Police enquiry at home
Discussion
lb3nson said:
eldar said:
There was another thread where someone was convinced of their innocence. They do now have a criminal record. The OP needs to make a rational and non emotional decision.
But was there evidence they were not innocent?I can’t see how anyone can be convicted of a criminal act without evidence?
This thread.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Edited by eldar on Wednesday 29th June 15:49
eldar said:
lb3nson said:
eldar said:
There was another thread where someone was convinced of their innocence. They do now have a criminal record. The OP needs to make a rational and non emotional decision.
But was there evidence they were not innocent?I can’t see how anyone can be convicted of a criminal act without evidence?
This thread.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
The issue i'd have with the two witness's is their qualifications to judge the offence.....
Two coppers sat in a car can issue a ticket on their judgement. Fair enough... they are supposedly trained to make these opinions. Two mates in a car judging another's behaviour should hold no value in a court. How do you or the coppers or the magistrate know that their evidence is valid? Hence the need for another independent witness.
They may be nervous driver. They may have been doing 40 in a 60. You may have overtaken perfectly safely and their nervous demeanour means they hit the brake for no reason apart from lack of confidence.
You could be a big tit and scared the living daylights out of them legitimately but surely you must need someone to corroborate it??
I'd not be getting a solicitor specialising in Driving offences at £2k a pop, but a general solicitor who can argue the lack of evidence. It only cost a couple of hundred quid for my sons DUI court case. far more serious than this joke.
Two coppers sat in a car can issue a ticket on their judgement. Fair enough... they are supposedly trained to make these opinions. Two mates in a car judging another's behaviour should hold no value in a court. How do you or the coppers or the magistrate know that their evidence is valid? Hence the need for another independent witness.
They may be nervous driver. They may have been doing 40 in a 60. You may have overtaken perfectly safely and their nervous demeanour means they hit the brake for no reason apart from lack of confidence.
You could be a big tit and scared the living daylights out of them legitimately but surely you must need someone to corroborate it??
I'd not be getting a solicitor specialising in Driving offences at £2k a pop, but a general solicitor who can argue the lack of evidence. It only cost a couple of hundred quid for my sons DUI court case. far more serious than this joke.
Loving the Bar Room Solicitors giving their advice on here again, easy to say 'There's no evidence!' when it isn't you facing the potential consequences.
Icing on the cake being 'Represent yourself' (I imagine this never goes down well at Court), with the cherry on top being the frankly bat s
t crazy conspiracy theories that he's upset someone in the Police/friend of the Police and this is a result of that!
For what it's worth, I do think it was probably too late to be visiting the OP's house for something as relatively trivial and already slightly aged, but on the other hand I wouldn't get out of my pram about it.
Icing on the cake being 'Represent yourself' (I imagine this never goes down well at Court), with the cherry on top being the frankly bat s
t crazy conspiracy theories that he's upset someone in the Police/friend of the Police and this is a result of that!For what it's worth, I do think it was probably too late to be visiting the OP's house for something as relatively trivial and already slightly aged, but on the other hand I wouldn't get out of my pram about it.
Fastdruid said:
eldar said:
lb3nson said:
eldar said:
There was another thread where someone was convinced of their innocence. They do now have a criminal record. The OP needs to make a rational and non emotional decision.
But was there evidence they were not innocent?I can’t see how anyone can be convicted of a criminal act without evidence?
This thread.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
The consequences of being wrongfully convicted of assault are way more than a dubious conviction for a traffic offence.
Anything short of drink driving, nobody cares much in general. In fact I know more than a handful of people convicted of DUI and none of them has exactly had much impact from it.
I suspect it will cost a few hundred pounds in taking the fine and higher premiums.
vs
£££ for legal fees, cost of a day in court etc if you win.
Non-zero risk of losing with potential for serious cost.
SeekerOfTruthAndPies said:
Icing on the cake being 'Represent yourself' (I imagine this never goes down well at Court)
If you wish to fire accusations of talking nonsense then start at home. Your statement above for EG. 20+ years ago I was ordered to court for a 108/70 offence. I paid some £600 for a solicitor. I received a 5 week ban, and an £800 fine. Some months later I got talking to a then neighbour. He'd previously been to court for 135/70, but he represented himself. A 3 week ban (the fine wasn't discussed)
So, courts don't appreciate you representing yourself, that's correct yes?
I can't vouch for criminal type cases but certainly in civil cases that go to court they usually give you a little more latitude when representing yourself given you obviously won't be familiar with procedural matters and the like.
I have seen this in RTA cases at court for liability claims and also small claims cases as well as employment tribunals.
Not the same as the OPs position but I should imagine there woukd be a good chance anyone representing themselves would also be afforded a little latitude too?
I have seen this in RTA cases at court for liability claims and also small claims cases as well as employment tribunals.
Not the same as the OPs position but I should imagine there woukd be a good chance anyone representing themselves would also be afforded a little latitude too?
Fermit said:
SeekerOfTruthAndPies said:
Icing on the cake being 'Represent yourself' (I imagine this never goes down well at Court)
If you wish to fire accusations of talking nonsense then start at home. Your statement above for EG. 20+ years ago I was ordered to court for a 108/70 offence. I paid some £600 for a solicitor. I received a 5 week ban, and an £800 fine. Some months later I got talking to a then neighbour. He'd previously been to court for 135/70, but he represented himself. A 3 week ban (the fine wasn't discussed)
So, courts don't appreciate you representing yourself, that's correct yes?
Struggling to believe this can stand up and is being progressed.
3 friends of mine were out cycling. A van drove by, the passenger shot what looked like an airsoft gun at them. One cyclist had a camera on their bars and the video clearly showed reg plate, passenger's face and the shot.
Police went to registered keeper's house, he said it didn't happen. Case was dropped.
Now compare that to two people who say they witnessed a speedy overtake now being progressed as a driving offence. Makes no sense.
3 friends of mine were out cycling. A van drove by, the passenger shot what looked like an airsoft gun at them. One cyclist had a camera on their bars and the video clearly showed reg plate, passenger's face and the shot.
Police went to registered keeper's house, he said it didn't happen. Case was dropped.
Now compare that to two people who say they witnessed a speedy overtake now being progressed as a driving offence. Makes no sense.
super7 said:
The issue i'd have with the two witness's is their qualifications to judge the offence.....
Two coppers sat in a car can issue a ticket on their judgement. Fair enough... they are supposedly trained to make these opinions. Two mates in a car judging another's behaviour should hold no value in a court. How do you or the coppers or the magistrate know that their evidence is valid? Hence the need for another independent witness.
They may be nervous driver. They may have been doing 40 in a 60. You may have overtaken perfectly safely and their nervous demeanour means they hit the brake for no reason apart from lack of confidence.
You could be a big tit and scared the living daylights out of them legitimately but surely you must need someone to corroborate it??
I'd not be getting a solicitor specialising in Driving offences at £2k a pop, but a general solicitor who can argue the lack of evidence. It only cost a couple of hundred quid for my sons DUI court case. far more serious than this joke.
This.Two coppers sat in a car can issue a ticket on their judgement. Fair enough... they are supposedly trained to make these opinions. Two mates in a car judging another's behaviour should hold no value in a court. How do you or the coppers or the magistrate know that their evidence is valid? Hence the need for another independent witness.
They may be nervous driver. They may have been doing 40 in a 60. You may have overtaken perfectly safely and their nervous demeanour means they hit the brake for no reason apart from lack of confidence.
You could be a big tit and scared the living daylights out of them legitimately but surely you must need someone to corroborate it??
I'd not be getting a solicitor specialising in Driving offences at £2k a pop, but a general solicitor who can argue the lack of evidence. It only cost a couple of hundred quid for my sons DUI court case. far more serious than this joke.
I don't know how any court can make a judgement on a word on word allegation on this sort of offence, or everybody would be at it. The 2nd witness is not independent and in the same car.
vonhosen said:
super7 said:
The issue i'd have with the two witness's is their qualifications to judge the offence.....
No special qualifications needed.Also the independence factor: it's akin to saying that because you and your wife are the only witnesses to someone breaking into your house, then your evidence is worthless because the neighbour across the road didn't also see it.
Fermit said:
SeekerOfTruthAndPies said:
Icing on the cake being 'Represent yourself' (I imagine this never goes down well at Court)
If you wish to fire accusations of talking nonsense then start at home. Your statement above for EG. 20+ years ago I was ordered to court for a 108/70 offence. I paid some £600 for a solicitor. I received a 5 week ban, and an £800 fine. Some months later I got talking to a then neighbour. He'd previously been to court for 135/70, but he represented himself. A 3 week ban (the fine wasn't discussed)
So, courts don't appreciate you representing yourself, that's correct yes?
I won.
SeekerOfTruthAndPies said:
Fermit said:
SeekerOfTruthAndPies said:
Icing on the cake being 'Represent yourself' (I imagine this never goes down well at Court)
If you wish to fire accusations of talking nonsense then start at home. Your statement above for EG. 20+ years ago I was ordered to court for a 108/70 offence. I paid some £600 for a solicitor. I received a 5 week ban, and an £800 fine. Some months later I got talking to a then neighbour. He'd previously been to court for 135/70, but he represented himself. A 3 week ban (the fine wasn't discussed)
So, courts don't appreciate you representing yourself, that's correct yes?
te. boombang said:
Struggling to believe this can stand up and is being progressed.
3 friends of mine were out cycling. A van drove by, the passenger shot what looked like an airsoft gun at them. One cyclist had a camera on their bars and the video clearly showed reg plate, passenger's face and the shot.
Police went to registered keeper's house, he said it didn't happen. Case was dropped.
Now compare that to two people who say they witnessed a speedy overtake now being progressed as a driving offence. Makes no sense.
Firing a BB gun at a person is not a road traffic matter as such the registered keeper of the van is under no obligation to name the driver of the van, far less the passenger who was doing shooting Whereas the OP if hes the registered keeper will be required to name the driver of his car during the time of the alledged traffic offence.3 friends of mine were out cycling. A van drove by, the passenger shot what looked like an airsoft gun at them. One cyclist had a camera on their bars and the video clearly showed reg plate, passenger's face and the shot.
Police went to registered keeper's house, he said it didn't happen. Case was dropped.
Now compare that to two people who say they witnessed a speedy overtake now being progressed as a driving offence. Makes no sense.
Fermit said:
SeekerOfTruthAndPies said:
Fermit said:
SeekerOfTruthAndPies said:
Icing on the cake being 'Represent yourself' (I imagine this never goes down well at Court)
If you wish to fire accusations of talking nonsense then start at home. Your statement above for EG. 20+ years ago I was ordered to court for a 108/70 offence. I paid some £600 for a solicitor. I received a 5 week ban, and an £800 fine. Some months later I got talking to a then neighbour. He'd previously been to court for 135/70, but he represented himself. A 3 week ban (the fine wasn't discussed)
So, courts don't appreciate you representing yourself, that's correct yes?
te. Retro.74 said:
This.
I don't know how any court can make a judgement on a word on word allegation on this sort of offence, or everybody would be at it. The 2nd witness is not independent and in the same car.
Isn't this how alot of cases for all sorts of offences arrive at court for trial.I don't know how any court can make a judgement on a word on word allegation on this sort of offence, or everybody would be at it. The 2nd witness is not independent and in the same car.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff