At long last a judge stands up to Millionaire footballers and their attempt to avoid speeding charges
tinyurl.com/ylk3n3d
|
|
Good words Mr. Judge, good words.
|
|
Now what we want is this precedent to be enacted to all the rest of these "I'm better than you and can get off because I can afford an expensive lawyer" people.
|
|
Judge, common sense, and real world, in the same thought, theres a novelty.
|
|
IME it's only the apparently odd decisions that are reported - the very great majority of decisions aren't newsworthy, because they are correct. It is nice to see one such in the news.
|
If I was a Magistrate and mr Loophole was defending then I think I'd automatically find the defendant guilty just out of awkwardness.
Having said that, the Judge in this appeal seems to have simply ignored several legal points - that's a slippery slope.
Edited by Bill Payer on 12/11/2009 at 10:15
|
|
Get that judge into a ref's kit straight away and let's kill that nasty imported practice of diving in the penalty area before it gets too widespread, eh?
|
|
|
As a slight aside, apart from the ban which may or may not be appropriate in this case, no doubt the original court felt it was.
The fines that are levied on these grossly overpaid personalities is rather a joke i feel.
High time that some sort of percentage of a persons income was used as standard method of calculating fines in these cases.
|
...High time that some sort of percentage of a persons income was used as standard method of calculating fines in these cases...
gb,
Fines in magistrates' court are means-tested to a degree, it's just that someone like Defoe is off the scale.
Say the correct fine for someone on an average income is £500 - roughly equivalent to a week's money - I think it's regarded as unjust to fine Defoe £60,000 for the same offence, albeit it's accepted he should pay more.
Some other thoughtful posts on here, as ever.
My comments are based on my experience of being in a court somewhere nearly every working day for the last 15 years.
My first reaction - as a Spurs fan - was 'good on yer, judge'.
But as BP says, the judge appears to have ignored some legal technicalities because it suits him, which is the top of a very slippery slope.
As regards judges having common sense and living in the real world, most have and do.
The majority of decisions are spot on, as FT says, and there are plenty of guidelines to follow which limits the judge's discretion.
Judge's decisions are also nearly always open to public criticism and comment - a barmy judge doesn't last long.
|
From the Press it appears Mr Defoe has had various encounters with the police and the courts over car matters such as speeding, who was driving, 3rd parties driving cars that are used by Mr Defoe and his friends.
Mr Defoe and his lawyers have been in court a few times in the last year or so but with the ban surely this will bring matters to a close for the 12 months at least!
|
The law is made up of technicalities.
Grounds for appeal were >> there was no evidence to prove he was driving; prosecutors had not proved paperwork was issued by a person authorised by the chief constable of Essex; the court could not be sure Defoe had received speeding notices and the court could not be sure Defoe had not responded to the notices>>
The last two about the receipt of and response to speeding notices are just designed to bring in the element of doubt and apply to all cases.
Why should prosecutors have to prove who issued the paperwork on behalf of the Chief Constable of Essex? Because it's some overpaid footballer? Who does Mr Loophole suggest might have done the paperwork? Peter Andre? The Pope? Jamie Oliver?
No evidence to prove Defoe was driving: does he say someone else was driving?
I don't think the judge was wrong but I do think police forces have to make sure they get the basics right so Loophole has nothing "technical" to argue in court.
|
|
|
|
A Barmy Police Chief lasted almost for ever! Think Cymru
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with the judge. If they couldn't prove they had sent the notice or who was driving then he has no case to answer. The camera partnership should follow the letter of the law as they expect us too. If there was an actual traffic policeman stopping him then they could ascertain his identity by taking him off down the station and following correct procedure. Cameras can only prove a vehicle with a certain displayed number plate went past a camera. There's nothing stopping me popping on some false plates and driving past any number of cameras and setting them off. The rear facing ones wouldn't stand a chance of offering proof. Was highly tempted to get a volvo like Mr Brunstroms and go on a speeding spree :-)
To me proof should involve evidence that clearly shows the driver, their offence and proves their identity and the vehicle. This blatant profiteering has to stop as road safety is too important to mess with just to get a fast buck out of the motorist.
|
If he was given two lots of 6 points, (thus banning him when it gets to 12)...then he was 'done' for failing to say who the driver was....rather than the actual speeding offences themselves...that would be my guess
the news report is a tad ambiguous...
|
|
|
I disagree with the judge. If they couldn't prove they had sent the notice
Mega Snipquote!!!!
You say the camera can only prove that avehical with a certain number plate went past the camera but in this day and age would any vagualy informed rational person assume that any photgraph had to be true? If you were on a jury and the only evidence to convict someone was a photograph, could you in all honesty return a guilty verdict?
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 12/11/2009 at 13:48
|
If you were on a jury and the only evidence to convict someone was a photograph could you in all honesty return a guilty verdict?
If it was a photo taken by a member of the public, then probably not. If it was taken by a speed camera, then probably, unless the judge directed otherwise. Personally I don't think 'the authorities' would go to the bother of falsifying something like that (assuming they could).
|
Personally I don't think 'the authorities' would go to the bother of falsifying something like that (assuming they could).
I cant remember the details but seem to recollect that someone involved in the processing of NIPs altered a photo for some reason and was charged, and appeared in court.
Edited by Old Navy on 12/11/2009 at 14:26
|
I cant remember the details but seem to recollect that someone involved in the processing of NIPs altered a photo for some reason and was charged and appeared in court.
I stand corrected :-)
EDIT: although I'd still probably assume it hadn't been tampered with
Edited by Focus {P} on 12/11/2009 at 14:28
|
One thing Defoe didn't do, as far as I can tell, was to actually attend court and tell the judge
1) that it definitely wasn't him driving the car but was in fact................OR
2) that he definitely hadn't received the paperwork...............OR
3) that if he had received the paperwork he had definitely responded to it.
Draw your own conclusions.
|
ok, i`m not sticking up for the guy (Defoe) because technically he broke the law.
What to my mind is unjust, is the level of punishment levied on him for basically
exceeding a 50mph limit, (on a motorway,not a country lane type road) by a mere
15mph and a mere 31mph.
Any "ordinary" working-class person would probably recieve 3pts for each offence (total 6pts not 12)
probablly fined £60 for each offence, an appropiate court cost, and £15 victim surcharge.
The fact that he is a multi-millionare should not come into it! - it is only one highway code,for all,
there is only the same offence whether committed by you or me! there should only be the same penalty.
No "ordinary" person would get a 12month ban, even for a dual speeding offence,(at those speeds) No "ordinary" person would get a 12month ban.
For disputing paperwork or driver identity no "ordinary" person would be fined £1500, or £600 costs.
There isn`t "one law for us and one law for them!"
Personal wealth should not be used as a tool to punish others more than some.
|
I think westpig is right, though.
Defoe wouldn't say on two occasions who was driving the car and so got done for that rather than for speeding.
An ordinary person would get punished as you suggest only if he'd owned up.
|
|
|
There isn`t "one law for us and one law for them!" Personal wealth should not be used as a tool to punish others more than some.
Of course it should be taken onto account....i'd go further and say that a percentage of one's salary should be the standard tool in measuring fines in most if not all cases.
Family fellow struggling to make ends meet without drawing off the state gets find £500, that may well be his dosposable income after keeping his family for a couple of months.
That amount is likely to be the price of a pair of shoes or a night out for one of these celebrity types, so of no consequence save to laugh about at an excusive night club, and therefore no fine really in the sense of the word.
In this respect we still have (after all these years of being told about the classless society and other drivel politicians spout) exactly what you said..one law for the rich and one for the rest of us...it has always been the case.
|
Of course it should be taken onto account....i'd go further and say that a percentage of one's salary should be the standard tool in measuring fines in most if not all cases. Family fellow struggling to make ends meet without drawing off the state gets find £500 that may well be his dosposable income after keeping his family for a couple of months.
How about the truly lowlife piece of garbage living off the rest of us*, what should he get? Currently virtually nothing.
* I do not mean in any way shape or form, those that through no fault of their own have fallen on hard times, they are welcome to any help they can get. I mean the thieving, lazy, low life scumbags that we all know are out there.
|
Best answer is to use community service as an hour of a person's time has the same value to the individual. An hour wasted litter picking or whatever is an hour they can't get back. Also I think getting away from monetary punishments is a better way of focusing on what crimes need to be addressed rather than which ones can be used for raising a few quid.
Earnings can be hidden so that a salary is not always an indicator of what an individual is worth.
|
How about the truly lowlife piece of garbage living off the rest of us* what should he get? Currently virtually nothing.
We could no doubt rant on about that sizeable bunch for time eternal, in a country run by us here they wouldn't be doing quite so well methinks.
Though in theory those that deal in drugs may well have their ill gotten seized...whether that really happens i imagine you know better than most.
The professional scrounger class, the income assesment could still work...nett income plus a calculated amount from their freebies.
I really don't know, but the usual applies as in most other things...the majority of us that pay our way and struggle to do things it right get penalised the most in real terms.
Maybe Teabelly has it right, community service properly overseen may well be a good leveller.
Edited by gordonbennet on 12/11/2009 at 17:10
|
|
|
|
|
I cant remember the details but seem to recollect that someone involved in the processing of NIPs altered a photo for some reason and was charged and appeared in court.
Parking offences IIRC and he was 'dobbed in' by a colleague.
|
|
Thanks, bt {p}. Glad I'm not completely senile yet!
|
It's coming back to me now (the old grey cells move slower as well as me).
A traffic warden type had omitted to put a 'parking suspended between dates....' sign up and subsequently put it up and took a photo of the car in the bay. The warden then changed the date on the photo, or summat like that.
|
A traffic warden type had omitted to put a 'parking suspended between dates....' sign up and subsequently put it up and took a photo of the car in the bay.
Ah - I was thinking more of photos taken by machines (in terms of what I would trust to be not tampered with).
|
Ah - I was thinking more of photos taken by machines (in terms of what I would trust to be not tampered with).
>>
I see your point, but many images are digital and easily fudged, the opportunity and motive are a different matter.
|
|
|
|
This blatant profiteering has to stop as road safety istoo important to mess with just to get a fast buck out of the motorist.
If the blatant speeding stops then so will the profiteering.
My vote is on keeping as many voluntary taxes as we can!
|
I met Nick Freeman (Mr Loophole) at a charity breakfast last week. A most pleasant chap who is unassuming and does not like his nickname, but has registered it to stop other people taking it.
He fell into this type of work and also does general litigation as well. Basically, his point of view is that the process of giving speeding and other tickets is so automated and is seen as vindictive without any consideration for mitigation, that he deliberately checks that the documentation and way the law is applied is 100% accurate. If it is not, then he tells the client he has a case. He has worked for free and told many people he will not act as there is no point.
There are many lawyers and judges who have let very damgerous criminals out of prison on technicalities so why shouldn't we try to get off tickets in the same way.
This does not excuse dreadful driving, but the law should be applied the way the law states it should be applied. If not, then you leave Court with a clean conscious.
|
Blimey! The man's a saint!
A lawyer checking documentation for accuracy! Imagine that! And then working for free!
And not acting if there's no point! So he thought he and the barrister were going to get Defoe off, did he?
Have to stop now 'cos I'm laughing too much to type!
|
nd then working for free!
That does happen even in this money driven society - in fact I worked yesterday morning for nothing.
Edited by Pugugly on 13/11/2009 at 15:38
|
No I'm not - I've just made a huge killing elsewhere.... ;-)
Edit: Totally legal but slightly ethically questionable in some eyes !
Edited by Pugugly on 13/11/2009 at 15:47
|
Sold PU Towers and its grounds to Tesco?
|
|
Tee Hee. Don't let on to my neighbours...
|
|
|
|
|
