Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 1,468
Got to love this country sometimes.
Drivers will have to pay legal costs even if found not guilty, apparently!
- Thread starter OllyM
- Start date
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I like the smell of freshly mown grass . . .
It is not good for tax payers we are the ones that have to pay for it either way, this undermines the justice system. Badly drafted or not, that is the law. Sod all to do with poor lawyers. Without upholding the law, the system becomes a joke. Perhaps you want a system where the law does not have to be followed and you allow poor quality illegal evidence. But the majority don't. How you can think that is a good idea is beyond me.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
at least use a sensible comparison. The law is the law. Without upholding the law then the system becomes a joke and innocent people get punished due to "poor evidence"
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,247
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
So basically if a copper pulls me over lies about what i've been doing, i get an independant witness to side with me i still have to pay for the crooked cops ways, sounds like a great system to me, all hail communism.
Just wait, soon you will have to pay the so called victim compo as well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
( |-| |2 ][ $;15133247 said:
You really think the cons would be any different?
yes. They are very much against this and many other stupid laws the government have introduced.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
So I guess you believe pretty much whatever they tell you?
Every government creates stupid laws, what makes you think the cons would be any different.
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
Amounts due back are already 'taxed' by the courts to stop this sort of thing happening.
They will make a deduction and give you what they deem to be a fair amount.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 13,608
- Location
- Back with a Vengeance.
"Current law dictates that if you have paid for legal representation and are prosecuted for an offence and found not guilty, you will receive an order for your costs to be assessed and paid back by the court."
Isn't this already the way libel cases work? ie you win but still have to pay your legal bill yourself. If not libel, I'm sure there are case types that already work this way and have done for many years.
Isn't this already the way libel cases work? ie you win but still have to pay your legal bill yourself. If not libel, I'm sure there are case types that already work this way and have done for many years.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 13,608
- Location
- Back with a Vengeance.
Can you explain a little more on this please?
Since when has the right to request evidence before a trial been removed?
Can't you request a copy of the photo from a camera, for example?
A technicality doesn't mean there is no evidence against you. Typically, it means that for whatever reason the courts are prohibited from admitting certain items of evidence that exists.
The evidence is still very real, it's just deemed to be inadmissable in court.
You can not request calibration tests unless you got to court. This is very much a defining point on if you have broken the law.
the evidence does not stand upto close scrutiny and as such could be forged or wrong and as such it's not admissible for a very very very good reason. For example if a parking ticket has the wrong address on it. they are trying to charge you for an offence you have not committed and as such there is no evidence that you commited that crime, as you didn't. This is why there is strict rules on evidence and needs to remain so.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 13,608
- Location
- Back with a Vengeance.
You can still request a copy of the pic from a roadside cam though, right?
I've still got one from about 8 years ago.
That would depend on the technicality. Incorrectly signed roads for instance means a speed restriction may simply not apply to that road, and it reverts to NSL. Thus although there may be evidence that you have exceeded the speed on a sign post, there may be no evidence that you have broken the applicable speed limit for that road.
You can request it, but the camera pratnerships are under no obligation to provide them unless you elect to go to court.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 13,608
- Location
- Back with a Vengeance.
This must have changed, as I'm fairly sure mine was sent from the local plod HQ.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 13,608
- Location
- Back with a Vengeance.
Indeed, but it certainly doesn't mean that there is no evidence against you.
Signed before I even looked at the forums today. I don't sign things.
Surely they could simply charge everyone with something outrageous, make it go to court and you still have to pay for the court costs even though the case is non-existent. Way to make money for the courts methinks. Stealth Tax methinks.
I know this would never happen. Fun to gesticulate.