You gotta pay...
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Specific clock type required
Next: So, what would make a bike turn easily one way but not quite so easily the other?
From: Pip Luscher on 20 Oct 2009 16:50 On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:51:08 -0700 (PDT), GungaDan <dan.edge1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >So if you don't fancy going to prison for, say, speeding you better be >loaded. Oh, well that's fair enough then. Good point, though you missed out the 'alleged'. -- -Pip
From: wessie on 20 Oct 2009 16:57 "Dave Emerson" <Dave_dot_Emerson(a)LineOne.net> wrote in news:hbl0af$crg$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > > "Champ" <news(a)champ.org.uk> wrote in message > news:oelrd5hupkbg3906q4km2nfak1t2r4patn(a)4ax.com... >> ...even if you're innocent >> >> http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=20842 >> >> "New regulations set to come into force later this month will see >> motorists forced to cough up court costs - even if they're found not >> guilty or acquitted of motoring offences." > > While I don't agree with the new legislation, I can see why it's been > proposed. > > Note that defendants found not guilty will not be required to pay the > courts costs or the Prosecutions (Police/CPS) costs, but they would > not (automatically) be able to claim back their own defence costs. > > Some very highly paid specialist motoring defence lawyers have made > fortunes by charging their clients "loads-a-money" to represent them > and, having out-manoeuvred the CPS, have had their huge bills paid by > the court. So the measure is being brought in to save the government cash because the criminal justice system has errors i.e. the police are sloppy, the CPS is staffed by clowns who don't do their job properly and the laws are badly constructed and have loopholes to exploit. You'd think it would be more efficient to just get the CPS to do their job properly so that they only bring winnable cases to court. -- wessie at tesco dot net BMW R1150GS
From: Colin Irvine on 20 Oct 2009 18:39 On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:42:21 +0100, Dave Emerson squeezed out the following: > >"Champ" <news(a)champ.org.uk> wrote in message >news:oelrd5hupkbg3906q4km2nfak1t2r4patn(a)4ax.com... >> ...even if you're innocent >> >> http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=20842 >> >> "New regulations set to come into force later this month will see >> motorists forced to cough up court costs - even if they're found not >> guilty or acquitted of motoring offences." > >While I don't agree with the new legislation, I can see why it's been >proposed. > >Note that defendants found not guilty will not be required to pay the courts >costs or the Prosecutions (Police/CPS) costs, but they would not >(automatically) be able to claim back their own defence costs. I think they should be. In fact, I think if anyone is taken to court by anyone else (be it a criminal or civil court) and the court finds for them, they should not be out of pocket. >Some very highly paid specialist motoring defence lawyers have made fortunes >by charging their clients "loads-a-money" to represent them and, having >out-manoeuvred the CPS, have had their huge bills paid by the court. So the current system isn't ideal. I still think it's better than the new one proposed. -- Colin Irvine ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5 http://www.colinandpat.co.uk
From: spike1 on 20 Oct 2009 19:49 And verily, didst Dave Emerson <Dave_dot_Emerson(a)lineone.net> hastily babble thusly: > It's the one's with the ambulance chasers that make the headlines. These > Perry Mason's put on a great performance for their client and usually focus > on some detail that has no relevance to the case. Don't tell me they use.... The chewbakka defence?! -- | spike1(a)freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a | | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit | | Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit | | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that| | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
From: Hog on 20 Oct 2009 21:59
Colin Irvine wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:42:21 +0100, Dave Emerson squeezed out the > following: >> Some very highly paid specialist motoring defence lawyers have made >> fortunes by charging their clients "loads-a-money" to represent them >> and, having out-manoeuvred the CPS, have had their huge bills paid >> by the court. > > So the current system isn't ideal. I still think it's better than the > new one proposed. Sir needs a nice Constitution and Bill of Rights to regulate a govmint. I'm not bothered as in this particular scenario I've usually been guilty as hell. -- Hog |