I saw this on another website I sometimes frequent
Drivers should pay up even if they go to court and win say ministers.
Drivers who challenge motoring prosecutions should be made to pay their legal bills even if they win their case, ministers have said. The proposal would see successful defendants lose their century-old right to claim back their costs.
A change in the law would affect many of the 1.7million drivers a year who take their cases to court. Ministers are proposing that defendants lose their century-old right to claim back their legal costs.
It costs around £1,500 to fight charges of speeding, illegal parking and other motoring offences and this cost would not be fully reimbursed even if a driver was found innocent of all charges.
Peter Roberts CEO of the Drivers' Alliance said "it is fundamentally wrong for the state to financially penalise innocent drivers who are simply seeking justice against a faulty conviction".
Jeanette Miller, of Geoffrey Miller, a leading motoring law firm has raised a petition on the Downing Street website and the Drivers' Alliance urges everyone to sign it. If the principle of innocent until proven guilty is to be upheld in this country then it is imperative people who win a court case are not financially disadvantaged for defending themselves.
You can sign the petition at: petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
|
I'm a bit suspicious about the veracity of this. It seems to be based on a year-old story in the Daily Hate Daily Mail, a paper whose raison d'etre is reassuring it's readers that the world is going to hell on a handcart.
Here the report: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083763/Speeding-...l
But if this is still story ever added up and if it's still live, it's odd that only the Mail has spotted it. I'd suggest that anyone concerned does a little more research afore jumping on the bandwagon.
Edited by NowWheels on 19/09/2009 at 23:28
|
|
Blimey NowWheels, that's two of your posts I've agreed with in the past twelve hours! :-)
|
Blimey NowWheels that's two of your posts I've agreed with in the past twelve hours! :-)
See, I'm hypnotisng y'all. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to the law firm running the campaign:
www.motoroffence.co.uk/news.php?function=detail&st...8
And here is a link to the Daily Mail today with the full story:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215021/Drivers-c...l
And here is the article on the Drivers' Alliance website:
driversalliance.org.uk/press/view/323
It is a real story and it is a real concern.
|
|
Bump - if you think it warrants further comment.
|
Lawyers stimulating discussion about something bad for us plebs - how altruistic.
My take on this is Geoffrey Millers will generate plenty of business through what is basically free Daily Mail advertorial.
|
Is anyone really surprised at this? It?s the next obvious move along the line to a banana republic.
We have had the ?please incriminate yourself? fpn. We are assumed to have received this because it can be proved that it was posted. Some people have had the temerity to challenge these and won.
Who, except for the wealthy, will be able to afford to prove their innocence? Who will bother to spend possibly hundreds of pounds, if not more, to avoid a ?small? fine and a few points, even if there was no possibility of them having committed the offence?
The next move will be on the spot fines, payable in cash, including a sum to pay for the police wages in collecting it. No argument, son, you done it, pay me.
Then they will realise that the database exists in Swansea to cut out all the middle men and just send out random fines, select a set number of drivers and registration numbers each month and away you go. Like the premium bonds in reverse.
This government is bankrupt in cash terms, ideas and morals. Wait till gorden* gets back from the next (50 days to save the planet single handed) crusade on ?climate change?. Tax? You aint seen nothing yet.
* Small g used on purpose to indicate lack of respect.
|
|
It's all part of Common Purposes' plan for what they call the coming "Post Democratic Era". People who have graduated from CP tend to be incompetent buffoons working in the NHS, Council portfolio holders, civil servants BBC and teaching staff and they are led to believe that they are forming some sort of shadow government and so feel all important and egotistical while shafting society.
|
Unfortunately this sort of story has become common place - basic rights are being erroded left right and centre.
Shame this sort of topic goes onto the usual tedious Daily Mail bashing rubbish as well. Ho Hum.
|
The actual proposal is that the amount of costs motorists can recover be limited.
The amount some "specialist" firms seek to recover by way of costs can be eye-watering (up to £15,000, as opposed to the costs the defendant will pay on conviction of around £500).
This is in relatively simple cases where all sorts of spurious "defences" are raised - you know the sort of thing, it often comes from visitors here and you can see it on other websites - with little pretence of relevance, in the hope that the poor old CPS bod who's handling the case will just give up, or spend her time on something more important, like that burglary/rape/anti-social behaviour case which she hasn't had time to look at because she's been spending hours on a speeder.
I think it's a good idea.
|
|
It will at least ensue that Mr Loophole ceases to be funded from the public purse.
|
So in essence I was close - the good people at the aforementioned legal firm who started spreading the phear stories are afraid their multi-thousand pound fee earning cases are going to stop paying out.
The backbone of this story was NEVER about Joe Public Esq having to pay out after winning cases, although that is the spin being applied.
|
|
If there is no limit on the amount of money the state can use to oppress or harass the individual, there should be no limit on the amount he can use to defend himself.
|
|
|
