Man to sue SCP after wrongful conviction.
Discussion
Haven't seen this on here yet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire...
Bloke is disqualified through totting up and subsequently loses his job and has to sell his house, except that the speed limit he was convicted of exceeding had not been properly implemented.
He is now sueing for compensation.
I am in two minds about this - on one hand, it is harsh that he lost his job. On the other, he was already on 9 points - one would think that he might be taking extra care with his observation, especially as his job was driving and the 'limit' was properly signposted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire...
Bloke is disqualified through totting up and subsequently loses his job and has to sell his house, except that the speed limit he was convicted of exceeding had not been properly implemented.
He is now sueing for compensation.
I am in two minds about this - on one hand, it is harsh that he lost his job. On the other, he was already on 9 points - one would think that he might be taking extra care with his observation, especially as his job was driving and the 'limit' was properly signposted.
tank slapper said:
Haven't seen this on here yet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire...
Bloke is disqualified through totting up and subsequently loses his job and has to sell his house, except that the speed limit he was convicted of exceeding had not been properly implemented.
He is now sueing for compensation.
I am in two minds about this - on one hand, it is harsh that he lost his job. On the other, he was already on 9 points - one would think that he might be taking extra care with his observation, especially as his job was driving and the 'limit' was properly signposted.
well the limit wasn't 'properly signposted' was it ?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire...
Bloke is disqualified through totting up and subsequently loses his job and has to sell his house, except that the speed limit he was convicted of exceeding had not been properly implemented.
He is now sueing for compensation.
I am in two minds about this - on one hand, it is harsh that he lost his job. On the other, he was already on 9 points - one would think that he might be taking extra care with his observation, especially as his job was driving and the 'limit' was properly signposted.
tank slapper said:
Haven't seen this on here yet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire...
Bloke is disqualified through totting up and subsequently loses his job and has to sell his house, except that the speed limit he was convicted of exceeding had not been properly implemented.
He is now sueing for compensation.
I am in two minds about this - on one hand, it is harsh that he lost his job. On the other, he was already on 9 points - one would think that he might be taking extra care with his observation, especially as his job was driving and the 'limit' was properly signposted.
I think that this is striaght forward: he was not guilty of anything, see extract from the news item.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire...
Bloke is disqualified through totting up and subsequently loses his job and has to sell his house, except that the speed limit he was convicted of exceeding had not been properly implemented.
He is now sueing for compensation.
I am in two minds about this - on one hand, it is harsh that he lost his job. On the other, he was already on 9 points - one would think that he might be taking extra care with his observation, especially as his job was driving and the 'limit' was properly signposted.
"but an oversight meant there was no legal speed limit in force, despite 40 mph signs on show".
"Although the camera and speed signs were put up, there was no legal enforcement notice".
The second statement clearly states that there is was no speed limit restriction in place, ergo no matter what speed he is doing he cannot be convicted of any offence with regard to exceeding the non existing limit.
Do not forget that in the case of other convictions for speeding and parking for example. there are specific definitions for parking in loading bays, such as parking to buy some ciggarettes, is not allowed, but if you were loading 300 cartons of ciggarettes into your vehicle it would be ok.
If the law is enforced to its full technical meaning then it works both ways.
Due to incorrect information he pleaded guilty, this was compounded by the CPS not verifying that the offence was valid.
He is therefore quite entitled to sue and demand compensation commiserate with the distress and loss of earnings caused by the lack of due diligence.
Remember it is the remit of the CPS to determine that there is a case to answer and if they find legal reasons not to prosecute the offence then they are duty bound to reveal the findings.
As me Granny used to say, what"s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander", the representation of justice which adorns the courts carries a two edged sword.
This would be the A65 wouldn't it?? I use the road regularly and it is the road with the most speed cameras on it I have ever come across. I still wonder why they are there I have never had to divert due to accidents prior to the Cameras excepting one case and Camera's are not on that stretch! As for the limit being sign posted correctly it isn't. The signs between the Horsforth Roundabout and Yeadon are haphazard to say the least and do not conform to the regs. Added to that that the TRO had obviously not been applied and The Gnome and his friends look very stupid. He was on Look North last night complaining that he exceeded the limit. A limit that didn't exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tank slapper said:
Haven't seen this on here yet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire...
Bloke is disqualified through totting up and subsequently loses his job and has to sell his house, except that the speed limit he was convicted of exceeding had not been properly implemented.
He is now sueing for compensation.
I am in two minds about this - on one hand, it is harsh that he lost his job. On the other, he was already on 9 points - one would think that he might be taking extra care with his observation, especially as his job was driving and the 'limit' was properly signposted.
I have to disagree with one of your minds. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire...
Bloke is disqualified through totting up and subsequently loses his job and has to sell his house, except that the speed limit he was convicted of exceeding had not been properly implemented.
He is now sueing for compensation.
I am in two minds about this - on one hand, it is harsh that he lost his job. On the other, he was already on 9 points - one would think that he might be taking extra care with his observation, especially as his job was driving and the 'limit' was properly signposted.
For me this is very black and white - if he is innocent of speeding, then he is innocent of speeding. You cannot penalise someone for 'just being a bad driver' - you have to convict them of a suitable offence. If the speed limits are not implemented correctly then you have to dismiss, in exactly the same way that if someone is over the speed limit by 10mph, but on an empty motorway, they are still guilty of speeding. I agree that he should've taken more care in general, but that's irrelevant in this case. According to the law of the law he was not speeding.
You need a line in the sand, and both sides (state and public) need to respect that.
Chrispy Porker said:
If he lost his job, how is that the SCP's fault.?
Legally, isn't that consequence a bit remote. Same with losing his house.
I would have thought his compensation would amount to his fine back, plus costs and thats about it.
He was done for totting and lost his job as a result.Legally, isn't that consequence a bit remote. Same with losing his house.
I would have thought his compensation would amount to his fine back, plus costs and thats about it.
We recognise in court (yes, I'm connected) that losing your job/house is a possible direct consequence of totting, hence the 'Exceptional Hardship' mitigation for the 6 month totting ban.
Chrispy Porker said:
If he lost his job, how is that the SCP's fault.?
Legally, isn't that consequence a bit remote. Same with losing his house.
I would have thought his compensation would amount to his fine back, plus costs and thats about it.
Consequential Loss in civil law is far reaching. It simply has to be proved by the appellant that the losses suffered are a direct result.Legally, isn't that consequence a bit remote. Same with losing his house.
I would have thought his compensation would amount to his fine back, plus costs and thats about it.
Chrispy Porker said:
If he lost his job, how is that the SCP's fault.?
Legally, isn't that consequence a bit remote. Same with losing his house.
I would have thought his compensation would amount to his fine back, plus costs and thats about it.
The extra 3 points lost him his licence....which meant he couldn't do his job as a driver which meant he couldn't pay his mortgage I suppose.As we,as drivers, are always told that there'll be consequences for actions wouldn't this apply to SCP/courts as well?Legally, isn't that consequence a bit remote. Same with losing his house.
I would have thought his compensation would amount to his fine back, plus costs and thats about it.
When he was driving past the correctly signed limit he chose to drive in excess of that limit.
It is very doubtfull that he drove down that road in the knowledge that the Traffic Regulation Order was incorrectly assigned or was not in place at all so chose to observe the National Speed Limit.
That being the case, and I think it is, this chap will have very little recourse to full compensation for consequential loss.
It is very doubtfull that he drove down that road in the knowledge that the Traffic Regulation Order was incorrectly assigned or was not in place at all so chose to observe the National Speed Limit.
That being the case, and I think it is, this chap will have very little recourse to full compensation for consequential loss.
Chrispy Porker said:
If he lost his job, how is that the SCP's fault.?
Legally, isn't that consequence a bit remote. Same with losing his house.
I would have thought his compensation would amount to his fine back, plus costs and thats about it.
If losing his job was a direct result of losing his licence, I can't see where any remoteness comes into it?Legally, isn't that consequence a bit remote. Same with losing his house.
I would have thought his compensation would amount to his fine back, plus costs and thats about it.
wakeywakey said:
That being the case, and I think it is, this chap will have very little recourse to full compensation for consequential loss.
On the contrary, he was not speeding because the limit was not correct at the time. Therefore he broke no law. And as such I suspect consequential loss will follow, any losses directly incurred as a result of his wrongful conviction....Surely the default national speed limit applies whenever there isn't another in force.
Therefore he could still have been speeding if he was exceeding 60 or 70, whichever applied in this case.
If he was within the law then whoever prosecuted him has been shown to be in the wrong, but it was the court that found him guilty so they were also wrong. Finding the right person to sue might be awkward.
Therefore he could still have been speeding if he was exceeding 60 or 70, whichever applied in this case.
If he was within the law then whoever prosecuted him has been shown to be in the wrong, but it was the court that found him guilty so they were also wrong. Finding the right person to sue might be awkward.
Jasandjules said:
On the contrary, he was not speeding because the limit was not correct at the time. Therefore he broke no law. And as such I suspect consequential loss will follow, any losses directly incurred as a result of his wrongful conviction....
I genuinely hope he gets properly compensated because as you say he broke no law.But the story reports the camera business owners as saying "the loophole is closed".
These people are truely hateful because of the comtempt with which they regard the law and due process.
SM
TheGriffalo said:
SCP's are quite happy to prosecute using the letter of the law. It's only right and proper that people should be able to use the letter of the law to avoid prosecution. They can't have it both ways.
Exactly, I hope the 
ers go into receivership paying this chap.Lets see how they like it.
Richard C said:
Chrispy Porker said:
If he lost his job, how is that the SCP's fault.?
Legally, isn't that consequence a bit remote. Same with losing his house.
I would have thought his compensation would amount to his fine back, plus costs and thats about it.
Consequential Loss in civil law is far reaching. It simply has to be proved by the appellant that the losses suffered are a direct result.Legally, isn't that consequence a bit remote. Same with losing his house.
I would have thought his compensation would amount to his fine back, plus costs and thats about it.
I just thought it was not very 'direct' as a result of the SCP's actions/inactions.
It will be interesting to see.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff