Horses On The Roads - What's the Law?
Discussion
singlecoil said:
And the other party too, I expect, but as you say, there's no 'legal' proof of that so there' and there's no point in going over old ground again. I've usually found it takes two parties to create a dispute, and it's rare indeed that one side is completely blameless.
A tactic in instances such as these, can be to make your own complaint against the other party. Where the evidence is thin and both sides have been acting similarly, it can the difference between the CPS taking it to court or not. I presume Nick didn't do this, which in itself shouldn't have too much read into it, other than he's either not as canny as he might be or didn't feel the other side had acted unreasonably.
10 Pence Short said:
A tactic in instances such as these, can be to make your own complaint against the other party. Where the evidence is thin and both sides have been acting similarly, it can the difference between the CPS taking it to court or not. I presume Nick didn't do this, which in itself shouldn't have too much read into it, other than he's either not as canny as he might be or didn't feel the other side had acted unreasonably.
Or, to be fair, that he didn't think that the matter was going to go any further, and therefore didn't recognise the need to get his complaint in first. However, as none of were there, or have access to the minds of the individuals concerned, we don't know and the matter has been dealt with to the satisfaction of the majority of those interested in it.
Nick is currently looking into appealing. The problem is that appeals do not go before a jury, they go before a judge, and two magistrates. As Nick's solicitor said, a jury would probably realise that there was an altercation, they swore, he swore, he drove off, and acquit him of the section 4a (as already posted, he told them to 'p
s off'; that isn't exactly causing 'distress, alarm, or harassment' in my eyes). However, in the words of the solicitor, the bias is always going to be towards 3 'prim and proper horse riders', rather than a young lad in a loud car. This means that, if found guilty a second time, the judge could:
A. Increase his fine and/or costs.
B. Disqualify him from driving.
Obviously if he loses his license it will wreck his career and render him unable to complete his college course.
I myself feel that, if his license was not on the line, he should appeal, as my evidence will help completely disprove their 'independent witness', and also show their estimations of distance, speed, and also time to be greatly exaggerated.
s off'; that isn't exactly causing 'distress, alarm, or harassment' in my eyes). However, in the words of the solicitor, the bias is always going to be towards 3 'prim and proper horse riders', rather than a young lad in a loud car. This means that, if found guilty a second time, the judge could:A. Increase his fine and/or costs.
B. Disqualify him from driving.
Obviously if he loses his license it will wreck his career and render him unable to complete his college course.
I myself feel that, if his license was not on the line, he should appeal, as my evidence will help completely disprove their 'independent witness', and also show their estimations of distance, speed, and also time to be greatly exaggerated.
Your solicitor sounds pretty daft, although it is a bad habit of duff lawyers to blame defeat on bias. There is no bias in favour of so called prim and proper horse riders. The appeal panel would be independent minded. It is unlikely that the court would accept evidence from you. You were not there, and you are not qualified to give independent expert evidence. Anyway, the issue is one of how people behaved, not a technical question of distance, speed etc.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 24th April 19:50
King Fisher said:
Nick is currently looking into appealing.... in the words of the solicitor, the bias is always going to be towards 3 'prim and proper horse riders', rather than a young lad in a loud car. This means that, if found guilty a second time, the judge could:
A. Increase his fine and/or costs.
B. Disqualify him from driving.
Obviously if he loses his license it will wreck his career and render him unable to complete his college course.
I myself feel that, if his license was not on the line, he should appeal, as my evidence will help completely disprove their 'independent witness', and also show their estimations of distance, speed, and also time to be greatly exaggerated.
The appeal deadline passed on Monday this week.A. Increase his fine and/or costs.
B. Disqualify him from driving.
Obviously if he loses his license it will wreck his career and render him unable to complete his college course.
I myself feel that, if his license was not on the line, he should appeal, as my evidence will help completely disprove their 'independent witness', and also show their estimations of distance, speed, and also time to be greatly exaggerated.
Interesting that your solicitor now accepts what I pointed out; that a disqualification is a potential outcome. A few pages back you said, " ... he has checked with his solicitor, and he said that they cannot touch his license in anyway. Which is a relief."
You should have got a better lawyer. Some very poor advice given.
agtlaw said:
The appeal deadline passed on Monday this week.
Interesting that your solicitor now accepts what I pointed out; that a disqualification is a potential outcome. A few pages back you said, " ... he has checked with his solicitor, and he said that they cannot touch his license in anyway. Which is a relief."
You should have got a better lawyer. Some very poor advice given.
Indeed, he actually switched solicitor as he felt the first one wasn't being rigorous enough. The second solicitor agreed they could disqualify him, but that is normal saved for incidents where cars have been used as a weapon ie. trying to run someone over. Interesting that your solicitor now accepts what I pointed out; that a disqualification is a potential outcome. A few pages back you said, " ... he has checked with his solicitor, and he said that they cannot touch his license in anyway. Which is a relief."
You should have got a better lawyer. Some very poor advice given.
What would your advice have been?
I am a civil lawyer, and only get involved in the criminal legal process when doing parole and prison cases for HMG, but in principle, and without knowing all of the ins and outs, my advice might well have been along these lines:-
(1) When the matter was first referred to the police, I would have counselled a contrite approach, stressing that tempers had frayed on both sides, and endeavoured to negotiate a peaceful conclusion, even if that might mean my client accepting a caution, although I would try to avoid that. My aim would be to have the matter dropped, with no adverse consequence to anyone involved.
(2) If charges had still been pursued, I would have advised that the weight of the evidence was likely to tell against my client, and encouraged him to make a plea, maybe in respect of some lesser offence, or accept a bind over.
(3) If the matter had still gone to trial, I would not have adopted a defence strategy of attacking the prosecution witnesses, or a diversionary strategy of arguing about GCSE physics. I would have argued that this was a roadside spat that had been blown out of proportion as people had entrenched their positions.
(4) If the court had found against my client, then, absent any plain misdirection of law or decision contrary to the weight of the evidence, I would not have counselled an appeal. I would, however, have advised on the time limit for appealing.
I would also have advised, before the whole thing happened, that moderation in language and behaviour is always best, even if confronted by immoderate behaviour or language from others. I would also have advised learning to share the road with other road users, wheeled, mounted, fast, slow, whatever. That, however, might be more dad stuff than lawyer stuff.
(1) When the matter was first referred to the police, I would have counselled a contrite approach, stressing that tempers had frayed on both sides, and endeavoured to negotiate a peaceful conclusion, even if that might mean my client accepting a caution, although I would try to avoid that. My aim would be to have the matter dropped, with no adverse consequence to anyone involved.
(2) If charges had still been pursued, I would have advised that the weight of the evidence was likely to tell against my client, and encouraged him to make a plea, maybe in respect of some lesser offence, or accept a bind over.
(3) If the matter had still gone to trial, I would not have adopted a defence strategy of attacking the prosecution witnesses, or a diversionary strategy of arguing about GCSE physics. I would have argued that this was a roadside spat that had been blown out of proportion as people had entrenched their positions.
(4) If the court had found against my client, then, absent any plain misdirection of law or decision contrary to the weight of the evidence, I would not have counselled an appeal. I would, however, have advised on the time limit for appealing.
I would also have advised, before the whole thing happened, that moderation in language and behaviour is always best, even if confronted by immoderate behaviour or language from others. I would also have advised learning to share the road with other road users, wheeled, mounted, fast, slow, whatever. That, however, might be more dad stuff than lawyer stuff.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 25th April 11:01
I demur. My Europa and my Interceptor are loud cars, but I drive them sensibly in places where horses and other slow moving road users may be anticipated. I always get a wave and sometimes a "cool car!" from horse riders, as I slow down or stop to give them space.
It's neither the car nor the exhaust that causes a problem, it's the person behind the wheel.
It's neither the car nor the exhaust that causes a problem, it's the person behind the wheel.
I disagree. In a country area you can hear a loud car from a long distance away, and it can be an extremely irritating noise for those forced to hear it. Throttling back for 'situations' doesn't help when you open it up again but are still withon earshot. Drive over the same roads a few times and it won't be long before you are not a welcome visitor to the area.
doogz said:
singlecoil said:
I disagree. In a country area you can hear a loud car from a long distance away, and it can be an extremely irritating noise for those forced to hear it. Throttling back for 'situations' doesn't help when you open it up again but are still withon earshot. Drive over the same roads a few times and it won't be long before you are not a welcome visitor to the area.
I live in the country, we have horses, and i drive a noisy car.It's not really a problem if you drive sensibly. I'm not sure where all these horses that get spooked by loud exhausts live, all the horses around our way are used to loud cars, quad bikes, tractors, etc. All daily noises, and not really something that seems to bother any of them.
The advice is "whether in town or country, don't drive like a flash git". Many country dwellers have horses and rorty cars. My favourite horsewoman drives a very noisy classic Aston, and does so with vigour, but in a civilised and friendly fashion. I borrow my friend's Caterham and hoon about in his area of Wiltshire, but without causing trouble. Learning how to hoon in a sociable fashion is part of being a proper petrolhead.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff