Driving disqualification - Confused

doofer · 11 May 2015 at 12:20

Gaygle said:
What?

I'm making a simplistic point about the '80-100' ambiguity, obviously it wasn't simple enough....

Gaygle said:
The police officer, with his calibrated speedometer, gave a testimony stating that he followed the OP over 0.5miles doing between 80-100mph in a 50mph zone. And you think he could have "walked away from it" if he had a decent solicitor. lol ok.

Again, easily picked apart by a decent Brief, I like how you added 'with his calibrated speedometer' yourself though, you can actually prove this can you, with full documentation? You know, like a Court would need to prove guilt.

The point is: Never admit to anything. EVER. If they want to PROVE you did something wrong then let them work for it, this is where they come unstuck. Admitting anything is just crazy (Even if they do have you bang to rights).

Ryan-3 · 11 May 2015 at 12:27

If the speedo used on the OP was 20mph out, the officer would see his speed on his bike speedometer and know the other one is way out and would have it calibrated. But for the sake of this, say the quoted range of speed is 60-120 (accounting for the plus/minus 20 error) in a 50mph zone. Then. it ranges from a fine to bloody serious.

Haggisman · 11 May 2015 at 12:44

BuffetSlayer said:
If you do get refused insurance because of the ban, you will also have to declare that fact for future insurance quotes AFAIK.

Pretty sure that's not true.

After all, you don't have to declare that you've been refused insurance by certain companies for being too young/driving wrong type of car/living in a dodgy area/not having enough NCB/having the wrong job, etc... do you?

Otherwise surely everyone who has ever done a quote on a comparison website would have to tick the "yes" box to that question?

Edit: A quick Google appears to suggest that if an insurance co says they wont insure you for <insert reason here> (including previous disqualification) it's a refusal to quote, not refusing insurance. Refusing insurance is more like refusing to pay out when it turns out you've lied on your policy (e.g. you have no licence/you're actually an 18 year old rather than a 53 year old mum of 2, etc.)

skaif · 11 May 2015 at 12:44

I got done by a marked car on the M1 in 2008. 103.6mph

I got 30 days ban and a 75quid fine. Helped that I was a student at the time and didn't have money...

Dont worry too much about premiums, mine werent too bad after. Roughly the same. Needless to say, I won't be speeding any time soon though!

Gaygle · 11 May 2015 at 12:51

doofer said:
I'm making a simplistic point about the '80-100' ambiguity, obviously it wasn't simple enough....

With the information we have, there is no ambiguity. The police officer is giving a sworn statement saying that the OP's bike was travelling between these speeds in a 50mph limit. There is no ambiguity, this is what happened.

doofer said:
Again, easily picked apart by a decent Brief

If you can afford Nick Freeman - maybe. For the 99.9999% who can't and are sometimes willing to put our hands up and say we made a mistake - it is too much hassle, for what is unlikely to change the end result. Some people seem to think that if they get a solicitor, they'll get them off the hook. When the reality is that a lot of the time you can be landed with a huge legal bill and a higher sentence.

doofer said:
I like how you added 'with his calibrated speedometer' yourself though, you can actually prove this can you, with full documentation?

Me? I can't. However the speedometers on all Police bikes and RPU cars are calibrated.

doofer said:
You know, like a Court would need to prove guilt.

You keep talking about a "good brief" this and a "good brief" that, but if you actually knew what you were talking about you'd realise that a good brief would evaluate all of the evidence and try to get the least sentence for their client. Holding an entire court hearing and risking a significantly higher sentence for the client is royally stupid, if your only defence is trying to argue that the policemans speedo might not have been fully calibrated, and that his client wasn't in fact doing 100mph, he was doing 50mph. This is forgetting that this police vehicle WILL have had the speedo calibrated and all the prosecution would need to do would produce a piece of paper saying it was calibrated, wasting more of the courts time.

doofer said:
The point is: Never admit to anything. EVER. If they want to PROVE you did something wrong then let them work for it, this is where they come unstuck. Admitting anything is just crazy (Even if they do have you bang to rights).

That's how you end up with a higher sentence, whilst still being found guilty. What law school did you go to?! There are times when you can try and pull a fast one and go not guilty and the evidence not be there and the case is dropped - but this is highly likely to not be one of those times.

For anyone who isn't sure what doofer is prattling on about, to make it simple, if he gives you legal advice - ignore it.

Yaayuh! · 11 May 2015 at 13:07

Unlucky agnes

InQ · 11 May 2015 at 13:09

Got done for 93 in a 50, 42 day ban and a fine.
That was over 5yrs ago so i obviously dont declare it anymore plus my paper counterpart with the ban written on it got renewed at over 10yrs old so my new replacement came with no ban on it (it was renewed over 4yrs after the ban). Insurance wasnt that badly affected, some companies wouldnt insure me and the ones that did the quotes were not much more than without a ban.
My ban was down as an SP30 so being a 'normal' code helped i guess.

skaif · 11 May 2015 at 13:13

SP30 eh? I see your SP30 and raise you an SP50!

mattyg · 11 May 2015 at 13:14

Seems to me that the court used the lower speed.

I think you were lucky.

InQ · 11 May 2015 at 13:14

skaif said:
SP30 eh? I see your SP30 and raise you an SP50!

Aye, SP30 for speeding on a non-Mway road, SP50 for a Mway speeding offence....thats it!

doofer · 11 May 2015 at 13:21

Gaygle said:
For anyone who isn't sure what doofer is prattling on about, to make it simple, if he gives you legal advice - ignore it.

Not sure what you're 'Prattling' on about but I am not, nor have given any 'Legal Advice' anywhere :confused:

I asked why he Admitted it is all...And then reiterated you should never Admit anything, ever. Which far from 'Legal Advice' is just plain old Common Sense which funnily enough plenty of Legal Professionals will happily relive you of your hard earned coins to tell you...

Haggisman · 11 May 2015 at 13:45

doofer said:
Not sure what you're 'Prattling' on about but I am not, nor have given any 'Legal Advice' anywhere I asked why he Admitted it is all...And then reiterated you should never Admit anything, ever. Which far from 'Legal Advice' is just plain old Common Sense which funnily enough plenty of Legal Professionals will happily relive you of your hard earned coins to tell you...

Actually, common sense dictates that when you know you were in the wrong, they know you were in the wrong, and you know that there's an extremely high probability that they can prove you were in the wrong, the best thing to do is to admit you were in the wrong and most likely get off lightly, rather than wasting everyone's time being a stubborn **** and ending up with a bigger punishment.

DanielMMS · 11 May 2015 at 13:49

doofer said:
...And then reiterated you should never Admit anything, ever....

Really? Strange. In my professional career there have been plenty of occasions where I have advised clients to either settle or enter a guilty plea. Clearly, I have been doing this all wrong :rolleyes:

doofer · 11 May 2015 at 14:18

DanielMMS said:
Really? Strange. In my professional career there have been plenty of occasions where I have advised clients to either settle or enter a guilty plea. Clearly, I have been doing this all wrong

'Hello, DanielMMS? I'm at the Police Station and need Legal Representation immediately, can you help?'

'Yes, just admit everything and I'll be there shortly...'

If that's your Professional 'Legal Advice' no wonder you're advising so many Clients to plead guilty. :rolleyes:

scotty365 · 11 May 2015 at 14:18

doofer said:
80-100MPH? The Court should also have fined you £400-£1000 and banned you for 28-365 Days.

Why on earth did you admit it when the Plod didn't know your actual Speed? You could have walked from that with a decent Brief. Crazy.

By admitting to the offence he got off lightly - thats the way it works. The courts often say "Your admission in this case has been duly acknowleged and some leniency in your sentencing will be took into consideration" or something along those lines, I went in without a solicitor and got minimal sentence by writing a letter to the court outlining what happened and admitted it.

Haggisman · 11 May 2015 at 14:41

doofer said:
'Hello, DanielMMS? I'm at the Police Station and need Legal Representation immediately, can you help?'

'Yes, just admit everything and I'll be there shortly...'

If that's your Professional 'Legal Advice' no wonder you're advising so many Clients to plead guilty.

As opposed to "Hi Doofer, I'm at the Police Station and they have CCTV footage of me doing it and 3 witnesses, can you help"?

"Yes, tell them you didn't do it, you'll get away with it"? :rolleyes:

Diagro · 11 May 2015 at 14:48

Haggisman said:
As opposed to "Hi Doofer, I'm at the Police Station and they have CCTV footage of me doing it and 3 witnesses, can you help"?

"Yes, tell them you didn't do it, you'll get away with it"?

agnes · 11 May 2015 at 14:52

Rossi~ said:
Unlucky agnes

I'm happy they didn't throw the book at me. So considering it lucky.

mattyg said:
Seems to me that the court used the lower speed.

I think you were lucky.

Aye, lesson learnt!

DanielMMS · 11 May 2015 at 14:53

doofer said:
'Hello, DanielMMS? I'm at the Police Station and need Legal Representation immediately, can you help?'

'Yes, just admit everything and I'll be there shortly...'

If that's your Professional 'Legal Advice' no wonder you're advising so many Clients to plead guilty.

Obviously, that is not how it works. Are you being deliberately ridiculous?

So, hypothetical situation. You are caught committing a crime. You are charged, the evidence is irrefutable and there are no potential loopholes. Conviction is inevitable. Do you maintain your innocence - and receive the maximum sentence - or do you plead guilty at the first reasonable opportunity - and have any potential sentence reduced by a third?

Rroff · 11 May 2015 at 14:55

doofer said:
'Hello, DanielMMS? I'm at the Police Station and need Legal Representation immediately, can you help?'

'Yes, just admit everything and I'll be there shortly...'

If that's your Professional 'Legal Advice' no wonder you're advising so many Clients to plead guilty.

Its one thing to no comment until you have legal advice another to deny everything straight off the bat.

Chances here they potentially had video evidence - and denying it would likely have ended up with much worse than a months ban and a moderate fine.