Appealing a ban.
Discussion
I have a friend who was caught doing a silly speed.
They had their day in court and got a fine & ban.
They are appealing this (no one but her knows why) as she thinks the size/length is too big <fnar fnar>, but they are convinced that they can still drive until the appeal is heard.
Surely this can't be right? Can it?
They had their day in court and got a fine & ban.
They are appealing this (no one but her knows why) as she thinks the size/length is too big <fnar fnar>, but they are convinced that they can still drive until the appeal is heard.
Surely this can't be right? Can it?
Bibbs said:
I have a friend who was caught doing a silly speed.
They had their day in court and got a fine & ban.
They are appealing this (no one but her knows why) as she thinks the size/length is too big <fnar fnar>, but they are convinced that they can still drive until the appeal is heard.
Surely this can't be right? Can it?
They can still drive.... So long as they don't mind being arrested for dsisqualified driving. If she was appealing against conviction the court may suspend the punishment but she is only appealing against the length of the ban not the conviction for the offence itself.They had their day in court and got a fine & ban.
They are appealing this (no one but her knows why) as she thinks the size/length is too big <fnar fnar>, but they are convinced that they can still drive until the appeal is heard.
Surely this can't be right? Can it?
Don't know the correct answer but as she has now been found guilty she has to prove herself inocent.
Also if she is just appealing the length of the ban then she is banned now the only question is when the ban will end. Getting caught driving whilst disqualifed will not help an appeal.
Also if she is just appealing the length of the ban then she is banned now the only question is when the ban will end. Getting caught driving whilst disqualifed will not help an appeal.
I can't see how they can appeal about being innocent. They were caught red handed.
Myself and several (lots) others have suggested that the appeal means nothing until it's happened. The origional punishment still stands.
It's not like a murderer gets found guilty, goes to appeal, and is allowed to wander about free until the appeal is heard is it?
They say, their laywer said, they could still drive.
Myself and several (lots) others have suggested that the appeal means nothing until it's happened. The origional punishment still stands.
It's not like a murderer gets found guilty, goes to appeal, and is allowed to wander about free until the appeal is heard is it?
They say, their laywer said, they could still drive.
Bibbs said:
I can't see how they can appeal about being innocent. They were caught red handed.
Myself and several (lots) others have suggested that the appeal means nothing until it's happened. The origional punishment still stands.
It's not like a murderer gets found guilty, goes to appeal, and is allowed to wander about free until the appeal is heard is it?
They say, their laywer said, they could still drive.
Its what the court said that matters. Myself and several (lots) others have suggested that the appeal means nothing until it's happened. The origional punishment still stands.
It's not like a murderer gets found guilty, goes to appeal, and is allowed to wander about free until the appeal is heard is it?
They say, their laywer said, they could still drive.
RaksP said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
They can still drive.... So long as they don't mind being arrested for dsisqualified driving.
now are you going to tell the po-po shes been driving!??
Edited by RaksP on Tuesday 31st July 13:14
It was just something that made me livid if they could "just appeal" and carry on.
RaksP said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
They can still drive.... So long as they don't mind being arrested for dsisqualified driving.[/quote[
now are you going to tell the po-po shes been driving!??
Three points:now are you going to tell the po-po shes been driving!??
1. He IS the Police
2. I hope she is caught, as she will also be uninsured...
3. Please stop using po-po, it makes you sound like you are about 5 years old...
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Bibbs said:
I have a friend who was caught doing a silly speed.
They had their day in court and got a fine & ban.
They are appealing this (no one but her knows why) as she thinks the size/length is too big <fnar fnar>, but they are convinced that they can still drive until the appeal is heard.
Surely this can't be right? Can it?
They can still drive.... So long as they don't mind being arrested for disqualified driving.They had their day in court and got a fine & ban.
They are appealing this (no one but her knows why) as she thinks the size/length is too big <fnar fnar>, but they are convinced that they can still drive until the appeal is heard.
Surely this can't be right? Can it?
Edited by sultanbrown on Tuesday 31st July 16:25
Marty G said:
Bibbs said:
They say, their laywer said, they could still drive.
Who was their lawyer, Lionel Hutz 
Sorry for joking about it but it beggars belief if a lawyer really did say that, and that she believes it to be honest!
LISTEN UPSHE'S BANNED. SHE CAN'T DRIVE.
IF SHE WINS THE APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE (COLD DAY IN HELL) THEN SHE MIGHT GET HER LICENCE BACK.
IF SHE GETS CAUGHT SHE RISKS JAIL.
Vesuvius 996 said:
Marty G said:
Bibbs said:
They say, their laywer said, they could still drive.
Who was their lawyer, Lionel Hutz Sorry for joking about it but it beggars belief if a lawyer really did say that, and that she believes it to be honest!
LISTEN UPSHE'S BANNED. SHE CAN'T DRIVE.
IF SHE WINS THE APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE (COLD DAY IN HELL) THEN SHE MIGHT GET HER LICENCE BACK.
IF SHE GETS CAUGHT SHE RISKS JAIL.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Thats what I understood Richard.
By appealing against the conviction things are put back to before trial at which time the person is not disqualified.
dvd
I understood that as she was appealing against length of the ban rather than a ban/conviction that the disqualification would stand. I stand corrected.By appealing against the conviction things are put back to before trial at which time the person is not disqualified.
dvd
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Bibbs said:
I can't see how they can appeal about being innocent. They were caught red handed.
Myself and several (lots) others have suggested that the appeal means nothing until it's happened. The origional punishment still stands.
It's not like a murderer gets found guilty, goes to appeal, and is allowed to wander about free until the appeal is heard is it?
They say, their laywer said, they could still drive.
Its what the court said that matters. Myself and several (lots) others have suggested that the appeal means nothing until it's happened. The origional punishment still stands.
It's not like a murderer gets found guilty, goes to appeal, and is allowed to wander about free until the appeal is heard is it?
They say, their laywer said, they could still drive.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
Thats what I understood Richard.
By appealing against the conviction things are put back to before trial at which time the person is not disqualified.
dvd
I understood that as she was appealing against length of the ban rather than a ban/conviction that the disqualification would stand. I stand corrected.By appealing against the conviction things are put back to before trial at which time the person is not disqualified.
dvd
I only know all this as the last time I employed a solicitor 6 years ago I wasted a lot of time and money over a speeding offence committed in one of those 30's between towns that looks like NSL. I thought it was NSL as the lollipops were completely concealed within the hedges. From these forums I now know that the limit was unenforceable but the solicitor who was supposed to be a Traffic law expert stated that speeding as an absolute offence and only mitigation could be pleaded. He appealed my ban as excessive ( the magistrate behaved like an arrogant prat who hadn't bothered even to listen to the solicitor ). I dropped the appeal as I wasn't prepared to pay his inflated fees for what might have been a notional reduction or worse.
>>>>>From these forums I now know that the limit was unenforceable but the solicitor who was supposed to be a Traffic law expert stated that speeding as an absolute offence and only mitigation could be pleaded.<<<<
6 years ago there was not the High Court decision Coombes v DPP [2006] - (see Times 29th Dec 2006.)
Had there been one could defend oneself and get an acquital.
dvd
6 years ago there was not the High Court decision Coombes v DPP [2006] - (see Times 29th Dec 2006.)
Had there been one could defend oneself and get an acquital.
dvd
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff