My God - magistrate sanity shocker
Discussion
You might remember some time ago I posted about a friend who had received a summons for 57 in a 50. She couldn't remember if it was her or her husband driving and they requested a copy of the picture. All that the picture showed was the front of their car and a blank windscreen so no driver identification could be made.
Well she was summonsed to court and the magistrate threw the case out as the prosecution couldnt make a positive id of the driver.
What a waste of money and everyone's time.
Well she was summonsed to court and the magistrate threw the case out as the prosecution couldnt make a positive id of the driver.
What a waste of money and everyone's time.
vonhosen said:
How important the case is isn't a great concern for the magistrate. There job is to look at whether there is sufficient evidence to convict or not & apply the law.
Agreed, no ID means reasonable doubt so should've been binned.Although I don't advocate speeding and have dealt all to often with the aftermath of when it goes wrong, I can't think of a single BiB that I know who would have bothered to report this! The problem with this system is the loss of the human element as discretion goes with it!
Yugguy said:
You might remember some time ago I posted about a friend who had received a summons for 57 in a 50. She couldn't remember if it was her or her husband driving and they requested a copy of the picture. All that the picture showed was the front of their car and a blank windscreen so no driver identification could be made.
Well she was summonsed to court and the magistrate threw the case out as the prosecution couldnt make a positive id of the driver.
What a waste of money and everyone's time.
What was the summons for?Well she was summonsed to court and the magistrate threw the case out as the prosecution couldnt make a positive id of the driver.
What a waste of money and everyone's time.
BFF
Big Fat F'r said:
Yugguy said:
You might remember some time ago I posted about a friend who had received a summons for 57 in a 50. She couldn't remember if it was her or her husband driving and they requested a copy of the picture. All that the picture showed was the front of their car and a blank windscreen so no driver identification could be made.
Well she was summonsed to court and the magistrate threw the case out as the prosecution couldnt make a positive id of the driver.
What a waste of money and everyone's time.
What was the summons for?Well she was summonsed to court and the magistrate threw the case out as the prosecution couldnt make a positive id of the driver.
What a waste of money and everyone's time.
BFF
ocksed if they were going to hand over 60 quid just like that, and quite rightly they asked for a copy of the evidence.vonhosen said:
FishFace said:
Why would it get thrown out because the prosecution failed to identify the driver in a 172 case?
It wouldn't.It's the usual whispers game (a mate of a mate apparently once).
You can search for my previous post, and when she's back off holiday next monday I can get a fuller picture.
Yugguy said:
vonhosen said:
FishFace said:
Why would it get thrown out because the prosecution failed to identify the driver in a 172 case?
It wouldn't.It's the usual whispers game (a mate of a mate apparently once).
You can search for my previous post, and when she's back off holiday next monday I can get a fuller picture.
vonhosen said:
That's the point though, you are saying what you think she said happened, when in truth it doesn't sound accurate. She should have been at court for the 172 offence not speeding & if it's the 172 offence there is no burden on the prosecution to prove who the driver was, so it wouldn't be thrown out for that.
Surely however there would be a burden on the prosecution to prove that, having shown due diligence, a failure to positively ID the driver was in contravention of the act. Requesting the photo was presumably considered due diligence (in connection with other evidence).Or perhaps the magistrate was as pissed off with this pointless f'ing charade as most of the rest of us and fancied not kow-towing to the authoritarian twuntocracy.
Einion Yrth said:
vonhosen said:
That's the point though, you are saying what you think she said happened, when in truth it doesn't sound accurate. She should have been at court for the 172 offence not speeding & if it's the 172 offence there is no burden on the prosecution to prove who the driver was, so it wouldn't be thrown out for that.
Surely however there would be a burden on the prosecution to prove that, having shown due diligence, a failure to positively ID the driver was in contravention of the act. Requesting the photo was presumably considered due diligence (in connection with other evidence).Or perhaps the magistrate was as pissed off with this pointless f'ing charade as most of the rest of us and fancied not kow-towing to the authoritarian twuntocracy.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff