New Loophole ?
Discussion
As reported in our local paper - the Express & Star
The wife of Wolves star Paul Ince has escaped a driving ban despite being clocked at 100mph in her sports car - thanks to a celebrity lawyer nicknamed "Mr Loophole".
The case against Claire Ince was dropped yesterday after her solicitor Nick Freeman - famous for representing David Beckham - exposed a police blunder.
Magistrates in Chester were told that the mother of three was caught speeding in her £100,000 CL600 Mercedes on the M56 in Cheshire by a constable using a hand-held camera.
Mrs Ince, aged 34, already had nine points on her licence and faced certain disqualification.
But prosecutors were forced to drop the case, and pay costs from public funds, after Mr Freeman told how police had failed to provide her with the correct form to fill in.
The blunder has been slammed by the Automobile Association.
Mr Freeman said: "Mrs Ince is extremely relieved to put this matter behind her and get on with her life."
The court was told that officers addressed a form detailing the offence to Mr Ince, the registered keeper of the car, but his wife filled in and returned the document because she was behind the wheel. After receiving the paperwork officers sent her a court summons for speeding.
Mr Freeman successfully argued that by law police should have given Mrs Ince her own form, rather than her husband's, before charging her.
"She filled in her husband's form to take responsibility for the matter but the correct procedure was not followed by police," he said.
AA spokesman Richard Freeman said: "The average motorist in Britain will be appalled at how such a basic mistake could allow someone who has reached 100mph to escape punishment.
"With lawyers like Mr Freeman around looking for errors they can not afford to be so slipshod."
The car driven by Mrs Ince, who lives with her family in a £1.2 million mansion in Heswall, is one of the most expensive on the market with a top speed of 155mph.
The wife of Wolves star Paul Ince has escaped a driving ban despite being clocked at 100mph in her sports car - thanks to a celebrity lawyer nicknamed "Mr Loophole".
The case against Claire Ince was dropped yesterday after her solicitor Nick Freeman - famous for representing David Beckham - exposed a police blunder.
Magistrates in Chester were told that the mother of three was caught speeding in her £100,000 CL600 Mercedes on the M56 in Cheshire by a constable using a hand-held camera.
Mrs Ince, aged 34, already had nine points on her licence and faced certain disqualification.
But prosecutors were forced to drop the case, and pay costs from public funds, after Mr Freeman told how police had failed to provide her with the correct form to fill in.
The blunder has been slammed by the Automobile Association.
Mr Freeman said: "Mrs Ince is extremely relieved to put this matter behind her and get on with her life."
The court was told that officers addressed a form detailing the offence to Mr Ince, the registered keeper of the car, but his wife filled in and returned the document because she was behind the wheel. After receiving the paperwork officers sent her a court summons for speeding.
Mr Freeman successfully argued that by law police should have given Mrs Ince her own form, rather than her husband's, before charging her.
"She filled in her husband's form to take responsibility for the matter but the correct procedure was not followed by police," he said.
AA spokesman Richard Freeman said: "The average motorist in Britain will be appalled at how such a basic mistake could allow someone who has reached 100mph to escape punishment.
"With lawyers like Mr Freeman around looking for errors they can not afford to be so slipshod."
The car driven by Mrs Ince, who lives with her family in a £1.2 million mansion in Heswall, is one of the most expensive on the market with a top speed of 155mph.
Great to see the AA on the side of the motorist again.
No, I'm not upset that the police allowed someone "who has reached 100mph" to get away with it. The police should have done the job properly, but we all know that there are conditions under which 100mph in a capable car is not a safety issue.
However, I am rather sad that the AA, which was formed to alert Edwardian motorists about hidden speed traps, has somehow lost its way and now thinks its job is to deliver a second class breakdown service, expensive insurance and full support for the Government for any anti-car policy it dreams up. That's far more worrying than a CL600 doing 100mph.
No, I'm not upset that the police allowed someone "who has reached 100mph" to get away with it. The police should have done the job properly, but we all know that there are conditions under which 100mph in a capable car is not a safety issue.
However, I am rather sad that the AA, which was formed to alert Edwardian motorists about hidden speed traps, has somehow lost its way and now thinks its job is to deliver a second class breakdown service, expensive insurance and full support for the Government for any anti-car policy it dreams up. That's far more worrying than a CL600 doing 100mph.
130tdi said:
AA spokesman Richard Freeman said: "The average motorist in Britain will be appalled at how such a basic mistake could allow someone who has reached 100mph to escape punishment.
"With lawyers like Mr Freeman around looking for errors they can not afford to be so slipshod."
The car driven by Mrs Ince, who lives with her family in a £1.2 million mansion in Heswall, is one of the most expensive on the market with a top speed of 155mph.
I'm an average motorist and I'm not "appalled".
Why does the paper have to mention the top speed of the car, in such a way to make the "offence" somehow worse?
If you care to think about it, 100mph in a car capable of 155 is well within its design limits and therefore much safer than 100mph in, say, a Mondeo.
Plus, 100mph on a motorway is usually no problem, it's the 70 limit that's the problem.
It's an interesting one, isn't it? I guess what should have happened is:
1) Mr Ince fills in form saying his wife was driving
2) Police send new form to Mrs Ince
3) Mrs Ince fills in form
4) Mrs Ince fined, disqualified, shamed, gets bus, etc
Instead, Mrs Ince filled in Mr Ince's form and presumably signed it. This was wrong but nobody noticed until it was too late.
Question: what if Mr Ince had been driving but Mrs Ince filled in and signed the form on his behalf? Would this also have been invalid?
Supplementary question: this week I've heard more than one MP say that just because Ms Gun confessed to sending an email doesn't mean that she actually did. A confession is not valid as the basis for a prosecution. So what's going on with NIPs?
1) Mr Ince fills in form saying his wife was driving
2) Police send new form to Mrs Ince
3) Mrs Ince fills in form
4) Mrs Ince fined, disqualified, shamed, gets bus, etc
Instead, Mrs Ince filled in Mr Ince's form and presumably signed it. This was wrong but nobody noticed until it was too late.
Question: what if Mr Ince had been driving but Mrs Ince filled in and signed the form on his behalf? Would this also have been invalid?
Supplementary question: this week I've heard more than one MP say that just because Ms Gun confessed to sending an email doesn't mean that she actually did. A confession is not valid as the basis for a prosecution. So what's going on with NIPs?
130tdi said:
NEW LOOPHOLE ?
It's not a loophole at all, far less a new one. It's a procedural cock-up. What is it that makes people call every acquittal method a loophole? The Sunday Times (IIRC) had a list of 'loopholes' a month or so back. Only one of them actually was a loophole. They even called a statutory defence (Christine Hamilton) a loophole.
Roadrage said:
and forget too sign it as well
No, that would be picked up.
Works best when husband and wife have the same Christian name initial.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Saturday 28th February 21:47
So I am paying for this cop to use a hand held camera on a 160mph road eh. Its probably the same twat who got me about 3 years ago. I got away with it as well cos it was pre privvy bastard council ruling and I sent the form back with "sorry cannot provide information you have requested" written diagonally across it. Its lucky the for Mrs Ince the tickers and stampers ticked the wrong box and used the wrong stamp, but why the hell is no one on this thread questioning why the police are using a hand held camera on a motorway bridge? I would flay the bastard who authorised this with a badly damaged steel hauser, then ask the mutant if he thought the speed limits should be scrapped. Run until answer is yes.
DennisTheMenace said:
If you care to think about it, 100mph in a car capable of 155 is well within its design limits and therefore much safer than 100mph in, say, a Mondeo.
My Mondeo is quite comfortable at a ton ta.
Agreed mate. Some Mondy's are good for 150 anyway. Another jaded opinion of Ford products?
Anyway back to speeding - a nice little ploy. Will have to remember it....
130tdi said:
The car driven by Mrs Ince, who lives with her family in a £1.2 million mansion in Heswall, is one of the most expensive on the market with a top speed of 155mph.
Actually, it's capable of considerably more, it's just the electronic limiters that Merc fit limit the car to 155 - remove the limiter and you're WELL in excess of that.... :-)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff