RE: 'Not Guilty' Motorists Face Court Costs
Discussion
This is just an alignment to the general attitude to traffic law - you are guilty until proven innocent.
As a resident bib always says - there is no general outcry over this, so meaning it is not high on the general public's agenda.
I am actually surprised you can take it to court in the first place as with the current thinking, if a single policeman states you are guilty, or if an automatic camera box states you are guilty - you are guilty.
As a resident bib always says - there is no general outcry over this, so meaning it is not high on the general public's agenda.
I am actually surprised you can take it to court in the first place as with the current thinking, if a single policeman states you are guilty, or if an automatic camera box states you are guilty - you are guilty.
I agree with the post that the Labour party are causing immense damage to Britain, but then this has been the central aim of every Labour party 'government.' They haven't the intelligence to govern; their lack of education and training for the jobs that have fallen into their laps has caused irrepairable damage.
Everyone sent a summons should fight it, especially for speeding which by the DfT own figures is a significant factor in 5% if accidents and is 6th on the list of causes of accidents. If you are found not guilty but fail to be reimbursed, then sue; a bad law is no barrier to litigation. Since labour started lying their way through the last 10 years, some 3000 news laws have been added, and the quote Dickens 'The Law is a ass' is now even more true.
Everyone sent a summons should fight it, especially for speeding which by the DfT own figures is a significant factor in 5% if accidents and is 6th on the list of causes of accidents. If you are found not guilty but fail to be reimbursed, then sue; a bad law is no barrier to litigation. Since labour started lying their way through the last 10 years, some 3000 news laws have been added, and the quote Dickens 'The Law is a ass' is now even more true.
It's nothing new. In the late 70s my father was stopped for speeding in his Rover SD1 doing 42.5 mph in a 30 zone even though he was stopped and waiting for an on coming lorry to pass. He contested it and it went to trial, lucky the driver of the lorry came forward and told how he had to brake sevearly for the police officer that had jumped out and stood in front of him while trying to get a reading from my father's car, also good was the fact that the lorry driver was the head of the local auxillary coastguards ad therefore a reliable witness. When it came to court my father decided to take my mother's car, a white Fiat 132 estate and leave his yellow Rover SD1 3500 at home. When the police officer got up on the stand and oppened his notebook and read out the details of the car my father was driving he said "Mr .... was driving his BROWN Rover SD1 registration number XXXXXX ..." when the Sherrif interupted him with "But that is MY car..."
It turned out that the "officer" had been pressing the recall button on the radar gun and showing that to the drivers, my father wasn't the only one to have "recorded" 42.5mph that day, nor was he the first one.
It still cost him £400 to prove his innocence.
It turned out that the "officer" had been pressing the recall button on the radar gun and showing that to the drivers, my father wasn't the only one to have "recorded" 42.5mph that day, nor was he the first one.
It still cost him £400 to prove his innocence.
LuS1fer said:
niva441 said:
I think I've signed it, but no confirmation email has arrived (I checked my address). Is it just me this doesn't work for.
You have to get an e-mail and click it to confirm it's your e-mail address before your vote registers. Check it hasn't gone straight to your junk mail/deleted items.Edited by LuS1fer on Tuesday 20th October 14:44
chickensoup said:
CBA to read all the replies, but would think that the government suggestion is right 90% of the time, as the defendant can represent themselves. Do not see the need for the taxpayer to pay for Nick Freeman getting off the guilty.
If the BiB and CPs did their jobs properly, Nick Freeman wouldn't be able to gat anybody off.The reason he is so sucessful is that he takes advantage of the f
k ups that the prosecution make.chickensoup said:
CBA to read all the replies, but would think that the government suggestion is right 90% of the time, as the defendant can represent themselves. Do not see the need for the taxpayer to pay for Nick Freeman getting off the guilty.
And there ladies and gentlemen, you have a succinct epitaph on the headstone of our freedoms: CBA."The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm, but because of those who look at it without doing anything." Albert Einstein.
chickensoup said:
CBA to read all the replies, but would think that the government suggestion is right 90% of the time, as the defendant can represent themselves. Do not see the need for the taxpayer to pay for Nick Freeman getting off the guilty.
Chicken soup, I should explain, that I am the lawyer who began the petition and have been raising awareness of the issues involved for the last few weeks. I can understand your sentiments but think you may benefit from considering some examples of cases my firm (Geoffrey Miller Solicitors www.motoroffence.co.uk ) deals with:I was recently involved in a case which began in 2006 relating to a law abiding driver who was asked to provide a breath specimen after he was in a no fault accident. The driver was an American and did not consider himself lawfully required to provide a specimen and was treated most unfairly at the police station. Despite requesting umpteen times to speak with a lawyer, the police refused to even attempt to call one. Whilst they can refuse to wait for a lawyer if the arrival of said lawyer will delay the breath testing process, they are required to at least make an attempt to call someone which they did not do. The case also involved issues to do with international treaties, the American Embassy became involved and there were a number of technical issues concerning the CPS decision to apply the wrong section of the law to the case. There was an abuse of process application due to witnesses being informed of the issues in the case. The judgment handed down in this case on 01 October was 34 pages long.
My client who was genuinely innocent was acquitted of all charges.
Motoring offences are by far one of the most complex areas of law and unfortunately, because they are tried in the Magistrates' Courts, we often have to throw ourselves upn the mercy of Magistrates who understandably struggle to fully understand some of the more complex and technical aspects of this highly specialised field.
You say motorists can represent themselves....I have been involved in unravelling a case where a motorist was given 7 points (impossible) and where summonses were amended out of time when they should not have been. Litigants in person are often taken advantage of due to their unfamiliarity with procedural issues.
I agree that the government should not have to pay excessive costs. The motorist should not have to fight excessive heavy handed cases brought against them. We are talking about legal costs here. The motorist in my case above spent several days of his life in court. He will receive nothing for his time and the stress involved of potentially having a recordable criminal conviction. Fortunately, he will be reimbursed the majority of his fees as these proposed changes will not be retropsective.
This could happen to anyone and whilst the length of time and number of issues in this case are a little unusual, virtually every client of mine begins the conversation with, I'm not a drink driver, or I don't agree with speeding etc.
TVRWannabee said:
chickensoup said:
CBA to read all the replies, but would think that the government suggestion is right 90% of the time, as the defendant can represent themselves. Do not see the need for the taxpayer to pay for Nick Freeman getting off the guilty.
And there ladies and gentlemen, you have a succinct epitaph on the headstone of our freedoms: CBA."The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm, but because of those who look at it without doing anything." Albert Einstein.
qube_TA said:
Can't be legal this.
If you've been charged with a crime and then are cleared of it you can't be given a bill.
This government have always been about turning everyone into criminals.
Is the legal system different in the UK then in the USA? People charged with a crime are always being found innocent. Who do you think pays the bill? The prosecution? Of course not. The accused have ALWAYS paid the bill. Now if the person is poor, the legal aid system kicks in and they get free representation (may not be good, however).If you've been charged with a crime and then are cleared of it you can't be given a bill.
This government have always been about turning everyone into criminals.
In any case, the accused have NEVER been entitled to recoup court costs in a CRIMINAL case. Now in CIVIL cases that's an altogether different matter. The person who loses is liable for the court costs for both parties.
So, what's the issue? That you don't like the fact that you will no longer be reimbursed if you win? Sounds like sour grapes to me. Here in the USA we've NEVER been reimbursed for winning a traffic case, since it is a criminal matter, not a civil issue.
chickensoup said:
CBA to read all the replies, but would think that the government suggestion is right 90% of the time, as the defendant can represent themselves. Do not see the need for the taxpayer to pay for Nick Freeman getting off the guilty.
When you are next offered a fixed penalty for a motoring offence you didn't commit you may think differentlyThe high profile get offs are exactly that - the tabloids don't print articles about general public motoring offences results in magistrates/crown court
It would have cost me close to £2000 in costs in 1988 had costs not been awarded against the crown - I earnt £350 per month before tax at the time and didn't qualify for legal aid
What would be really unpopular?
All basic income tax at 30%
Or continue making up the difference this country needs with the 'snide' taxation.
Maybe the parents of the 250,000 weekly truants should cough up for the £millions this government has spent on new
and upgraded schools in the past decade that their little darlings don't attend.
All basic income tax at 30%
Or continue making up the difference this country needs with the 'snide' taxation.
Maybe the parents of the 250,000 weekly truants should cough up for the £millions this government has spent on new
and upgraded schools in the past decade that their little darlings don't attend.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff