RE: 'Not Guilty' Motorists Face Court Costs
Discussion
10 Pence Short said:
People who are made to defend themselves in court against false allegations should not be made to incur any loss in doing so.
The way to avoid the problem is to stop trying to prosecute people when there isn't a good case to do so.
The CPS should only be prosecuting where a guilty verdict is a realistic prospect.The way to avoid the problem is to stop trying to prosecute people when there isn't a good case to do so.
I would like to firstly express my gratitude for the overwhelming support to date with the petition that is still live on the number 10 site which as at the time of posting this on the pistonheads site has attracted 17,500 signatures. As a result of the sheer number of people opposed to the government’s plans, an “Early Day Motion” was lodged by Mr Henry Bellingham MP, Shadow Minister for Justice with the aim of debating the issue in Parliament. The EDM has been drafted as follows:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 2720), dated 8 October 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 October, be annulled.
In order for the issue to be debated in parliament, there must be a significant number of MPs who sign this EDM which is listed as number 2063 on the parliament website.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDM...
Pasted below is a template email to be sent to the MPs themselves. I am advised by those in the know, that if a constituent of the MP sends an email or letter this is likely to have a far more significant effect than if we send a mailshot to all MPs from AMOL or from any other organization. Feel free to edit the template or to use your own version of it but please act quickly and send the email without delay.
Even though the statutory instrument is due to be implemented 31 October it is possible for it to be annulled retrospectively and so we have until the end of this parliamentary session in early November 2009.
Again, I acknowledge all of the amazing support so far and request again that you take the time to cut and paste the content of the email below to the relevant MP’s email address. We can make a difference but I need your help to achieve enough signatures to do so. If you feel able, please forward this email to as many people as possible to follow suit.
Thank you in advance for your assistance,
Jeanette S. Miller
Senior & Managing Partner
Geoffrey Miller Solicitors
Founding CEO and President of the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers (AMOL)
www.motoroffence.co.uk
www.amol.uk.com
DRAFT TEMPLATE EMAIL:
Dear MP
I am writing as your constituent to seek your support in halting Government plans to restrict the reimbursement of legal costs for defendants who have been acquitted of certain criminal offences.
The Government recently laid before Parliament the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20092720_en_1), which is only subject to Parliamentary approval under the negative resolution. Currently there will be no Parliamentary debate on the Order.
Therefore I am asking you to sign EDM 2063 "praying against" the Order, ensuring that Parliament gets to properly debate this issue (http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=39298&SESSION=899).
I believe it is important for as many MPs as possible, from all parties, to sign EDM 2063. Also, I believe that the Order is detrimental to the principles of access to justice, and should therefore be annulled.
An e-petition which first highlighted this issue on the Number 10 site has attracted over 17,000 signatures including many QCs, a former judge and many lawyers and laypeople outraged by the MOJ decision to go ahead with the implementation of the rules despite overwhelming opposition to them.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
The key points of our argument against the Order, are:
• The Order limits awards of costs from Central Funds to acquitted defendants to just Legal Aid rates. This means that an acquitted person who has paid privately for legal representation, will most likely only recover around 20% of their legal costs back, and could face a large legal bill even though they have been proven innocent.
• Legal Aid is not available in a number of types of cases - particularly motoring offences - so those defending such actions have no choice but to either pay privately for a lawyer or represent themselves.
• The Order should be opposed because it creates inequality of arms; the Law Society believes that citizens should be able to adequately defend themselves against prosecutions brought by the State, and if found innocent, they should be able to recoup their reasonable costs.
• If implemented, the Order will increase the numbers of people defending themselves in court, since many people will not be able to afford a lawyer, particularly if they are not able to get their costs back if they are acquitted. This is likely to lead to miscarriages of justice and a significant waste of court time.
Whilst there were almost a hundred responses to the MOJ consultation, the Criminal Bar Association’s response is perhaps one of the most comprehensive in terms of outlining the history of the present regime and the reasons why it should not be changed.
http://www.criminalbar.com/86/records/244/Costs%20...
The principles behind the EDM is supported by the following organizations:
1. The Law Society;
2. The Criminal Bar Association;
3. Liberty;
4. The AA;
5. The Association of British Drivers;
6. The Association of Motor Offence Lawyers;
7. The Health and Safety Lawyers Association;
8. Drivers’ Alliance;
9. The London Criminal Solicitors Association; and
10. The Taxpayers’ Alliance.
Details of this issue and the comments of their readers feature in the following articles:
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215021/Dr...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/tr...
We have little time to secure a debate on the Order, before its proposed implementation on 31st October. Therefore, your assistance in signing EDM 2063 as soon as possible, will be of great assistance.
Yours sincerely
(insert name)
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 2720), dated 8 October 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 October, be annulled.
In order for the issue to be debated in parliament, there must be a significant number of MPs who sign this EDM which is listed as number 2063 on the parliament website.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDM...
Pasted below is a template email to be sent to the MPs themselves. I am advised by those in the know, that if a constituent of the MP sends an email or letter this is likely to have a far more significant effect than if we send a mailshot to all MPs from AMOL or from any other organization. Feel free to edit the template or to use your own version of it but please act quickly and send the email without delay.
Even though the statutory instrument is due to be implemented 31 October it is possible for it to be annulled retrospectively and so we have until the end of this parliamentary session in early November 2009.
Again, I acknowledge all of the amazing support so far and request again that you take the time to cut and paste the content of the email below to the relevant MP’s email address. We can make a difference but I need your help to achieve enough signatures to do so. If you feel able, please forward this email to as many people as possible to follow suit.
Thank you in advance for your assistance,
Jeanette S. Miller
Senior & Managing Partner
Geoffrey Miller Solicitors
Founding CEO and President of the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers (AMOL)
www.motoroffence.co.uk
www.amol.uk.com
DRAFT TEMPLATE EMAIL:
Dear MP
I am writing as your constituent to seek your support in halting Government plans to restrict the reimbursement of legal costs for defendants who have been acquitted of certain criminal offences.
The Government recently laid before Parliament the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20092720_en_1), which is only subject to Parliamentary approval under the negative resolution. Currently there will be no Parliamentary debate on the Order.
Therefore I am asking you to sign EDM 2063 "praying against" the Order, ensuring that Parliament gets to properly debate this issue (http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=39298&SESSION=899).
I believe it is important for as many MPs as possible, from all parties, to sign EDM 2063. Also, I believe that the Order is detrimental to the principles of access to justice, and should therefore be annulled.
An e-petition which first highlighted this issue on the Number 10 site has attracted over 17,000 signatures including many QCs, a former judge and many lawyers and laypeople outraged by the MOJ decision to go ahead with the implementation of the rules despite overwhelming opposition to them.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
The key points of our argument against the Order, are:
• The Order limits awards of costs from Central Funds to acquitted defendants to just Legal Aid rates. This means that an acquitted person who has paid privately for legal representation, will most likely only recover around 20% of their legal costs back, and could face a large legal bill even though they have been proven innocent.
• Legal Aid is not available in a number of types of cases - particularly motoring offences - so those defending such actions have no choice but to either pay privately for a lawyer or represent themselves.
• The Order should be opposed because it creates inequality of arms; the Law Society believes that citizens should be able to adequately defend themselves against prosecutions brought by the State, and if found innocent, they should be able to recoup their reasonable costs.
• If implemented, the Order will increase the numbers of people defending themselves in court, since many people will not be able to afford a lawyer, particularly if they are not able to get their costs back if they are acquitted. This is likely to lead to miscarriages of justice and a significant waste of court time.
Whilst there were almost a hundred responses to the MOJ consultation, the Criminal Bar Association’s response is perhaps one of the most comprehensive in terms of outlining the history of the present regime and the reasons why it should not be changed.
http://www.criminalbar.com/86/records/244/Costs%20...
The principles behind the EDM is supported by the following organizations:
1. The Law Society;
2. The Criminal Bar Association;
3. Liberty;
4. The AA;
5. The Association of British Drivers;
6. The Association of Motor Offence Lawyers;
7. The Health and Safety Lawyers Association;
8. Drivers’ Alliance;
9. The London Criminal Solicitors Association; and
10. The Taxpayers’ Alliance.
Details of this issue and the comments of their readers feature in the following articles:
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215021/Dr...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/tr...
We have little time to secure a debate on the Order, before its proposed implementation on 31st October. Therefore, your assistance in signing EDM 2063 as soon as possible, will be of great assistance.
Yours sincerely
(insert name)
vonhosen said:
10 Pence Short said:
People who are made to defend themselves in court against false allegations should not be made to incur any loss in doing so.
The way to avoid the problem is to stop trying to prosecute people when there isn't a good case to do so.
The CPS should only be prosecuting where a guilty verdict is a realistic prospect.The way to avoid the problem is to stop trying to prosecute people when there isn't a good case to do so.
http://www.criminalbar.com/86/records/244/Costs%20...
fbrs said:
if you are falsey accused of a crime by the state and succesfully defend yourself, you should be entitiled to reasonable costs.
All costs, every last penny, including time at normal time...
There should never be any cost to the citizen who considers themselves wrongly accused.
10 Pence Short said:
The way to avoid the problem is to stop trying to prosecute people when there isn't a good case to do so.
...which means losing all the laws that exist only to allow the forceful government of those who don't need government.There is a
GMS lawyer said:
vonhosen said:
10 Pence Short said:
People who are made to defend themselves in court against false allegations should not be made to incur any loss in doing so.
The way to avoid the problem is to stop trying to prosecute people when there isn't a good case to do so.
The CPS should only be prosecuting where a guilty verdict is a realistic prospect.The way to avoid the problem is to stop trying to prosecute people when there isn't a good case to do so.
http://www.criminalbar.com/86/records/244/Costs%20...
fluffnik said:
fbrs said:
if you are falsey accused of a crime by the state and succesfully defend yourself, you should be entitiled to reasonable costs.
All costs, every last penny, including time at normal time...
There should never be any cost to the citizen who considers themselves wrongly accused.
This move is another small step towards the Totalitarian State that so many in power dream of. Each chunk of right is chipped away one by one until there are none left. The State is always right the Citizen is always wrong and always guilty and will always pay. For any crime their must be someone who pays, anyone will do but someone will pay.
Years back I was accused of jumping a red light. I took it to court and hired a barrister and the PC never turned up. The attitude of the court was I got lucky and was not prosecuted so STFU about costs. Before you ask I was the 2nd car from the red light, it went green I went through them, the police car was opposite and coming towards us. Strange how I went through as he went through at the same time but somehow I went through on Red. Wonder what would have happened if I hadn't turned up? I bet bugger all happened to the PC for not bothering to attend.
GMS lawyer said:
I would like to firstly express my gratitude for the overwhelming support to date with the petition that is still live on the number 10 site which as at the time of posting this on the pistonheads site has attracted 17,500 signatures. As a result of the sheer number of people opposed to the government’s plans, an “Early Day Motion” was lodged by Mr Henry Bellingham MP, Shadow Minister for Justice with the aim of debating the issue in Parliament. The EDM has been drafted as follows:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 2720), dated 8 October 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 October, be annulled.
In order for the issue to be debated in parliament, there must be a significant number of MPs who sign this EDM which is listed as number 2063 on the parliament website.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDM...
Pasted below is a template email to be sent to the MPs themselves. I am advised by those in the know, that if a constituent of the MP sends an email or letter this is likely to have a far more significant effect than if we send a mailshot to all MPs from AMOL or from any other organization. Feel free to edit the template or to use your own version of it but please act quickly and send the email without delay.
Even though the statutory instrument is due to be implemented 31 October it is possible for it to be annulled retrospectively and so we have until the end of this parliamentary session in early November 2009.
Again, I acknowledge all of the amazing support so far and request again that you take the time to cut and paste the content of the email below to the relevant MP’s email address. We can make a difference but I need your help to achieve enough signatures to do so. If you feel able, please forward this email to as many people as possible to follow suit.
Thank you in advance for your assistance,
Jeanette S. Miller
Senior & Managing Partner
Geoffrey Miller Solicitors
Founding CEO and President of the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers (AMOL)
www.motoroffence.co.uk
www.amol.uk.com
DRAFT TEMPLATE EMAIL:
Dear MP
I am writing as your constituent to seek your support in halting Government plans to restrict the reimbursement of legal costs for defendants who have been acquitted of certain criminal offences.
The Government recently laid before Parliament the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20092720_en_1), which is only subject to Parliamentary approval under the negative resolution. Currently there will be no Parliamentary debate on the Order.
Therefore I am asking you to sign EDM 2063 "praying against" the Order, ensuring that Parliament gets to properly debate this issue (http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=39298&SESSION=899).
I believe it is important for as many MPs as possible, from all parties, to sign EDM 2063. Also, I believe that the Order is detrimental to the principles of access to justice, and should therefore be annulled.
An e-petition which first highlighted this issue on the Number 10 site has attracted over 17,000 signatures including many QCs, a former judge and many lawyers and laypeople outraged by the MOJ decision to go ahead with the implementation of the rules despite overwhelming opposition to them.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
The key points of our argument against the Order, are:
• The Order limits awards of costs from Central Funds to acquitted defendants to just Legal Aid rates. This means that an acquitted person who has paid privately for legal representation, will most likely only recover around 20% of their legal costs back, and could face a large legal bill even though they have been proven innocent.
• Legal Aid is not available in a number of types of cases - particularly motoring offences - so those defending such actions have no choice but to either pay privately for a lawyer or represent themselves.
• The Order should be opposed because it creates inequality of arms; the Law Society believes that citizens should be able to adequately defend themselves against prosecutions brought by the State, and if found innocent, they should be able to recoup their reasonable costs.
• If implemented, the Order will increase the numbers of people defending themselves in court, since many people will not be able to afford a lawyer, particularly if they are not able to get their costs back if they are acquitted. This is likely to lead to miscarriages of justice and a significant waste of court time.
Whilst there were almost a hundred responses to the MOJ consultation, the Criminal Bar Association’s response is perhaps one of the most comprehensive in terms of outlining the history of the present regime and the reasons why it should not be changed.
http://www.criminalbar.com/86/records/244/Costs%20...
The principles behind the EDM is supported by the following organizations:
1. The Law Society;
2. The Criminal Bar Association;
3. Liberty;
4. The AA;
5. The Association of British Drivers;
6. The Association of Motor Offence Lawyers;
7. The Health and Safety Lawyers Association;
8. Drivers’ Alliance;
9. The London Criminal Solicitors Association; and
10. The Taxpayers’ Alliance.
Details of this issue and the comments of their readers feature in the following articles:
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215021/Dr...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/tr...
We have little time to secure a debate on the Order, before its proposed implementation on 31st October. Therefore, your assistance in signing EDM 2063 as soon as possible, will be of great assistance.
Yours sincerely
(insert name)
http://www.writetothem.com/?keyword=mp&creativeid=605235279&gclid=CJrjpL-u350CFdBb4wodKS0HNgThat an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 2720), dated 8 October 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 October, be annulled.
In order for the issue to be debated in parliament, there must be a significant number of MPs who sign this EDM which is listed as number 2063 on the parliament website.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDM...
Pasted below is a template email to be sent to the MPs themselves. I am advised by those in the know, that if a constituent of the MP sends an email or letter this is likely to have a far more significant effect than if we send a mailshot to all MPs from AMOL or from any other organization. Feel free to edit the template or to use your own version of it but please act quickly and send the email without delay.
Even though the statutory instrument is due to be implemented 31 October it is possible for it to be annulled retrospectively and so we have until the end of this parliamentary session in early November 2009.
Again, I acknowledge all of the amazing support so far and request again that you take the time to cut and paste the content of the email below to the relevant MP’s email address. We can make a difference but I need your help to achieve enough signatures to do so. If you feel able, please forward this email to as many people as possible to follow suit.
Thank you in advance for your assistance,
Jeanette S. Miller
Senior & Managing Partner
Geoffrey Miller Solicitors
Founding CEO and President of the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers (AMOL)
www.motoroffence.co.uk
www.amol.uk.com
DRAFT TEMPLATE EMAIL:
Dear MP
I am writing as your constituent to seek your support in halting Government plans to restrict the reimbursement of legal costs for defendants who have been acquitted of certain criminal offences.
The Government recently laid before Parliament the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20092720_en_1), which is only subject to Parliamentary approval under the negative resolution. Currently there will be no Parliamentary debate on the Order.
Therefore I am asking you to sign EDM 2063 "praying against" the Order, ensuring that Parliament gets to properly debate this issue (http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=39298&SESSION=899).
I believe it is important for as many MPs as possible, from all parties, to sign EDM 2063. Also, I believe that the Order is detrimental to the principles of access to justice, and should therefore be annulled.
An e-petition which first highlighted this issue on the Number 10 site has attracted over 17,000 signatures including many QCs, a former judge and many lawyers and laypeople outraged by the MOJ decision to go ahead with the implementation of the rules despite overwhelming opposition to them.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
The key points of our argument against the Order, are:
• The Order limits awards of costs from Central Funds to acquitted defendants to just Legal Aid rates. This means that an acquitted person who has paid privately for legal representation, will most likely only recover around 20% of their legal costs back, and could face a large legal bill even though they have been proven innocent.
• Legal Aid is not available in a number of types of cases - particularly motoring offences - so those defending such actions have no choice but to either pay privately for a lawyer or represent themselves.
• The Order should be opposed because it creates inequality of arms; the Law Society believes that citizens should be able to adequately defend themselves against prosecutions brought by the State, and if found innocent, they should be able to recoup their reasonable costs.
• If implemented, the Order will increase the numbers of people defending themselves in court, since many people will not be able to afford a lawyer, particularly if they are not able to get their costs back if they are acquitted. This is likely to lead to miscarriages of justice and a significant waste of court time.
Whilst there were almost a hundred responses to the MOJ consultation, the Criminal Bar Association’s response is perhaps one of the most comprehensive in terms of outlining the history of the present regime and the reasons why it should not be changed.
http://www.criminalbar.com/86/records/244/Costs%20...
The principles behind the EDM is supported by the following organizations:
1. The Law Society;
2. The Criminal Bar Association;
3. Liberty;
4. The AA;
5. The Association of British Drivers;
6. The Association of Motor Offence Lawyers;
7. The Health and Safety Lawyers Association;
8. Drivers’ Alliance;
9. The London Criminal Solicitors Association; and
10. The Taxpayers’ Alliance.
Details of this issue and the comments of their readers feature in the following articles:
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215021/Dr...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/tr...
We have little time to secure a debate on the Order, before its proposed implementation on 31st October. Therefore, your assistance in signing EDM 2063 as soon as possible, will be of great assistance.
Yours sincerely
(insert name)
is a link to assist you in locating your MP's contact etails if you are unsure of who it may be/how to contact them.
vonhosen said:
10 Pence Short said:
People who are made to defend themselves in court against false allegations should not be made to incur any loss in doing so.
The way to avoid the problem is to stop trying to prosecute people when there isn't a good case to do so.
The CPS should only be prosecuting where a guilty verdict is a realistic prospect.The way to avoid the problem is to stop trying to prosecute people when there isn't a good case to do so.
The crux of the issue is that some cases (and I'm not just talking about those relating to motoring) are brought unfairly (for arguments' sake let's say someone's been accused of stealing a computer when the truth is that they didn't). The prosecution can afford to pay for legal representation that's slick enough to convince a court to find an innocent person guilty, and to fight that, the accused needs decent legal representation themselves. If they are only given the "basic" from the state, they're probably going to be found guilty of something that they didn't do. Therefore they're going to need better legal representation to clear their name.
I do not accept that they should have to pay out of their own pocket for this.
The state refusing to pay legal costs isn't a fair and proper way to stop scoundrels worming their way out of punishment. What needs to happen is that the CPS need to present a rock solid case in the first instant. We should not be paying for their f
k-ups.Clivey said:
vonhosen said:
10 Pence Short said:
People who are made to defend themselves in court against false allegations should not be made to incur any loss in doing so.
The way to avoid the problem is to stop trying to prosecute people when there isn't a good case to do so.
The CPS should only be prosecuting where a guilty verdict is a realistic prospect.The way to avoid the problem is to stop trying to prosecute people when there isn't a good case to do so.
The crux of the issue is that some cases (and I'm not just talking about those relating to motoring) are brought unfairly (for arguments' sake let's say someone's been accused of stealing a computer when the truth is that they didn't). The prosecution can afford to pay for legal representation that's slick enough to convince a court to find an innocent person guilty, and to fight that, the accused needs decent legal representation themselves. If they are only given the "basic" from the state, they're probably going to be found guilty of something that they didn't do. Therefore they're going to need better legal representation to clear their name.
I do not accept that they should have to pay out of their own pocket for this.
The state refusing to pay legal costs isn't a fair and proper way to stop scoundrels worming their way out of punishment. What needs to happen is that the CPS need to present a rock solid case in the first instant. We should not be paying for their f
k-ups.I also agree that the taxpayer should not pay for extortionate legal fees. The current system provides for rigorous scrutiny of the bill presented by the National Taxing Team and can result in an amount less than the sum charged to the defendant being reimbursed from central funds where the costs incurred are considered unreasonable.
This new regime is simply to reduce the rate to an entirely commercially unviable level.
fluffnik said:
fbrs said:
if you are falsey accused of a crime by the state and succesfully defend yourself, you should be entitiled to reasonable costs.
All costs, every last penny, including time at normal time...
There should never be any cost to the citizen who considers themselves wrongly accused.
like you IMO ALL costs are reasonable too. it probably cost me ten times taking the day off work than the fine.
Edited by fbrs on Wednesday 28th October 13:11
fbrs said:
fluffnik said:
fbrs said:
if you are falsey accused of a crime by the state and succesfully defend yourself, you should be entitiled to reasonable costs.
All costs, every last penny, including time at normal time...
There should never be any cost to the citizen who considers themselves wrongly accused.
like you IMO ALL costs are reasonable too. it probably cost me ten times taking the day off work than the fine.
Edited by fbrs on Wednesday 28th October 13:11
esselte said:
fbrs said:
fluffnik said:
fbrs said:
if you are falsey accused of a crime by the state and succesfully defend yourself, you should be entitiled to reasonable costs.
All costs, every last penny, including time at normal time...
There should never be any cost to the citizen who considers themselves wrongly accused.
like you IMO ALL costs are reasonable too. it probably cost me ten times taking the day off work than the fine.
Edited by fbrs on Wednesday 28th October 13:11
fbrs said:
esselte said:
fbrs said:
fluffnik said:
fbrs said:
if you are falsey accused of a crime by the state and succesfully defend yourself, you should be entitiled to reasonable costs.
All costs, every last penny, including time at normal time...
There should never be any cost to the citizen who considers themselves wrongly accused.
like you IMO ALL costs are reasonable too. it probably cost me ten times taking the day off work than the fine.
Edited by fbrs on Wednesday 28th October 13:11
esselte said:
If you prove yourself innocent you'll desrve it..
thanks, but so far i have not been very innocent but to be honest the last cps muppet to prosecute me was unintelligible and borderline illiterate, i have absolutely no idea how or if she got a law degree. a proper brief would have annihilated her. even the clerk looked embarassed.
Many pistonheads have already expressed their views by signing the petition currently on the Number 10 site. The petition closes at midnight tonight and my target is to have attracted 22,222 votes by that time.
Since then the EDM tabled by Henry Bellingham MP, Shadow Minister for justice has attracted signatures from 25 MPs which is not nearly enough to see this issue debated in parliament. The new rules were implemented on 31 October but can be nullified retrospectively. As Gandhi is quoted as saying:
"Be the change you wish to see in the world."
If you believe as I do in never giving up and fighting for preserving a fair justice system (or at least fairer than it wil be if these new rules remain) please sign the petition
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
and pass details to your contacts. If you wish to help futher, please visit the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers site www.amol.uk.com where we feature detailed instructions on how to lobby your MP.
Many many thanks pistonheads for your unbelievable support so far.
Sincerely,
Jeanette Miller
Since then the EDM tabled by Henry Bellingham MP, Shadow Minister for justice has attracted signatures from 25 MPs which is not nearly enough to see this issue debated in parliament. The new rules were implemented on 31 October but can be nullified retrospectively. As Gandhi is quoted as saying:
"Be the change you wish to see in the world."
If you believe as I do in never giving up and fighting for preserving a fair justice system (or at least fairer than it wil be if these new rules remain) please sign the petition
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
and pass details to your contacts. If you wish to help futher, please visit the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers site www.amol.uk.com where we feature detailed instructions on how to lobby your MP.
Many many thanks pistonheads for your unbelievable support so far.
Sincerely,
Jeanette Miller
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff