Tiff Needell cleared of speeding by "Mr loophole"
Discussion
Actually it sounds like he was cleared by the court for what appear to be very valid reasons - unless one assumes he is a craven liar. Which I think is unlikely.
Good result. Presumably there was no useful photo evidence. Let's hope that many more lower profile victims can also benefit from such a sensible approach by any courts they may end up attending.
Good result. Presumably there was no useful photo evidence. Let's hope that many more lower profile victims can also benefit from such a sensible approach by any courts they may end up attending.
BBC site said:
The prosecution also offered no evidence in relation to a separate charge of speeding.
So another waste of everyone's time and our taxes.
When are these types of 'offences' going to be treated with the contempt they deserve and leave the 'justice' system to concentrate on things that actually matter?
I'd quite like to know more on "his" evidence in this case - dont get me wrong, I'm really pleased he got off, but I have a feeling if I stood up in court and said "I've know idea who was driving, I am a person of good character....." I'd be banged up for perversion of the course of justice or some such.
cliffe_mafia said:
I wonder what would have been the outcome if he couldn't afford a fancy lawyer. 
One law for the rich?
One law for the rich?I believe the outcome would have been the same.
If the court honestly believes that the recipient has not received a NIP then they are not guilty, whether they are represented or not - 1% or whatever post gets lost each year, so that means 1 in 100 NIPs dont arrive, there is no way the CPS can disprove that.
If Tiff or anyone cannot honestly remember who was driving 6-9 months ago, and the court believes them then the CPS cannot offer evidence it is anyone who is speeding let alone the defendant. There is no requirement to keep a diary of who is driving.
Your local solicitor could have helped with that, or you could have defended yourself.
nel said:
Does make me wonder why they haven't made it standard practice to deliver NIPs recorded delivery. Suppose it would eat into their profits....
First class stamp = 32p
First class recorded signed for = 100p.
Why don't they make the fines £60.68?
Damn, I should be a government think-tank. I'd be rich...
nel said:
Does make me wonder why they haven't made it standard practice to deliver NIPs recorded delivery. Suppose it would eat into their profits....
It's only an extra 68p, one might think that they could 'afford' it.
I'm amazed they don't increase the fine, by say 50%, to cover the extra costs - Oh they already did that a few years back in preperation of the Cam-Scam.
Many people drive my cars. My wife, my daughter and son-in-law, my son, my business partner and 2 of my work colleagues regularly do. In all honesty, if I did not receive an NiP, but was then asked who was driving one of my cars on a certain day months since, I don't know if I could give a name with any degree of certainty. Last weekend I went to the West Country with my son. We shared the driving and if, now or in 3 months time, I was asked to name the driver at one specific point along the 700 miles we did together I don't know if I could. Especially bearing-in-mind that if I did name the wrong person I could go to prison for it (as has happened to others already).
I don't know if I could state which of my cars were being used on any specific day and my wife and I tend to take the one nearest the gate or, in her case, the one with most fuel in it! We don't log this on a day-to-day basis. If I'm doing a long journey, as I did the week before last to go to a funeral in Manchester, I do know which car I used, but for day-to-day journeys I genuinely couldn't swear to who was driving which car and where. To most people such detail is trivia in their lives, just as a lot of speeding is trivia. It's the cash-camera partnerships obsession with this which is causing the problem.
If the pratnerships can't be a***d to send out the NiP's by recorded delivery, then this problem will continue.
Anyway, the ECHR will probably rule the entire 'requirement to name/confess' not-legal quite soon, then it will all be over unless drivers are stopped at the time of the offence, which is as it should be.
I don't know if I could state which of my cars were being used on any specific day and my wife and I tend to take the one nearest the gate or, in her case, the one with most fuel in it! We don't log this on a day-to-day basis. If I'm doing a long journey, as I did the week before last to go to a funeral in Manchester, I do know which car I used, but for day-to-day journeys I genuinely couldn't swear to who was driving which car and where. To most people such detail is trivia in their lives, just as a lot of speeding is trivia. It's the cash-camera partnerships obsession with this which is causing the problem.
If the pratnerships can't be a***d to send out the NiP's by recorded delivery, then this problem will continue.
Anyway, the ECHR will probably rule the entire 'requirement to name/confess' not-legal quite soon, then it will all be over unless drivers are stopped at the time of the offence, which is as it should be.
cooperman said:
Anyway, the ECHR will probably rule the entire 'requirement to name/confess' not-legal quite soon, then it will all be over unless drivers are stopped at the time of the offence, which is as it should be.
Well let's hope so and bring an end to a hateful empire that's only made a negative contribution to Road Safety and public/authority trust.
Good riddance if it happens - but I'm not holding my breath........
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff