Rampant Robin
Reliant Robin caught doing 70mph. Confusion ensues.
What do you call a Reliant Robin on top of a hill? A miracle. Unless you’re a member of the
Faster than a speeding bullet? No.
Gordon Maltby, 46, has just finished a three day court case for dangerous driving after the police ‘caught’ him in his Reliant Robin (with three passengers) overtaking their unmarked Mondeo at 70mph in a 40mph zone.
Thankfully, he won the case after the court was shown that the car couldn’t reach that speed.
When asked how he felt about the verdict he delivered a Del-Boy esque ‘Lovely Jubbly’.
On a more serious note, the divorced father-of-four added: "I had four appearances at the magistrates court and the three-day trial must have cost tens of thousands of pounds. It was just farcical. I am a bit angry because I have lost so much time and money going to court."
Mr Maltby, from Waterbeach, near Cambridge, insisted he sensibly overtook the police car at 40mph after it had slowed down outside a car showroom.The allegation of dangerous driving, he added, was "rubbish".
He was backed by independent accident investigator Graham Oakley, who said the Robin was incapable of doing 70mph with four people on board. The former Essex traffic policeman also explained it could not have lifted its front wheel off the ground or created sparks - as had been claimed by the police - as it has a fibreglass body. Nicola Devas, defending, told the court the officers had "over-egged the pudding".
Mr. Maltby said that he drives Robins exclusively because he only has a motorbike licence and isn’t allowed to drive normal cars. He also commented that the fastest he’s driven a Robin was around 55-60mph. On a dual-carriage way. On his own.
Source: Daily Mail
what had they been smoking?
Think about it lol, the guy has only got a bike license yet wants a car I bet you that robin far from standard under the bonnet.
All the defence hs to do is introduce an element of reasonable doubt - they don't have to prove the Officers have lied.
I've never lied in court, but I've lost quite a few cases.
One of those old Hillman Imp engined Bond bugs gave the boys in Derbyshire a real run around some years back. Narrow roads, narrow vehicle, good (for the day) power to weight ratio (tweaked iirc), driven well.
All the defence hs to do is introduce an element of reasonable doubt - they don't have to prove the Officers have lied.
I've never lied in court, but I've lost quite a few cases.
What were you saying again??? lifted is wheel off the ground, hmm popping a whellie, whilst sparks come from the car.
Who says they've lied? hmmm let me read that again... and " as had been claimed by the police "
Cops have been found to "over-egged the pudding" but I bet they will not even get a "telling off" and be freed to do the same again. They can't be named and shamed as now every time they give evidence this case would just be used to taint their character. They will probably be back on patrol by now.
If that were a normal person they would have thrown the book at him probably and attached all sorts of charges on top.
Apologies to all the BiB who know the job and reponsibilites, are honest and use their judgement correctly and I appreciate what you do. I dont question the freedom you provide and the means by which you provide it, but in this case that freedom was trying to be taken away from someone who clearly wasn't in the wrong.
I guess it is like in all walks of life.. you can't help but stumble on a few w*nkers now and again just these one's can hide behind a badge.
what had they been smoking?
Think about it lol, the guy has only got a bike license yet wants a car I bet you that robin far from standard under the bonnet.
As for the "independant witness", he will actually be a witness on behalf of the defence, paid for by the defence. What evidence do we have that he tested the car under the same circumstances?
Like I said, the defence only have to introduce an element of doubt - they don't have to prove the defendant's innocence in the same way that the prosecution have to prove their guilt.
I'd say the defence has done a very good job, but there's no evidence to say the Police lied.
Not saying this was or wasn't but just cause they are Police doesn;t make them immune from fibbing!!
Not saying this was or wasn't but just cause they are Police doesn;t make them immune from fibbing!!
Just evidence of a weak prosecution case and a strong defence case. That's miles away from proof of false evidence or testimony.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff