Drivers will have to pay legal costs even if found not guilty, apparently!

That is really not on. I can see this as a tactic used to bully people into accepting guilt even though they have a strong case. It's pathetic.
 
On the flip side if you get taken to court there's now no disadvantage to fighting a conviction, you'll have to pay a lawyer either way!
 
Janesy B said:
That is really not on. I can see this as a tactic used to bully people into accepting guilt even though they have a strong case. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...

Just like speeding tickets. No we can't show you the evidence unless you come to court. If you do come to court and we show you the evidence you are goign to lose and have finex5 and pointsx2.

The entire government, law, tax around driving is stupid and goes against basic rights in our law system.
 
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.
Click to expand...
In fact, this is a distortion of the truth; the change is that only the amount available under legal aid will be repaid.

This is an attempt to reduce the number of "no win - no fee" companies exploiting technicalities. Seems perfectly fair to me.
 
It's disgraceful - it's ended up in being a lose-lose situation.

For a lot of convictions it's going to be a lot cheaper to roll over and accept the charge regardless of whether you think you are innocent.
 
According to the Ministry of Justice, the age old principle of 'the loser pays' has been costing the government too much money. As a result the new rules make it clear that in future drivers will have to foot the bill for clearing their name. According to The Taxpayers Alliance, that equates to 400,000 people, or one in four of those who challenge a ticket.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they should focus their efforts on making sure all convictions are fair and made with irrefutable evidence in the first place? Then they wouldn't have to pay out when more law-savvy motorists take them to court to overturn the convictions.
 
stockhausen said:
In fact, this is a distortion of the truth; the change is that only the amount available under legal aid will be repaid.

This is an attempt to reduce the number of "no win - no fee" companies exploiting technicalities. Seems perfectly fair to me.
Click to expand...

How is that fair? If you are innocent you should not be in court to begin with and as such should pay nothing at all. The CPS could easily say we don't have enough evidence, we'll drop teh case before we get to court.
 
This country is really going to the dogs.

Everything is about money money money, if it's not green taxes, taxing the middle earners, and PM's claiming for plugs and toilet brushes, it's making the inocent pay for being wrongly acused.

What ever next. :rolleyes: Might as well just set up another direct debit to the government.
 
AcidHell2 said:
How is that fair? If you are innocent you should not be in court to begin with and as such should pay nothing at all. The CPS could easily say we don't have enough evidence, we'll drop teh case before we get to court.
Click to expand...
If you are suggesting that guilty people should be acquitted on technicalities, I can't say that I agree with you.

I don't imagine that you would favour this in the case of terrorists, rapists, murderers or people accused of vandalising cars - although perhaps, in the interests of defending motorists accused of speeding, driving whilst under the influence or dangerous driving, you would, who can say :confused:

However, this ruling doesn't stop criminals getting off on technicalities, just reduces the money that can be made from this practice by crooked lawyers :)
 
stockhausen said:
If you are suggesting that guilty people should be acquitted on technicalities, I can't say that I agree with you.
Click to expand...

How can you not?
A technicality is a massive thing. It basically means no evidence against you. Do you really believe people should be punished with no evidence?

And this applies for any law, no evidence = no court case and no punishment. Makes no difference if it's a rapist, killer, terrorist or pedo. It is a corner stone of a fair and just legal system and without it, we might as well just go witch hunting.

But that wasn't really what I'm saying The CPS will know if a speed camera has an upto date calibration certificate or if a council parking fine is enforceable. In these cases they should not goto court and be dropped, but at the moment they take them to court to bully people into just rolling over.
 
AcidHell2 said:
How can you not?
A technicality is a massive thing. It basically means no evidence against you. Do you really believe people should be punished with no evidence?
...
Click to expand...
I really believe that criminals should be punished.

You still appear not to understand the change; the proposed change is that only the amount available under legal aid will be repaid, not some inflated legal fee - very good news frankly :)
 
stockhausen said:
I really believe that criminals should be punished.

You still appear not to understand the change; the proposed change is that only the amount available under legal aid will be repaid, not some inflated legal fee - very good news frankly :)
Click to expand...

I understand it, how is it good news? You are innocent and you have to pay. What;'s good about that?

And yes criminals should be punished and how do we know if they are criminals, through evidence. No evidence no trial (or found not guilty)
 
Funny how the government will do anything and everything to screw over the motorist, and 90% of the time put it down to c02 crap..

Yet oddly enough China as a country produces more C02 in a day than all the UK drivers in a year!

So basically coppers can now just issue tickets to anyone and everyone regardless of commiting an offense or not, because if you dispute it and have to go to court, you lose anyway!

EDIT: To keep the grammer police from crying!
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
I understand it, how is it good news? You are innocent and you have to pay. What;'s good about that?
Click to expand...
No, you still don't understand - the "crusading" lawyer in pursuit of justice at all costs still gets paid - by the courts - just at the legal aid rate.

I would far rather that my tax money was used to pay competent, experienced lawyers to frame good laws than greedy lawyers to exploit badly drafted laws knocked together by their young, low paid, inexperienced and perhaps incompetent colleagues.

This amendment is good for the taxpayer and I applaud it :)


AcidHell2 said:
And yes criminals should be punished and how do we know if they are criminals, through evidence. No evidence no trial (or found not guilty)
Click to expand...
I suspect that if you happen to own a car and some vandal were to key it in full view of CCTV but got off because a "no win - no fee" lawyer managed to argue that the prosecution couldn't prove conclusively that the required advisory notice was prominently displayed at the time of the crime you would not be on here starting a thread proclaiming a "Victory for British justice!".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom