RE: 'Not Guilty' Motorists Face Court Costs
Discussion
"As a result the new rules make it clear that in future drivers will have to foot the bill for clearing their name."
Is this not a fundamental change in the rule of law in this country? - Innocent until proven guilty. The above statement quite clearly reads, guilty unless wealthy enough to prove your own innocence.
Is this not a fundamental change in the rule of law in this country? - Innocent until proven guilty. The above statement quite clearly reads, guilty unless wealthy enough to prove your own innocence.
Absolute disgrace, it's already hard enough getting costs back as it is (and they are usually 'taxed' quite heavily before you get them).
Problem is, it gives the message that you may as well just roll over and accept the charge whether you think you are innocent or not, as either way it will end up costing you.
Problem is, it gives the message that you may as well just roll over and accept the charge whether you think you are innocent or not, as either way it will end up costing you.
son of clarkson said:
Signed.
If only the police could get guilty people into court, oh sorry they cann't because their hands are tied by bl**dy red tape so the only left is to f**k up those they can get to court.
I do feel sorry for the police as there the ones who get the grief for all of this instead on the politicians who live the life of rielly at our expense and seem to get away with it all. Let's just hope those that are being investigated for fraud all end up inside oh sorry that's just another holiday camp isn't it.
Democracy is only for those who can shape it to suit them, welcome to the far wings of politics (left and right) where those at the top rise even further and those at the bottom continue to sink.
Rant over for now.
I dont actually believe that there is a left and right wing anymore, their all controlled by the same money grabbing B**tards behind the scenes anyway!!If only the police could get guilty people into court, oh sorry they cann't because their hands are tied by bl**dy red tape so the only left is to f**k up those they can get to court.
I do feel sorry for the police as there the ones who get the grief for all of this instead on the politicians who live the life of rielly at our expense and seem to get away with it all. Let's just hope those that are being investigated for fraud all end up inside oh sorry that's just another holiday camp isn't it.
Democracy is only for those who can shape it to suit them, welcome to the far wings of politics (left and right) where those at the top rise even further and those at the bottom continue to sink.
Rant over for now.
When does anything get the public vote anymore, i mean how much money was wasted on the Dome that nobody wanted (shouda been a new stadium or new underground, erh bus lane on the M4, those F-ing I.D. cards that almost made it in.
The goverment cannot be trusted anymore and unless we do something about it now, it WILL be to late...
[Both goverments of the US and UK are trying their best to F*ck everything up, ready for the New World Order to arise]
Many years ago I was accused of jumping a red traffic light - I refused a fixed penalty at time of being stopped saying that I hadn't jumped a light so would see them in court - something the officers conviently forgot to note in their notebooks - instead writing reply to caution "it's a fair cop guv you've got me bang to rights"
Anyway Magistrates slept thro it (no surprise) and I was found guilty, licence endorsed, fined and costs
I appealed to Crown court and successfully had the conviction overturned with points removed from my licence and all costs for both the original magistrates court and ssubsequent crown court to be paid by the police..... (they weren't insignificant either)
I didn't hire any fancy barister or get off on a technicallity I just proved beyond all doubt that I had not committed the offence and that the officer were mistaken and did not have a clear view of the white line I needed to cross or the lights controlling the junction.
So it was a fixed penalty or have my day in court knowing that if I lost it was going to cost me a lot
Now if they spin that round so it even if I won I would still be liable for the costs I still wouldn't have taken the fixed penalty and would have wanted my day in court but I can see a less cut and dried situation may lead others to decide it's not worth fighting..........
Wrong wrong and wrong on all levels and a mandate for the police to issue FP tickets for whatever they can knowing they are unlikely to be challenged if they are in error
Absolute f
kwits the lot of em
Anyway Magistrates slept thro it (no surprise) and I was found guilty, licence endorsed, fined and costs
I appealed to Crown court and successfully had the conviction overturned with points removed from my licence and all costs for both the original magistrates court and ssubsequent crown court to be paid by the police..... (they weren't insignificant either)
I didn't hire any fancy barister or get off on a technicallity I just proved beyond all doubt that I had not committed the offence and that the officer were mistaken and did not have a clear view of the white line I needed to cross or the lights controlling the junction.
So it was a fixed penalty or have my day in court knowing that if I lost it was going to cost me a lot
Now if they spin that round so it even if I won I would still be liable for the costs I still wouldn't have taken the fixed penalty and would have wanted my day in court but I can see a less cut and dried situation may lead others to decide it's not worth fighting..........
Wrong wrong and wrong on all levels and a mandate for the police to issue FP tickets for whatever they can knowing they are unlikely to be challenged if they are in error
Absolute f
kwits the lot of em 
Marvindodgers said:
"As a result the new rules make it clear that in future drivers will have to foot the bill for clearing their name."
Is this not a fundamental change in the rule of law in this country? - Innocent until proven guilty. The above statement quite clearly reads, guilty unless wealthy enough to prove your own innocence.
Nope I still think you are inocent untill found guilty - difference it whatever the result it's gonna cost you Is this not a fundamental change in the rule of law in this country? - Innocent until proven guilty. The above statement quite clearly reads, guilty unless wealthy enough to prove your own innocence.
Awful and outrageous.
Its beginning to get scary when you see comments like this from Liberty on the government backdooring proposals for DNA retention to 12 years, bypassing due parliamentary process. You would not believe we live in a democracy governed by a centre left party...... (from bbc news website)
"Commenting on the government's change of policy, Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "This is another victory for Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention which protects the personal privacy of everyone in Britain.
"This law was breached by the largest DNA database per capita in the world and would still be breached by the Home Office's discredited proposals."
She added: "Stockpiling the intimate details of millions of innocents is bad enough without ducking public and parliamentary scrutiny by sneaking regulations in by the back door."
Its beginning to get scary when you see comments like this from Liberty on the government backdooring proposals for DNA retention to 12 years, bypassing due parliamentary process. You would not believe we live in a democracy governed by a centre left party...... (from bbc news website)
"Commenting on the government's change of policy, Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "This is another victory for Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention which protects the personal privacy of everyone in Britain.
"This law was breached by the largest DNA database per capita in the world and would still be breached by the Home Office's discredited proposals."
She added: "Stockpiling the intimate details of millions of innocents is bad enough without ducking public and parliamentary scrutiny by sneaking regulations in by the back door."
Fire99 said:
Surely this is pushing people on low income (but not low enough to gain legal aid) to just accept the charges made against them and not defend themselves?
They were my immediate thougths too.
Maybe not even those on a low income as defense costs can be ludicrously high!
A member of my family went to court over a property issue (the other person claimed it as theirs), they had not paid a penny towards it and therefore justice & common sense prevailed and my relation won the case.
They still had to pay £10k in legal costs, the other person who tried to lay claim to the property sought the legal service of a friend so paid hardly anything.
My relative is a pensioner and still paying the £10k some years later.
crofty1984 said:
Fire99 said:
cptsideways said:
Surely human rights laws can come into this?
That's what I was thinking.How can you be tried for a crime. Found Innocent then you have to pay the costs?
Surely this is pushing people on low income (but not low enough to gain legal aid) to just accept the charges made against them and not defend themselves?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff