View Single Post
Old 4th Sep 2006, 07:26
  #282 (permalink)  
Flying Lawyer
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,917
bjcc
FL
Do you suggest that every driver who breaks the RTA's or other RT legislation is prosecuted?
No, of course not.

Now would you answer the questions I asked you about the claims you made in a previous post on this topic. (Or at least admit your bluff has been called. )


G-CPTN
I agree it’s extremely unlikely a policeman on an emergency would report a motorist who transgressed when moving out of his way. The problem is more likely to arise with traffic light cameras and camera speed traps.


Unwell_Raptor
It's all up above there. He pleaded guilty. That's his choice. …………………………. The rest is just fluff.
If the newspaper story is correct, then I disagree that it’s just ‘fluff.’
IMHO, the fact he pleaded guilty is only one aspect of the story - which reflects badly on the legal system from beginning to end.

His manoeuvre was captured by a traffic lights camera.
When he tried to explain the incident to the Scamera Partnership, he was told to argue it in court. That’s the sort of unhelpful response a number of people here have said they would expect to receive in that situation. I agree with them; I wouldn’t expect any better.

A spokesman for the partnership said: “There is a system in place for motorists who feel they have extenuating circumstances – they can opt to take their case to a court of law.” bjcc's assertion that they would investigate a driver's claim and not proceed against him if it was confirmed was, as I suggested earlier, utter nonsense.

Three court appearances?
For some relatively trivial offence? IMHO, it’s appalling that people are put to inconvenience and expense in that way.

The railway maintenance worker ended up with a £60 fine, a £35 bill for costs, three penalty points on his licence and £300 loss on wages for time spent on three court appearances. I doubt if he regarded 3 x loss of wages, plus a fine and costs (total £395) as ‘fluff’.

Once he pleads guilty, that's it.

It’s not. The appropriate penalty then has to be considered.
Unless he didn’t explain the circumstances (unlikely, since he felt strongly enough to attend court three times) then the penalty seems very harsh. I suppose the magistrates may have disbelieved him, assuming he was yet another lying motorist.

The man has gone away with a grave sense of injustice. If the facts are as reported, then I agree with him.
Mr Freeman said: “Motorists today just can't win.”
Many motorists who’ve come into contact with the legal system would agree with him.

IMHO those of us involved in the legal system, whether professionally or as JPs, should be concerned that members of the public feel this way - and ask ourselves why they do. For the overwhelming majority of people, it's the only contact they have with the legal system.

We should also be very concerned that people plead guilty to traffic offences when they don't consider they are guilty.

FL

Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 4th Sep 2006 at 07:54.
Flying Lawyer is offline