Crime and punishment

Author
Discussion

Red Devil

Original Poster:

13,055 posts

207 months

Tuesday 13th November 2018
quotequote all
If what is alleged is true, I hope this individual meets the same fate as Chris Huhne. A spell as a guest of Her Majesty.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...

And her brother can join her.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...

How embarrassing for Mr Corbyn to have Party Whip being involved in such shenanigans

Her previous career was as a solicitor. If convicted, I hope that means she is disbarred from practising again.

55palfers

5,893 posts

163 months

Tuesday 13th November 2018
quotequote all
If prosecution have shown that the alleged driver was in Russia at the time she is bang to rights.

These people have no shame.

mikecassie

608 posts

158 months

Tuesday 13th November 2018
quotequote all
It's unbelievable what some people think they can get away with.

I hope they get the maximum penalty possible for this. It'll not be enough IMO but it's a start.

agtlaw

6,680 posts

205 months

Tuesday 13th November 2018
quotequote all
55palfers said:
If the prosecution has shown that the alleged driver was in Russia at the time she is bang to rights.
If her defence is “even if I were driving, it were my brother wot did it [the paperwork] and he acted independently” then perhaps she has an arguable case?

I don’t know much about the case but it’s best to keep an open mind at this stage.

CoolHands

18,496 posts

194 months

Tuesday 13th November 2018
quotequote all
Her brother who admitted 3 identical offences last week. I wonder if she signed the paperwork that got sent back? Also, I like her threat she used “It is a criminal offence to say I was the driver when I was not.” when responding to them. Shows you how these people operate. Anyway, sounds like she has stiched herself up if you ask me (both her phones connected to a cell site near the camera location at the time! Haha)

Edited by CoolHands on Tuesday 13th November 22:05

Cooperman

4,428 posts

249 months

Tuesday 13th November 2018
quotequote all
Innocent until proven guilty! Not yet proven.

There is a view, which I may not share but will mention, that says the entire speed camera S172 scenario is contrary to our system of justice.

It goes like this; we have a photograph of a number plate which is attached to a vehicle which may have committed a road traffic offence. You are the registered keeper of that number and you are required to either confess or to give us the name of a person who will confess. We will do nothing to establish the actual facts unless we think you have not provided the name of a person who will confess in which case you have no right to silence and you will be prosecuted and will be considered guilty unless you can establish your innocence in a court. If you deliberately provide the incorrect name and are found to have done so you will probably be imprisoned.

The need to be able to use threats to gain the identity of a driver is now established as the way it works. I guess we have to be happy with that. Is this the only area of our law where you are required to establish yours or someone else's guilt at pains of a conviction for not doing so?

Red Devil

Original Poster:

13,055 posts

207 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
Cooperman said:
If you deliberately provide the incorrect name and are found to have done so you will probably be imprisoned.
No complaint on that score AFAIAC.

Cooperman said:
The need to be able to use threats to gain the identity of a driver is now established as the way it works. I guess we have to be happy with that.
Responding to a S.172 is not a confession. It is merely the provision of information. The EHCR decided over 10 years ago that it was proportionate.

Cooperman said:
Is this the only area of our law where you are required to establish yours or someone else's guilt at pains of a conviction for not doing so?
S.172 does not establish guilt either. It merely identifies who has a case to answer. Nobody is denied their day in court to defend the allegation. The prosecution still have to prove their case.

Speed cameras merely make that task relatively straightforward. The irony being that the entire industry was kick started by a Dutch rally driver who invented a device to improve his cornering speed!.

Zetec-S

5,832 posts

92 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
What an absolute moron (assuming she is guilty of course wink)

Why do these idiots think it's worth it? 41 in a 30 is hardly the worst offence in the world - maybe 3/6 points and £100/£200 fine??? And if you're really that worried about it then hire one of these celebrity lawyer aholes to find some technicality to get you off.

2Btoo

3,410 posts

202 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
Zetec-S said:
What an absolute moron (assuming she is guilty of course wink)

Why do these idiots think it's worth it? 41 in a 30 is hardly the worst offence in the world - maybe 3/6 points and £100/£200 fine???
It seems to be typical of a selfish mentality of not accepting any form of liability for one's own actions. It's common to see; people will lie, scream and shout to try and show that they are in the right, rather than accepting liability and 'taking your own medicine'. To see this behaviour from some people is almost to be expected these days although to see it from a serving MP is disappointing.

If proven guilty, I sincerely hope that the court sentences very harshly.

surveyor_101

5,069 posts

178 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
[quote=Red Devil]
S.172 does not establish guilt either. It merely identifies who has a case to answer. Nobody is denied their day in court to defend the allegation. The prosecution still have to prove their case.


I got NIP last month and sent it back for speed awareness and got a letter back with bold letters saying you have admitted the offence but you have already done a SAC in the last 3 years, so pay the fine and send your licence off.

I assume I am guilty now should I chose a court appareance?

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
The whip's office is hardly an example of probity. To be a good whip, and we don’t know if this woman is good at her job or not, requires a certain lax attitude to wrongdoing. There’s much on YouTube with whips demonstrating they are so untouchable that they can admit to ignoring offences by MPs.

I once had a barrister refuse to take a breath test - screening device - in the Middle Temple because it was, according to him, a papal peculiar and so he only answered to the pope. I was kind enough not to mention his reply at court.

It took me hours to discover what a papal peculiar was and to negate it as a defence. Oh for the internet then. In the end he pleaded to failing to provide for the substantive blood test requirement and got 18 months ban for his trouble.

It's a mindset I think for those who view themselves important enough to be beyond minor laws.

She's pleaded NG. If she's found guilty then it's probably a custodial.


surveyor_101

5,069 posts

178 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
55palfers said:
If prosecution have shown that the alleged driver was in Russia at the time she is bang to rights.

These people have no shame.
I believe its her car so I assume she nominated him as the driver? Not many people register their own car in their brothers name.

I have a clean licence but have taken a speed awareness course two year ago so will have to add this points in the next 10 days! I did consider asking my mum now she is retired and never done a speed awareness course did she fancy doing one to keep my licence clean, but my mum wasn't in russia at the time and doesn't and won't do this sort of thing for anyone else.


Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 14th November 09:38

surveyor_101

5,069 posts

178 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
She's pleaded NG. If she's found guilty then it's probably a custodial.
You think since her brother has coughed to it she might of thought better but maybe she is another abbot and irretrievably stupid but gets by using her race and gender as her trump card.

Starfighter

4,908 posts

177 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
If she conspired with her brother would this be treated as more serious than acting alone?

On the up side, if she has kids then they will have a genuine Uncle Festus.

CoolHands

18,496 posts

194 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
she's going to say the brother filled in the paperwork - he's already in for a penny (admitted guilty); and her signing the paperwork is just a formality which isn't something with serious consequence, it will just be a minor reprimand no doubt.

Durzel

12,232 posts

167 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
Cooperman said:
Innocent until proven guilty! Not yet proven.

There is a view, which I may not share but will mention, that says the entire speed camera S172 scenario is contrary to our system of justice.

It goes like this; we have a photograph of a number plate which is attached to a vehicle which may have committed a road traffic offence. You are the registered keeper of that number and you are required to either confess or to give us the name of a person who will confess. We will do nothing to establish the actual facts unless we think you have not provided the name of a person who will confess in which case you have no right to silence and you will be prosecuted and will be considered guilty unless you can establish your innocence in a court. If you deliberately provide the incorrect name and are found to have done so you will probably be imprisoned.

The need to be able to use threats to gain the identity of a driver is now established as the way it works. I guess we have to be happy with that. Is this the only area of our law where you are required to establish yours or someone else's guilt at pains of a conviction for not doing so?
That's a lot of words to criticise a system that has never claimed to be perfect.

What alternative do you propose? Bearing in mind a vehicle can legally be driven by anyone licensed and insured to drive it? The vehicle is the only thing with an identifiable mark.

hutchst

3,696 posts

95 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
It's a perfect case for the 'Arry Redknapp defence. Do we know if she has a dog?

markjmd

549 posts

67 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
CoolHands said:
she's going to say the brother filled in the paperwork - he's already in for a penny (admitted guilty); and her signing the paperwork is just a formality which isn't something with serious consequence, it will just be a minor reprimand no doubt.
So an elected representative of our parliament is going around signing things without reading or caring what they are? I can't imagine that's going to get her very far, if she tries to use it as a defence.

markjmd

549 posts

67 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
Durzel said:
Cooperman said:
Innocent until proven guilty! Not yet proven.

There is a view, which I may not share but will mention, that says the entire speed camera S172 scenario is contrary to our system of justice.

It goes like this; we have a photograph of a number plate which is attached to a vehicle which may have committed a road traffic offence. You are the registered keeper of that number and you are required to either confess or to give us the name of a person who will confess. We will do nothing to establish the actual facts unless we think you have not provided the name of a person who will confess in which case you have no right to silence and you will be prosecuted and will be considered guilty unless you can establish your innocence in a court. If you deliberately provide the incorrect name and are found to have done so you will probably be imprisoned.

The need to be able to use threats to gain the identity of a driver is now established as the way it works. I guess we have to be happy with that. Is this the only area of our law where you are required to establish yours or someone else's guilt at pains of a conviction for not doing so?
That's a lot of words to criticise a system that has never claimed to be perfect.

What alternative do you propose? Bearing in mind a vehicle can legally be driven by anyone licensed and insured to drive it? The vehicle is the only thing with an identifiable mark.
Not to mention also that nobody in this country is forced to own or drive a car (or van, motorcycle, etc).

If you think S172 is unfair or unconstitutional, the answer's simple - use public transport, or get a cab wink

S11Steve

6,374 posts

183 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
55palfers said:
If the prosecution has shown that the alleged driver was in Russia at the time she is bang to rights.
If her defence is “even if I were driving, it were my brother wot did it [the paperwork] and he acted independently” then perhaps she has an arguable case?

I don’t know much about the case but it’s best to keep an open mind at this stage.
I read it that her brother used the Russian guys name on three previous NIPs/S172s and they eventually went away - when the MP tried the same tactic, she avoided contact as long as possible until she got caught.

I'm not sure it was her brother who completed the S172 for her offence, but perhaps told her how to complete it in order to avoid the charge - I know it's a DM link, but it seems to have a lot of transcript from the trial - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6379629/L...