Idris Francis - Magistrates Trial Today

[NugentS]

Convicted & Fined

The Magistrates decided that the following:

>(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an
>offence to which this section applies—
>
>(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to
>the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on
>behalf of a chief officer of police, and
>
>(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any
>information which it is in his power to give and may lead to
>identification of the driver.
>--------------------------------------

meant that the chief officer of police can say that he wants a signature - therefore we have to sign. Mr Francis didn't sign - so got convicted.

[outlaw]

where the hel this come from.

idris was in court ages ago and had the magistrats suspend sentance until he apeals to the europon court.

far as i know that is olny past the first step and could be ages yet.

and any way nothing a magistrait says is binding as case law.

[NugentS]

Correct - but he was in court today on a Failure to supply. Convicted.

[outlaw]

must be another nip he got.

as his sentancing was delayed on the original one untill the europeon case is finshed.

failer to suppy means he refused to complie with the nip

not that he did not sign it.

the non signging hole is still open

do you posibly have a link to this case /more info?

[NugentS]

http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=496

Should give you some more info.
N.B. Mr Francis failed to sign the document - so the magistrates found him guilty on S172.

[Muncher83]

Bare in mind it's only a Magistrates court so can be overruled by The High Court, The Court of Appeal, The House of Lords, The European Court of Justice.

[outlaw]

thinking about it it dont mean shit.

think about the apeal court has already ruled that the hole is still open.

a magistrait cant over rule them.
so therefor that is just what has happend

the magistrats there are just taking the piss.

[jeffreyarcher]

outlaw said:

think about the apeal court has already ruled that the hole is still open.

A superior court has never ruled on the narrow question of whether an unsigned form complies with S172.

[mybrainhurts]

I'm on Idris's mailing list, and he hasn't mentioned anything about this.

Maybe he intends to appeal?

[jeffreyarcher]

mybrainhurts said:

I'm on Idris's mailing list, and he hasn't mentioned anything about this. Maybe he intends to appeal?

Only happened yesterday (Monday).
Says he will (subject to barrister's advice, but it is certainly his intention).

[outlaw]

im getting an idear

IM going to register the car in my mrs name.
she was not born here and dose not read or write english.

so it is totaly inposible for her to fill a NIP in.
herself.

>> Edited by outlaw on Tuesday 21st October 13:14

[joephandango]

outlaw said:

im getting an idear you was not born here and dose not read or write english.

Good work fella!!

[octane junkie]

outlaw said:

im getting an idear IM going to register the car in my mrs name. she was not born here and dose not read or write english. so it is totaly inposible for her to fill a NIP in. herself. >> Edited by outlaw on Tuesday 21st October 13:14

which gives me an even better idea - can I register MY car in your wifes name, outlaw? Even better - why doesn't someone set up a "Registered Keeper" service???

[NugentS]

Damn - I was thinking that - just hadn't thought it through yet.

[kevinday]

I personally fail to see how a policeman can require somebody to sign anything, as previously noted the act requires supplying the information, and a signature cannot be classed as information. A policeman does not write the law, just upholds it. If I was Idris this would be appealed immediately.
The Broomfield case was relating to it not being compliant to telephone in the information, rather than anything to do with a written reply.