Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.
Discussion
saaby93 said:
From the way it's written youd think she said it, but she didnt
It's what the prosecution have asserted
If you see what she said, she'd left the form at her mother's house because at the time she thought one of them had used the car,
It was her brother that sent off the form, made the claim it was the russian, and signed it in her name
How the court unpicks it and makes sense of it we've yet to see
Your slant on it paints her in no better a light. The form does not say that you should leave it at someone else’s house if you think it was them. It is written in clear, plain English, and tells you to nominate the driver yourself.It's what the prosecution have asserted
If you see what she said, she'd left the form at her mother's house because at the time she thought one of them had used the car,
It was her brother that sent off the form, made the claim it was the russian, and signed it in her name
How the court unpicks it and makes sense of it we've yet to see
I do ‘t Really understand why people are trying to minimise what she did. In her position the crime is compounded, just as in mine financial fraud would be.
James_B said:
Your slant on it paints her in no better a light. The form does not say that you should leave it at someone else’s house if you think it was them. It is written in clear, plain English, and tells you to nominate the driver yourself.
No slant by me - just saying what's been published - the trouble is it came out secondIf youve seen these before, thats all very well if you know who the driver is ( and usually you do )
As has been said - she didnt think it could have been her that day so left the form at her mothers house, so whoever had driven the car could fill it in
It turns out that her brother has done these a couple of times, so when no-one else filled in the form, decided to follow suit.
James_B said:
I do ‘t Really understand why people are trying to minimise what she did. In her position the crime is compounded, just as in mine financial fraud would be.
Providing she did it -it's the prosecution's assertion. If you hadn't done a fraud would you like to be in court for one based on an assertion?There are two plausible explanations in front of the court, hers and the prosecutions.
All the court has to do is decide which to go for. It's taking a while
saaby93 said:
roviding she did it -it's the prosecution's assertion. If you hadn't done a fraud would you like to be in court for one based on an assertion?
There are two plausible explanations in front of the court, hers and the prosecutions.
All the court has to do is decide which to go for. It's taking a while
There are two plausible explanations in front of the court, hers and the prosecutions.
All the court has to do is decide which to go for. It's taking a while
Saaby,
Are you sure you have no skin in this game???
amongst other things, you assert the defence as fact but dismiss the prosecution as conjecture and assumption? Re read your post if you disagree as can’t quote properly on this bloody device!
As I have mentioned previously, it has been reported that under caution, she ‘stood by her submissions’! Does that sound like her current story where wee Festus is the one that did it all guv.....
Slaav said:
amongst other things, you assert the defence as fact but dismiss the prosecution as conjecture and assumption?
No dont dismiss eitherone is what she says - one is what the prosecution says. Just trying to post them up for what they are.
Taking no sides - waiting to see which way it comes out
Looks like we can have a couple of days off!
saaby93 said:
carinaman said:
Should there have been reporting restrictions on this case?
It's a solicitor and elected representative that passes legislation being charged with Perverting the Course of Justice.
It's possible there shouldbe restrictions where a case could affect their future workIt's a solicitor and elected representative that passes legislation being charged with Perverting the Course of Justice.
Even if shes found not to be guilty there may still be a lot of people who'll continue to believe it as her that said
'Fiona Onasanya claimed a Russian man was behind the wheel when her Nissan Micra was clocked doing 41mph in a 30mph zone in July last year'
when it was conjecture by prosecution (they may be right, they may not)
When those details turned out to be wrong, and the police contacted her about the correct details she responded "I have provided a completed nomination previously,”
Edited by 98elise on Saturday 24th November 09:10
98elise said:
saaby93 said:
carinaman said:
Should there have been reporting restrictions on this case?
It's a solicitor and elected representative that passes legislation being charged with Perverting the Course of Justice.
It's possible there shouldbe restrictions where a case could affect their future workIt's a solicitor and elected representative that passes legislation being charged with Perverting the Course of Justice.
Even if shes found not to be guilty there may still be a lot of people who'll continue to believe it as her that said
'Fiona Onasanya claimed a Russian man was behind the wheel when her Nissan Micra was clocked doing 41mph in a 30mph zone in July last year'
when it was conjecture by prosecution (they may be right, they may not)
In fact what ‘really’ happened (factually since it is the D) was that she mistakenly thought she was miles away sitting in a Parliament that was in recess so left the form for whoever to complete. That person either completed it and SHE signed it? (Her D seems to have been woolly on that point) or, wee Festus did it and forged her signature so he is guilty and she is innocent.
Part of the confusion also arose as a Solicitor and MP doesn’t keep a diary!
Lastly for now, she evaded investigators and ignored numerous calls and attempts to contact her - I guess she was too busy again? Or just confused?
When she was interviewed by the Police under caution, she said that she stood by her submissions or similar when shown/confronted with the forms and declarations? At no point did she seemingly come clean and admit at that early stage that the signature wasn’t hers. Once again, it seems that a qualified solicitor thought it best to end up on a PCoJ docket than possibly accept 6 points and a fine for failing to give correct details as the RK.
All makes perfect sense really! Clearly NG
Willhire89 said:
This picture just popped up in another thread - clearly the bold part was not clear and thus did not apply to F O
This thread can be like groundhog day sometimesIsnt that one of the reasons he's admitted PCoJ?
He's gone a bit further in this case but whether most people realise the dire consequences for signing on behalf of someone - who knows
If it's husband for wife or vice versa, providing what's said is true, is that one of the things that's allowed as acceptable practice?
Agree with Slaav
Slaav said:
Coffee on my desk in anticipation of some news this morning! I really need to get my life back.... 
saaby93 said:
So it seems that Festus 'may' have completed this on behalf of the defendant but as that picture clearly shows, it is HER responsibility - so at the very least, 6 pts and a fine for S172 offence as someone stated earlier? I reckon that brief was worth every penny if that is the case?
10 am listing but that is only for 'further deliberation' so God knows how long that could take. Let's hope that the weekend helped clarify some thinking on either side.
As somebody said a few pages ago though - the best deterrent to committing crime is to have served on Jury Duty!
A good friend who is senior counsel at a rather large Blue Chip couldn't get out of service and told a harrowing story. The D was logged on a PC with secure ID and access which effectively PROVED it was next to impossible that he could have committed the actual crime he was being tried for. One Juror simply ignored that and went Guilty as 'she didn't really understand it!' Bloody hell.... he said it was horrific but managed to get a NG verdict. The facts were that the D had done this before and there was a feeling that the Police 'had got their man' but not for the correct crime - plenty of previous and he ultimately went down for similar but my friend said he shakes with terror at the idea of being tried by jury!
Willhire89 said:
This picture just popped up in another thread - clearly the bold part was not clear and thus did not apply to F O
Right, so if things are as she says, and that she left the NIP that was in her name, for someone else to fill in, her brother did so and it's he that put the Russian name on it.Forget about the original speeding offence, that's not what's being tried here.
Forget about the Russian guy being filled in on the NIP, the claim is that her dodgy brother did that and this isn't his trial, his is already done.
Surely by her own admission then she is guilty of not returning the NIP (since her brother did so) and as you point out it's very clearly printed on it that she has to do it herself. So what is the penalty for not returning the NIP.
It's made more complicated on later on because presumably the police came to her and said "we can't find this russian guy that you've named on here" and at that and other points she had opportunities to say she hadn't actually filled it in, but instead she went along with the deception.
I've always seen vehicle ownership as a series of responsibilities that you agree to; if you want to be the RK of a vehicle you agree to take on the responsibility to keep it roadworthy (MOT) and the responsibility to respond properly to things like NIPs. Don't want or too busy to take on those responsibilities, then don't own a car.
kev1974 said:
Surely by her own admission then she is guilty of not returning the NIP (since her brother did so) and as you point out it's very clearly printed on it that she has to do it herself. So what is the penalty for not returning the NIP.
She's not on trial for not returning the NIP and it wouldnt be surprising to find that quite a few family members return the form for someone who's not very good at filling in forms. Is it going to be in anyones interest to take that to court so long as the form looks as though its filled in correctly, and an appropriate fine is paid?That defence may not work here as she's a solicitor. Another way of waht could have happened was that whoever was driving should have filled it in, she signs it and sends it back, or the way it's written (someone post up the other half) no that wont work , she sends it back nominating the person that was driving and they get another form, cue all sorts of other hypothetical scenarios.
The brother may have thought it easier to fill in the form and nominate the russian guy and sign it with his best efforts at her signature.
If she's asked about it in the police station, without wishing to dob in her brother, the best defence might be to say nothing.
Meanwhile it looks as though he's already admitted to doing something.
These motoring 'minor' incidents can turn into a right pigs ear out of all proportion to the original offence.
As we can see
Edited by saaby93 on Monday 26th November 12:37
essayer said:
Hung jury. Discharged. Retrial
-https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/fiona-onasan...
stanard said:
At the end of a two week trial, the jury today said they could not receive a unanimous or majority verdict in Onasanya's case after deliberating for two-and-a-half days.
Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC said the MP will now face a retrial "in due course", expected to be within the next two months.
What do we do now Slaav?Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC said the MP will now face a retrial "in due course", expected to be within the next two months.
teGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff