PDA

View Full Version : Beckham gets away with a penalty through his defence team!


BehindBlueEyes
27th Sep 2018, 17:10
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45668735

Is this a foul, an out swerve, an obstruction or a result? (All puns intended)

Or simply not fair play?

annakm
27th Sep 2018, 17:15
Always annoying when people get off on a technicality. A British associate was boasting, not so long ago, about how he had already 12 points on his driving license (I think that was the figure) but had been stopped for speeding. His defence argued in court that if he were to lose his license, he would lose his job to the detriment of his family. And he won!

Shouldn't he have thought about that before he put his foot down?

WingNut60
27th Sep 2018, 17:42
A friend of mine went to vouch for a junior employee who had lost his license but, following a qualifying period was applying for an extraordinary licence for work purposes.
That is, to and from, daylight hours, etc.

Simple question from the beak. "If I do not grant this extraordinary license will he lose his job?"

Um, um, eh....

Next case please!

Blues&twos
27th Sep 2018, 19:48
Irritating it may be that the prosecution was unsuccessful, but the legal system is entirely composed of "technicalities".
​​​​​​The procedure for serving notice had not been followed as required in law.
An hour, a day, a month late - it makes no difference.
​​​

clareprop
27th Sep 2018, 20:25
His defence argued in court that if he were to lose his license, he would lose his job to the detriment of his family. And he won!
That was the 'exceptional hardship' defense against totting-up. It's a joker that can only be played once. He'll have had the speeding points added to his licence and if he commits another offence in the next three years, he'll kiss his licence goodbye for six months with no appeal.

Krystal n chips
28th Sep 2018, 04:31
History repeats itself..........

This isn't the first time our hero has engaged the services of m'learned friend due to an unfortunate misunderstanding as to the UK's speed policies


Last time this happened, there were more than a few cynical observations as to the performance of a Fiesta vs, erm, a Ferrari. Plus there was the location.

Anybody familiar with the A34 around Weemahserlow, mwah, will know there are a few stretches where 76mph is possible and indeed a certain marque has a salesroom conveniently located for those associated with the traits of said marque to leave the showroom and immediately confirm the term used on JB.......

However, it gets considerably more difficult soon after because the A34 just gets reduced to a slow moving grind.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/dec/17/paulkelso

sitigeltfel
28th Sep 2018, 05:24
Never confuse the Law with Justice.

Justice would have seen Beckham prosecuted but the law allows him to go barrelling around the streets in a two ton Bentley, to the danger of others.

KelvinD
28th Sep 2018, 06:26
The problem with the law is it is a two sided affair. On the one side, the law stipulates what you may or may not do. The other side is the parameters set by the law, binding on both the accused and the law. If the law doesn't adhere to its own rules, then why should the accused? In this case Bentley Motors claim (and presumably were able to show) that the NIP was not received within the 14 day limit the law had set. If the 'law' can't stick to its own rules, then why should others? I have to say, I find the blaming of the postal service for the late delivery of the NIP very flimsy.

chevvron
28th Sep 2018, 06:29
Money!
Wonder who he'll get to argue the toss when his son gets a speeding ticket?(and he will sooner or later)

Krystal n chips
28th Sep 2018, 06:44
Money!
Wonder who he'll get to argue the toss when his son gets a speeding ticket?(and he will sooner or later)

I think the legal term is "having an established client "

Blues&twos
28th Sep 2018, 08:14
But in this case it wasn't some complex/obscure legislation requiring a top-price legal team. It was a simple late serving of the notice.
My wife got a speeding ticket some time ago, and I checked myself to see if the NIP had been delivered in time, no lawyer involved.
​​​​​​It had been, unfortunately.

WingNut60
28th Sep 2018, 08:57
I don't see the purpose of the time constraint in the law in the first place.
I presume he was picked up by a camera.
What exactly is the purpose of the time limit?
If nothing else, it seems to be a) very short and b) a provision specifically added to provide an 'out'.

Blues&twos
28th Sep 2018, 09:16
According to a report I read (can't remember where, probably in the news, so can't verify this) the short time limit was imposed to ensure the process was efficiently progressed. This makes it fairer on the registered keeper of the vehicle, who has to name the driver at the time of the offence.

Gordon17
28th Sep 2018, 09:51
I read somewhere that the evidence that the notice being served late was a "Received on ..." stamp on the paperwork from when it arrived at the Registered Keeper, which was not Beckham himself, but Bentley UK. It would be very easy indeed to stamp paperwork with a date other than that on which it actually arrived.

RedhillPhil
28th Sep 2018, 09:56
Beckham was guilty of the offence. He admitted his guilt. Why was he not found guilty? If to-day I was to have been discovered to have murdered my wife and buried her in the garden in 1975 I would still be charged with her murder. This "the NIP was delivered a day late" nonsense is just that. The Bentley dealer ought to have been charged with perverting the course of justice as the NIP was sent to them, they being the owners of the vehicle.
The whole thing stinks and proves that money will always talk. As Chevron has stated, the same will happen when his po-faced son gets the inevitable ticket.

Tankertrashnav
28th Sep 2018, 10:09
I used to quite admire Beckham even though I am not a football fan

Not any more.

Pontius Navigator
28th Sep 2018, 11:40
Irritating it may be that the prosecution was unsuccessful, but the legal system is entirely composed of "technicalities".
​​​​​​The procedure for serving notice had not been followed as required in law.
An hour, a day, a month late - it makes no difference.
​​​
I avoided a NIP through entirely that. The investigating officer had written out the notice on a Thursday. It probably reached Admin on Monday and was sent on day 14, the Tuesday. Even though the alleged offence was two hundred miles away there was never a prospect of it arriving on time. The policeman immediately accepted my word and told me to disregard it.

57mm
28th Sep 2018, 11:45
In the press photo of Beckham in beanie type hat and sunglasses, he looks weirdly like an Imam.....

Blues&twos
28th Sep 2018, 11:46
He wasn't found guilty because the correct legal process had not been followed, which means the prosecution could not be continued.
If the time limit on prosecution for murder was two weeks, you would get off " on a technicality" too.

I would certainly use that as a convenient get-out to avoid a speeding ticket, as I'm sure would quite a few of the regulars on Jet Blast.

annakm
28th Sep 2018, 11:48
Any truth in the story, by Piers Morgan I think, that DB was keen to have this misdemeanour challenged as he is rather keen on acquiring a knighthood?

PDR1
28th Sep 2018, 12:25
The time limit was put on for cases where the detection involvced speed cameras, and the accused would not necessarily know that they had been detected until the NIP came in the post. It was suggested that if someone received an NIP after a significant period of time had elapsed it could be difficult (if not impossible) to remember the circumstances, whether they were there, who was driving etc. This was deemed to be at odds with "natural justice", so a limit of 14 days was put in the law. Not that they only have to show that they POSTED the NIP within 14 days of the alleged offence - it was deemed unreasonable to place an obligation on the authorities to ensure that it was RECEIVED within 14 days (costs of registered post, people refusing to open letters, people being away from home etc). There was some case law which suggested that if it was not received after 16 days it could be deemed to have been sent too late, but like the Extreme Hardhip and Special Reasons claims (or the "single journey" rule) these are only options which are available to a magistrate if they should be minded to use them - they are under no compulsion to do so.

As for whether offences should be allowed to "time out" - rememebr that except in specific circumstances ALL prosections must begin (even if ajourned) within 6 months of the alleged offence "first becoming apparent" (section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act), so this is not just a speeding thing.

Had it have proceeded, the prosecution would have broken the law. Why should the law not apply to the prosecution as much as it does to the defence?

PDR

under_exposed
28th Sep 2018, 13:03
Not that they only have to show that they POSTED the NIP within 14 days of the alleged offence - it was deemed unreasonable to place an obligation on the authorities to ensure that it was RECEIVED within 14 days

It has to be served in 14 days, it is assumed served two days after posting first class unless the recipient can rebut the presumption of service.

Pontius Navigator
28th Sep 2018, 13:13
In my case it was sent recorded delivery which was probably why it was late. They had probably been slow getting it to the post office. Had they used a first class stamp the previous week . . .

WingNut60
28th Sep 2018, 13:19
So what constitutes "RECEIVED"?

Sorry m'lud, I was fishing in Scotland when ....

chevvron
28th Sep 2018, 14:01
The time limit was put on for cases where the detection involvced speed cameras,
PDR

No it wasn't, the 14 day limit has existed for over 50 years to my knowledge, long before speed cameras were invented.

vctenderness
28th Sep 2018, 14:17
Good luck to him!

He didn’t need a top lawyer he could have sent a letter back saying the notice had not been received within the legal time limit.

The law with regard to motoring offences is stacked against the public. You are always guilty until you prove your innocence totally opposite to the rest of the law.

If he had been stopped by a copper he would have,probably been successfully prosecuTed.

charliegolf
28th Sep 2018, 15:00
I read somewhere that the evidence that the notice being served late was a "Received on ..." stamp on the paperwork from when it arrived at the Registered Keeper, which was not Beckham himself, but Bentley UK. It would be very easy indeed to stamp paperwork with a date other than that on which it actually arrived.

It would be very easy to commit any number of other crimes ('cos doing that would be a crime), but could be very much more painful than a ban!

CG

chevvron
28th Sep 2018, 15:28
He didnít need a top lawyer he could have sent a letter back saying the notice had not been received within the legal time limit.

Shows how thick he really is; all that money to a lawyer when he didn't need to.

dook
28th Sep 2018, 15:32
I used to quite admire Beckham even though I am not a football fan

Not any more.

I have nothing but disdain for all football players. Overpaid overpaid overpaid....

…...and fickinnit.

419
28th Sep 2018, 15:52
He didnít need a top lawyer he could have sent a letter back saying the notice had not been received within the legal time limit.

Shows how thick he really is; all that money to a lawyer when he didn't need to.

You don't honestly think that by simply writing a letter saying that the notice hadn't been received within the 14 day limit would have seen the case dropped.
If that was all it took, anyone who received a S172 letter would do the same

As to "all that money".
When you and your wife have a total net worth of somewhere in the £650 million mark with an annual estimated income of £45 million, paying a few £ thousand to a lawyer is small change and in all likelihood, his accountant will probably find some way to offset it against tax.

WingNut60
28th Sep 2018, 16:07
No it wasn't, the 14 day limit has existed for over 50 years to my knowledge, long before speed cameras were invented.

Yes, but back then plod would knock on the door and hand it to your mum.

cavortingcheetah
28th Sep 2018, 16:25
Beckham is an idiot. He could easily afford chauffeur to cover any period of licence disqualification that might have applied. Are fines in the UK linked to income or wealth, as they are in other countries? In any event, what he should do now in order to deidiotise himself is to apologise to the world at large for speeding and then donate a relatively large sum of money to the Dr Christine Blasey Ford psychological relief fund, thereby supporting women in distress, mental instability and victims of sexual assault, all rolled into one neat little bundle.

BehindBlueEyes
28th Sep 2018, 17:23
Any truth in the story, by Piers Morgan I think, that DB was keen to have this misdemeanour challenged as he is rather keen on acquiring a knighthood?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/winging-it-david-beckham-takes-13325383


I didnít realise he wasnít ďjustĒ over the speed limit, he was nearly 50% over it, so not a slight oversight.

treadigraph
28th Sep 2018, 17:43
Victoria enjoyed the Grands Echezeaux Grand Crul

Sounds like a sneeze...

sitigeltfel
28th Sep 2018, 19:37
Any truth in the story, by Piers Morgan I think, that DB was keen to have this misdemeanour challenged as he is rather keen on acquiring a knighthood?

And why not? It would be difficult to debase the honours system any further than it is now.

BirdmanBerry
28th Sep 2018, 19:45
You only have to look at the case of Alex Ferguson to see money talks. Who else would have got away with driving down the hard shoulder of a motorway by saying they needed a poo?!

NutLoose
28th Sep 2018, 22:44
The law is the law, and if they have failed to adhere to the laid down procedures then fair play, I knew about the 14 day rule and I would have done exactly the same as no doubt everyone here would have, I cannot understand why people get on their high horses for someone doing what everyone else would do, simply because they are famous.

cavortingcheetah
28th Sep 2018, 23:11
Sounds like a sneeze...



https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/137x431/la_tache_0a0bf78c6dcdbaf69f3fe6ef7a59f89cc5105929.jpg

chevvron
29th Sep 2018, 03:26
Any truth in the story, by Piers Morgan I think, that DB was keen to have this misdemeanour challenged as he is rather keen on acquiring a knighthood?
Not him, it's 'her' wants him to get a knighthood; thinks it will make her a 'lady'; some chance!

Pontius Navigator
29th Sep 2018, 07:11
Having admitted he did it but avoided a conviction in a technicality he could play the upright English gentleman and donate a large sum of money, in lieu of a fine and victim surcharge, to charity (tax deductible of course).

How about a petition chaps?



*chaps as m/f like actors.

BehindBlueEyes
29th Sep 2018, 11:00
Having admitted he did it but avoided a conviction in a technicality he could play the upright English gentleman and donate a large sum of money, in lieu of a fine and victim surcharge, to charity (tax deductible of course).

How about a petition chaps?



*chaps as m/f like actors.

Good idea. That would be a very philanthropic gesture, plus, it certainly wouldnít do any harm to his now slightly tarnished image.

I take the point about any of us be able to use the same loopholes in the law, but I believe that when you are in the public eye, and particularly when high profile figures set themselves up as ambassadors or wish to cultivate an image, they should be setting an example or taking the consequences on the chin. I know that sounds tough but thatís the price they pay for the massive incomes they make from the publicís adoration. They canít have it both ways. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Beckham wasnít slightly over the speed limit - weíve all been guilty of a slight error of judgement on that one - he was 50% over it. And, he admitted his guilt too. Touch of arrogance and another, ďdonít you know who I am.Ē?

papajuliet
29th Sep 2018, 11:30
Who believes the, so convenient, date stamp ?

WingNut60
29th Sep 2018, 12:41
Good idea. That would be a very philanthropic gesture, plus, it certainly wouldn’t do any harm to his now slightly tarnished image.

A very good idea indeed, since he would only have been trying to avoid a conviction. The monetary penalty would be of no consequence to him at all.
But, referring to my other thread, "Is it still philanthropy" when you are coerced into making a donation, especially if it is to be used as a tax deduction.

As for the date stamp, I don't know if such information is FOI but it would be interesting to know how many times the Bentley dealer has made that excuse available to their "clients".
In any event, if the dealer did fudge the date stamp, then they are the ones who would be culpable, not DB.

But Pontius' donation idea has real appeal. It has given me an idea to pass to my local MP; a tightly limited, govt administered, points buy-back scheme for the Oz points system, with proceeds going to charity, not to consolidated revenue
I'm gonna work on that one.

charliegolf
29th Sep 2018, 13:56
Who believes the, so convenient, date stamp ?

The judge and I do. Who here assumes that anybody would risk a jail sentence to falsify evidence? The very fact that it went to the dealer (I believe I read) makes the case stronger- why perjure oneself for a stonkingly rich man driving a car you probably can never hope to own/lease?

CG

WingNut60
29th Sep 2018, 14:06
The judge and I do. Who here assumes that anybody would risk a jail sentence to falsify evidence? The very fact that it went to the dealer (I believe I read) makes the case stronger- why perjure oneself for a stonkingly rich man driving a car you probably can never hope to own/lease?

CG

I neither believe nor disbelieve.
But to paraphrase your statement "Who here assumes that nobody would ever risk a jail sentence to to 'help out a valued client' if they thought that the chances of being caught were infinitesimal.? Or they had gotten away with it before?

KelvinD
29th Sep 2018, 19:36
I think if I was Beckham, I would send the bill for his brief to Bentley Motors. The NIP was sent to them. Aa Beckham's name is all over this case, one must assume that Bentley filled in the form, giving Beckham's name as the driver. Bentley were the registered keeper and it was up to their legal team to spot the error re the date received. They should have sent the NIP back.
Did anyone hear John 'you must all listen to my trumpet' Humphreys a couple of days ago when this first broke? He was trying to get the better of Beckham's lawyer (good luck there JH!) and he said that as Beckham had admitted he was speeding, should he not convict himself etc? Stupid Mr. Humphreys! Taking that as an example would mean every motorist who, upon glancing at his speedometer, realised he was 10mph over the speed limit should drive straight to the local nick and dob himself in!

papajuliet
29th Sep 2018, 22:32
As always we can only go on what the media have reported. I wonder if the Court heard evidence from Rolls- Royce employees. I suspect not. If it were not for the celebrity involved this would have been a bog standard speeding case. I think the Court took the line of expediency.

G-CPTN
29th Sep 2018, 22:37
I wonder if the Court heard evidence from Rolls- Royce employees. I suspect not.
Rolls Royce Motor Cars (a wholly owned subsidiary of German group BMW) no longer have any association with Bentley Motors - a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG since 1998.

racedo
29th Sep 2018, 22:40
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

6 months ago got a not from one of HM Constabularys that they intended to bring a prosecution for 57 in a 50 zone.
As it was a car hire I got hit with a charge from them as well because they had to provide my name and details to said force.

Lo and behold a couple of weeks late I received a letter from said Constabulary indicating that as there were prodecural errors
in the NIP they were closing the case and I would not be hearing from them again in relation to this.

I don't doubt I was speeding, 3 points came off in Jan so may have been offered a driver awareness course.

I didn't complain.

Eddie Dean
29th Sep 2018, 22:55
in the U.K., are these types of offences ones of Strict Liability?

Pontius Navigator
30th Sep 2018, 08:14
I recall when first driving off in Bentley the second thing I did was stamp on the brake. Its acceleration was so brisk I was going far faster than intended. Then, on the track, it was so smooth there was no sensation of speed.

Curiously I had had the same experience in a diesel Fiesta. We can often misread speed cues in new cars.

NRU74
30th Sep 2018, 09:12
in the U.K., are these types of offences ones of Strict Liability?

Yes, and for quite a lot of Regulatory type offences.