RE: 'Not Guilty' Motorists Face Court Costs
Discussion
WillBmx said:
First post on this website, will probabley be a bad one.haha.
This government sickens me, the first of MANY thoughts that come into my head with this is, how can they introduce this for one aspect of law specifically, yet I bet that any other state vs individual case in other aspects of law will still have the loser pays scenario.
The amount that Mr.Brown (such a lovely gentleman) and his "crew" hate motorists/motoring sickens me beyond belief.
I would like one day for them to put in the public eye how they actually came about this being a good idea, including where the money comes from, goes to and how it benefits ANYONE, as opposed to how the law currently sits. As they would have had to go through the motions to think up this "amazing" plan.
Will
Which one aspect of law are you referring to ?This government sickens me, the first of MANY thoughts that come into my head with this is, how can they introduce this for one aspect of law specifically, yet I bet that any other state vs individual case in other aspects of law will still have the loser pays scenario.
The amount that Mr.Brown (such a lovely gentleman) and his "crew" hate motorists/motoring sickens me beyond belief.
I would like one day for them to put in the public eye how they actually came about this being a good idea, including where the money comes from, goes to and how it benefits ANYONE, as opposed to how the law currently sits. As they would have had to go through the motions to think up this "amazing" plan.
Will
There are a few first posters on this thread
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 22 October 16:42
vonhosen said:
WillBmx said:
First post on this website, will probabley be a bad one.haha.
This government sickens me, the first of MANY thoughts that come into my head with this is, how can they introduce this for one aspect of law specifically, yet I bet that any other state vs individual case in other aspects of law will still have the loser pays scenario.
The amount that Mr.Brown (such a lovely gentleman) and his "crew" hate motorists/motoring sickens me beyond belief.
I would like one day for them to put in the public eye how they actually came about this being a good idea, including where the money comes from, goes to and how it benefits ANYONE, as opposed to how the law currently sits. As they would have had to go through the motions to think up this "amazing" plan.
Will
Which one aspect of law are you referring to ?This government sickens me, the first of MANY thoughts that come into my head with this is, how can they introduce this for one aspect of law specifically, yet I bet that any other state vs individual case in other aspects of law will still have the loser pays scenario.
The amount that Mr.Brown (such a lovely gentleman) and his "crew" hate motorists/motoring sickens me beyond belief.
I would like one day for them to put in the public eye how they actually came about this being a good idea, including where the money comes from, goes to and how it benefits ANYONE, as opposed to how the law currently sits. As they would have had to go through the motions to think up this "amazing" plan.
Will
There are a few first posters on this thread
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 22 October 16:42
Welcome one and all, I say.
Whisper (Sorry, we didn't warn you about Von).
Edited by TVRWannabee on Thursday 22 October 19:33
tim-b said:
If reimbursing motorists proved innocent is costing the govt. so much, that should be an indication that they're making too many mistakes in the first place! Bunch of crooks, this has to be against some kind of human rights or other.
Sign the petition!!!
Yeah and what they forget is that it is us in the first place that is funding the "service" - Surely we have the right to ask nay DEMAND that they improve upon the service or we reserve the right to withhold payment like you would be able to in any standard service. Sign the petition!!!
vonhosen said:
WillBmx said:
First post on this website, will probabley be a bad one.haha.
This government sickens me, the first of MANY thoughts that come into my head with this is, how can they introduce this for one aspect of law specifically, yet I bet that any other state vs individual case in other aspects of law will still have the loser pays scenario.
The amount that Mr.Brown (such a lovely gentleman) and his "crew" hate motorists/motoring sickens me beyond belief.
I would like one day for them to put in the public eye how they actually came about this being a good idea, including where the money comes from, goes to and how it benefits ANYONE, as opposed to how the law currently sits. As they would have had to go through the motions to think up this "amazing" plan.
Will
Which one aspect of law are you referring to ?This government sickens me, the first of MANY thoughts that come into my head with this is, how can they introduce this for one aspect of law specifically, yet I bet that any other state vs individual case in other aspects of law will still have the loser pays scenario.
The amount that Mr.Brown (such a lovely gentleman) and his "crew" hate motorists/motoring sickens me beyond belief.
I would like one day for them to put in the public eye how they actually came about this being a good idea, including where the money comes from, goes to and how it benefits ANYONE, as opposed to how the law currently sits. As they would have had to go through the motions to think up this "amazing" plan.
Will
There are a few first posters on this thread
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 22 October 16:42
They are introducing this under (i presume), any offence under the road traffic act. So basically they are taking one single area of law and providing it with a completely seperate working. I had in my head how to word it but it's completely gone.
You can't take one act, or piece of legislation and change the rules just for that, it should cover the whole legal system.(not that I think this should!)
Could I just confirm what this new legislation means?
If you want to fight your case in court and win you will get back the amount it would have cost you in Legal Aid.
If you want to pay extra for a super duper Lawyer and win you still only get back the amount it would have cost you in Legal Aid.
If you lose you pay the same costs regardless.
So you only lose out should you decide to pay more for a more expensive Lawyer?
If you want to fight your case in court and win you will get back the amount it would have cost you in Legal Aid.
If you want to pay extra for a super duper Lawyer and win you still only get back the amount it would have cost you in Legal Aid.
If you lose you pay the same costs regardless.
So you only lose out should you decide to pay more for a more expensive Lawyer?
B Oeuf said:
So you only lose out should you decide to pay more for a more expensive Lawyer?
correct but if you think you will get proper representation for 40 quid an hour from a legal aid monkey good luck to you. the simple fact is if you are innocent you should not have to pay to defend yourself against the state. costs are already subject to a test of reasonableness so it's not like you can take the pi55 now. if the state is worried they will lose and pay your costs they shouldn't bring the case. this is a disgusting erosion of our rights, unsuprising from this shower of s
t governmentWillBmx said:
vonhosen said:
WillBmx said:
First post on this website, will probabley be a bad one.haha.
This government sickens me, the first of MANY thoughts that come into my head with this is, how can they introduce this for one aspect of law specifically, yet I bet that any other state vs individual case in other aspects of law will still have the loser pays scenario.
The amount that Mr.Brown (such a lovely gentleman) and his "crew" hate motorists/motoring sickens me beyond belief.
I would like one day for them to put in the public eye how they actually came about this being a good idea, including where the money comes from, goes to and how it benefits ANYONE, as opposed to how the law currently sits. As they would have had to go through the motions to think up this "amazing" plan.
Will
Which one aspect of law are you referring to ?This government sickens me, the first of MANY thoughts that come into my head with this is, how can they introduce this for one aspect of law specifically, yet I bet that any other state vs individual case in other aspects of law will still have the loser pays scenario.
The amount that Mr.Brown (such a lovely gentleman) and his "crew" hate motorists/motoring sickens me beyond belief.
I would like one day for them to put in the public eye how they actually came about this being a good idea, including where the money comes from, goes to and how it benefits ANYONE, as opposed to how the law currently sits. As they would have had to go through the motions to think up this "amazing" plan.
Will
There are a few first posters on this thread
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 22 October 16:42
They are introducing this under (i presume), any offence under the road traffic act. So basically they are taking one single area of law and providing it with a completely seperate working. I had in my head how to word it but it's completely gone.
You can't take one act, or piece of legislation and change the rules just for that, it should cover the whole legal system.(not that I think this should!)
The cost of suspicion.
Of all the little costs in life, the Government now intend to impose a financial hardship on the basis that you are a 'suspect'. If we heard this was to be applied in Zimbabwe or Burma then the international community would be up in arms not only for human rights issues but for the obvious reason that such a law is open to abuse by the authorities. I'm not suggesting that would happen here but you can see how an officer with a personal grudge could get you on the simple basis that you will be punished irrespective of the courts findings.
In any case, I believe it would be an idiotic move as the first European Court of Human Rights challenge would be successful and the costs to each individual acquitted would have to be refunded.
Of all the little costs in life, the Government now intend to impose a financial hardship on the basis that you are a 'suspect'. If we heard this was to be applied in Zimbabwe or Burma then the international community would be up in arms not only for human rights issues but for the obvious reason that such a law is open to abuse by the authorities. I'm not suggesting that would happen here but you can see how an officer with a personal grudge could get you on the simple basis that you will be punished irrespective of the courts findings.
In any case, I believe it would be an idiotic move as the first European Court of Human Rights challenge would be successful and the costs to each individual acquitted would have to be refunded.
vonhosen said:
hiawog said:
In any case, I believe it would be an idiotic move as the first European Court of Human Rights challenge would be successful and the costs to each individual acquitted would have to be refunded.
Oh well that's cleared that up then.Edited by iamed on Friday 23 October 18:20
iamed said:
vonhosen said:
hiawog said:
In any case, I believe it would be an idiotic move as the first European Court of Human Rights challenge would be successful and the costs to each individual acquitted would have to be refunded.
Oh well that's cleared that up then.Edited by iamed on Friday 23 October 18:20
We should provide a minimum standard & if people want more then they can pay for more.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 23 October 18:29
i'll hazard a guess that faced with the prospect of massive legal bills many innocent people will simply be forced to plead guilty. i guess thats good for the crime figures, means the police have to do an (even) less thorough job with the prospect of easy convictions, means the cps can continue to bring frivolous, weak and stupid cases and means the CPS/court/government can cut their legal bill by a few million. not really suprising the police support it.
von - i will laugh heartily the day you are falsly accused of something and can only get a 40 quid an hour legal aid solicitor. then again would i be right guessing police officers have some kind of legal assistance insurance from a union or some other organisation?
von - i will laugh heartily the day you are falsly accused of something and can only get a 40 quid an hour legal aid solicitor. then again would i be right guessing police officers have some kind of legal assistance insurance from a union or some other organisation?
Edited by fbrs on Friday 23 October 18:40
fbrs said:
i'll hazard a guess that faced with the prospect of massive legal bills many innocent people will simply be forced to plead guilty. i guess thats good for the crime figures, means the police have to do an (even) less thorough job with the prospect of easy convictions, means the cps can continue to bring frivolous, weak and stupid cases and means the CPS/court/government can cut their legal bill by a few million. not really suprising the police support it.
The system will be exactly the same for me should I be before the court.I've insurance to cover the eventuality.
vonhosen said:
fbrs said:
i'll hazard a guess that faced with the prospect of massive legal bills many innocent people will simply be forced to plead guilty. i guess thats good for the crime figures, means the police have to do an (even) less thorough job with the prospect of easy convictions, means the cps can continue to bring frivolous, weak and stupid cases and means the CPS/court/government can cut their legal bill by a few million. not really suprising the police support it.
The system will be exactly the same for me should I be before the court.I've insurance to cover the eventuality.
It appears that the only insurance companies that expressly provide for the cover of Motor Defence Protection is Aviva (bearing in mind they only cover costs up to £10,000), RSA (will pay the solicitor’s fee for defending any proceedings in court and the cost of legal services up to €5,000 for defence in the event of proceedings being taken for manslaughter or dangerous driving causing death or serious bodily harm), SAGA ( if the insured person is prosecuted and at risk of losing their licence). Other than these Allianz will allow you to upgrade your insurance to include MDP with the exclusion of some motoring offences (mostly alcohol).
RBS, AXA (Swift) and AA do not have any form of MDP included within any of their policies.
3/7 companies include MDP within their LEI cover within car insurance policies.
1/7 companies ask you to pay extra to include MDP which is included in their more advanced add on options.
I sincerely hope that you are never asked to provide a breath sample on a faulty machine (of which there are many) or that a laser device is not pointed at your vehicle but reads off the porsche to your left.You may find when you consider the small print that you may also be caught by the new rules.
vonhosen said:
I've already said, I don't think the tax payer should pay exorbitant rates for people's defence solicitors. We don't pay them to prosecution solicitors.
We should provide a minimum standard & if people want more then they can pay for more.
Perhaps instead we should entirely stop funding the persecution of our fellow citizens who have done no harm by a state that is not our friend?We should provide a minimum standard & if people want more then they can pay for more.
I make no apology for repeating the following...
Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged said:
"Did you really think we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of Boy Scouts you're up against--then you'll know this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
The CJS is not serving us well; sack it.There is only so far you can push a population (even one of such docile sheep like the UK). However, the majority of people are law abiding because (in the main) they consider the laws in place to be fairly reasonable and live their lives according to them. For example, murder is illegal and punishable by a long prison term, 99.9% of the populus would agree that this is a reasonable law to have and 99.9% of us dont hack up our neighbours in the event of a dispute because of it.
The moment you start passing laws that the average man in the street thinks are totally outrageous, then as a government your on a slippery slope to having your public ignore them. The police couldn't cope if we did that either. If the socialist criminals in downing street are not stopped I can genuinely see this country slipping into civil disorder. Not anarchy or anything outrageous but a chaotic mess where the public ignore laws such as this. The numbers of people driving without insurance, tax, registered cars will rise massively, court non attendences will sky rocket etc, etc.
Unless your hard of thinking, don't vote Labour. I'm no dyed in the wool tory, but they were right in 1996, New Labour, New Danger. (I never have and never would vote labour)
The moment you start passing laws that the average man in the street thinks are totally outrageous, then as a government your on a slippery slope to having your public ignore them. The police couldn't cope if we did that either. If the socialist criminals in downing street are not stopped I can genuinely see this country slipping into civil disorder. Not anarchy or anything outrageous but a chaotic mess where the public ignore laws such as this. The numbers of people driving without insurance, tax, registered cars will rise massively, court non attendences will sky rocket etc, etc.
Unless your hard of thinking, don't vote Labour. I'm no dyed in the wool tory, but they were right in 1996, New Labour, New Danger. (I never have and never would vote labour)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff