.e. drivers.
He stated that the majority of people charged with affray, drunk and disorderly, etc only get a slap on the wrist and wouldn't pay anyway.
He also stated that in effect, speeding was a victimless crime, as he spoke about the "victims" of other crimes and excluded driving (i.e. speeding) offences
Seems that this Mag talks sense and has become a victim of Labours kneejerk legislation and peeceeism....
JMGS4 said:
The News interviewed this Mag and I must say he was speaking sense, much more than we can expect from that pile of excrement one calls a government.
His argument was simply that charging (in the majority drivers and driving i.e. speeding charges) a third punishment on top of a fine and points would, in his mind, be overzealous and possibly illegal as these charges according to his instructions "were only to be levied against people who could/would pay" i.e. drivers.
He stated that the majority of people charged with affray, drunk and disorderly, etc only get a slap on the wrist and wouldn't pay anyway.
He also stated that in effect, speeding was a victimless crime, as he spoke about the "victims" of other crimes and excluded driving (i.e. speeding) offences
Seems that this Mag talks sense and has become a victim of Labours kneejerk legislation and peeceeism....
His argument was simply that charging (in the majority drivers and driving i.e. speeding charges) a third punishment on top of a fine and points would, in his mind, be overzealous and possibly illegal as these charges according to his instructions "were only to be levied against people who could/would pay" i.e. drivers.
He stated that the majority of people charged with affray, drunk and disorderly, etc only get a slap on the wrist and wouldn't pay anyway.
He also stated that in effect, speeding was a victimless crime, as he spoke about the "victims" of other crimes and excluded driving (i.e. speeding) offences
Seems that this Mag talks sense and has become a victim of Labours kneejerk legislation and peeceeism....
Und then there was the lady mag about two years or so ago who was more or less contriustively dismissed (she quit in protest) after being reprimanded for having the sheer defiance of....
locking up a burglar for as long as she was allowed to
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
Am I right in thinking that it is not specific to RTOA at all, that the surcharge applies across the board?
Bert
Yep, any offence where you're fined at court.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 12th April 00:38
But not people sent to prison......
This
ing country...... Sometimes I wish Hitler had got his way.
Reading the legislation contained in SI 2007 No 707 Criminal Law:
The surcharge law does not apply to certain cases:
'Chapter 2 section 2 'The cases referred to in paragraph (1) are those in which a court deals with a person for one or more offences other than only by:'
Fine, compensation and/or costs.
Explanatory Note:
'The effect of Article 2 of this Order is that the duty to order the offender to pay a surcharge will apply only in those cases where a court deals with an offender by requiring the offender to pay a fine and/or costs, or by requiring the offender to pay a fine and compensation and/or costs. It will not apply where the court deals with a person in any other way.'
I would argue that the imposition of penalty points or a ban constitutes an 'other way' therefore the surcharge should not be applied.
Comments?
The surcharge law does not apply to certain cases:
'Chapter 2 section 2 'The cases referred to in paragraph (1) are those in which a court deals with a person for one or more offences other than only by:'
Fine, compensation and/or costs.
Explanatory Note:
'The effect of Article 2 of this Order is that the duty to order the offender to pay a surcharge will apply only in those cases where a court deals with an offender by requiring the offender to pay a fine and/or costs, or by requiring the offender to pay a fine and compensation and/or costs. It will not apply where the court deals with a person in any other way.'
I would argue that the imposition of penalty points or a ban constitutes an 'other way' therefore the surcharge should not be applied.
Comments?
Edited by F348 on Thursday 12th April 13:49
nobleguy said:
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
Am I right in thinking that it is not specific to RTOA at all, that the surcharge applies across the board?
Bert
Yep, any offence where you're fined at court.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 12th April 00:38
But not people sent to prison......
This
ing country...... Sometimes I wish Hitler had got his way.
at least my german would be better
SplatSpeed said:
nobleguy said:
vonhosen said:
bertbert said:
vonhosen said:
Am I right in thinking that it is not specific to RTOA at all, that the surcharge applies across the board?
Bert
Yep, any offence where you're fined at court.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 12th April 00:38
But not people sent to prison......
This
ing country...... Sometimes I wish Hitler had got his way.
at least my german would be better
and our roads
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff