The Cryptolambo had gone to the moon... Time for Cryptolambo 2!!!

Dis86 said:
Damn, thought id have to smuggle you in an arse phone and some spice by now.
Click to expand...

Haha.

So I can share some more details now as ive been informed that all the documents have been organized by a court lawyer from both sides and are ready for a judge to review.

Basically to review a Section 59 it has to fall under 3 reasons, unlawfulness, irrationality and unfairness.

For the point of my claim I filed under unlawfulness, in that the Section 59 was unlawfully issued because the standards to issue it were not met. Obviously the police backed their own and for all intents and purposes refused to speak to me except to review BWV of after they stopped me.

They refused to provide any BWV or Car footage of the alleged incident (later claiming it doesnt exist) and then eventually sent some mute video of where they pulled up to my car at a set of lights. A second BWV of another officer has also mysteriously disappeared. All this has been highlighted to the court.

So it then comes down to the statement of 1 officer (the others refused to give statements), whos evidence has all gone missing despite my immediate request to have it preserved, vs my statement and representations.

After months of to-and-fro they also changed their tune from "inconsiderate driving" to try and also add in "careless driving". This seemed to happen when the legal department got involved, no doubt as they know inconsiderate driving has a well defined standard as laid out in Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced.

Accordingly I have also pointed out the change to the court and asked them to review if that is appropriate for the police to do.

Ultimately it comes down to the following points that the judge will review and decide on:

1) Did my driving cause actual inconvenience (the legal meaning of it, not what you will think) to anyone and can that be demonstrated.
2) Is that driving causing, or likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.
3) If 1 is found in my favor, the judge will also have to decide if 3 months down the line if it is appropriate for the police to change it to a broader charge of "contravening section 3 of the RTA" including careless driving.
4) If the judge Agrees with me on 1 but the police on 3 then they will also need to consider was my driving careless.

So basically theres a matrix of outcomes.

If I win 2 then I win my case regardless of the others.
If I win 1 then lose 2, 3 needs to be considered.
If I win 1, lose 2, lose 3, then 4 will decide the winner.
But if I win 1, lose 2 and win 3 then I win also.


Ultimately, it could go either way as a review gets very specific. In my mind and heart I know I did nothing wrong or dangerous, and hope the judge agrees with me. However if I lose then it just means gotta be on good behavior for another 7 months, not that I've changed my driving at all following this so its a case of "yea whatever".

I have also represented myself in all this (insert fool of a client quote here), and have picked up a huge amount of knowledge by doing so, so in that regard has been time well spent. Have also picked up a dash cam system I can install stealth on the car should anything further happen.
 
Here is the shocking footage of a maniac lamborghini driver.

Yes, this is the quality of video they sent me. Conveniently with no sound as this would prove I wasnt revving the engine at the lights (those who have seen when I rev the car it violently shakes, and that isnt in the video) and would also mean the police officer lied about it and would then be an unreliable witness and the case would be instantly found in my favor.


 
Last edited:
CaptainRAVE said:
Surely the judge just throws this out? That footage is the most pointless thing I’ve seen. They’ll probably try and blame you for knocking down that road sign :D
Click to expand...

And ironically that also is why this goes from a slam dunk win for me to a 50/50. Basically all "evidence" which would have shown the "offense" has disappeared.
 
Django x2 said:
You've still conveniently failed to note that any of 1 to 4 doesn't have to be at the time of the stop. It could have been 3 hours before, by a member of the public in another car park 5 miles down the road.
Click to expand...

Not anymore in my case, as part of the disclosure and candor the exact incident, time, and location was entered into submissions to the court from both sides. But yes, in theory a S59 can potentially be much broader.
 
Gibbo said:
S59 has its place, but in your case they could give you an S59 for just starting your car up based on how broadly it can be used.

Yet a load of youths can legally go and set off a load of fireworks any day/night of the year upto 11pm, sure the latter is far more distressing and alarming to the public, yet it is legal?
Fair to say you were targeted because you have a nice car and said police were on a power trip / jealousy rage, I truly hope you win hands down, which you should do and as Housey says then go to the press, but as others have said that could end up painting a target on your car for further harassment.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Its just some idiot officer with an axe to grind.

Lets see what the court comes back with, and take it from there.
 
Well its that time of year again when I have to spend hours of time to see who will insure the car without some ridiculous premium and probably end up using Admiral anyway.

Current prices obtained:

Admiral: £1362
Performance Direct: £1169
Grove and Dean Private Client: £1190
 
Jokester said:
Was going to chip in at the time, but forgot - I suspect the real reason the videos don’t have sound is less about the exhaust noise and actually more what the officers would have been saying about you. Especially when they subsequently refused to give statements.
Click to expand...

Oh yep.
 
hurfdurf said:
Could you now go to PSD and point out how shocking the police case has been against you? I’m sure they will want to know how their officers are handing out offences but are unable to keep track of evidence?
Click to expand...

Already have, and had a reply, ill scan the letter tomorrow if I can find it, basically said "they did nuffin wrong guv".
 
Gibbo said:
Pace Ward
Click to expand...

Waiting on a callback with them.

NFU Mutual £5k

Gibbo said:
These kind of cars need specialist insurance really
Click to expand...

Yes and no, insurance is obviously tightly regulated so there are standards they all have to abide by.

The problem is, it seems the car is now in a price bracket where the pendulum of insurance swings so wildly, from "thats ok" to "are you frikkin insane?" And it seems those ones that offer the little perks and benefits are in the frikkin insane category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom