Double Counting Warning:

[Tremarl]

Just a point of law (yes another one!) if they said that they were wrong. Unless they find "special reasons not to endorse or disqualify" the court must impose a minimum of three points. A guilty plea does not alter that.

"Special Reasons" are not defined but can include things such as being pursued and fearful for your safety or ferrying an emergency to hospital when no other means are available. They certainly don't cover a situation where the court is considering the circumstances you described. The court simply does not have the authority to avoid imposing points in that case. If they considered your "single offence" constituted "special reasons" they were as wrong as they were not to properly hear your argument. Your argument constituted a defence to the charge, not a plea for "special reasons."

Hi Andy, its to do with the second argument about same occasion offense. The intimation that I got was that a non-guilty plea meant they weren't going to use their discretion to find it as an offense on the same occasion.

The prosecutor was of the opinion that in law one camera = one offense, but was that it was unreasonable to issue two FPN over it for 6 points, so wanted me prior to the trial to just plea guilty and take a fine. Magistrates seemed to be of the same opinion just plea guilty take a fine. It was odd, because when I queried them about what they thought the actus reus of speeding was, neither gave an actual clear answer beyond self referencing to the evidence.

[HandyAndy]

The prosecutor was of the opinion that in law one camera = one offense, but was that it was unreasonable to issue two FPN over it for 6 points, so wanted me prior to the trial to just plea guilty and take a fine.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

• If (according to the prosecutor) one camera = one offence then you committed two offences.
• If you committed two offences it is not unreasonable to offer two FPs.
• If you accepted one FP and took the second charge to court and were convicted (whether by way of a guilty plea or following a trial) then the court is obliged to impose a minimum of three points.
• Imposing a fine indicates a conviction (for there is no power to impose a fine without) and a conviction means points.

What you are describing is some sort of "part" conviction. That is like a woman being slightly pregnant. Unless, that is, the court found that you committed two offences but that they were committed "on the same occasion".

How many convictions and how many penalty points are shown on your driving record as a result of these two allegations?

[Tremarl]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

• If (according to the prosecutor) one camera = one offence then you committed two offences.
• If you committed two offences it is not unreasonable to offer two FPs.
• If you accepted one FP and took the second charge to court and were convicted (whether by way of a guilty plea or following a trial) then the court is obliged to impose a minimum of three points.
• Imposing a fine indicates a conviction (for there is no power to impose a fine without) and a conviction means points.

What you are describing is some sort of "part" conviction. That is like a woman being slightly pregnant. Unless, that is, the court found that you committed two offences but that they were committed "on the same occasion".

How many convictions and how many penalty points are shown on your driving record as a result of these two allegations?

Road Traffic Offenders Act S28 states that if you get convicted of multiple offences in the same instance you pay the fines, but only get points for the highest offense.

Same instances is sometimes seen as "same journey". It was agreed that due to how close both offenses were it could be said they were on the same "occasion".

Unfortunately it says nothing about not getting fined twice.

I have 1 conviction and 1 FP with endorsed points. But only 3 points, as the conviction was said to be on the same occasion as the offense that I paid an FP on. Now as FP are not convictions I think that is where everything gets really confusing, because the court in question is not able to find guilt in regards to the first FPN.

[HandyAndy]

What appears to have happened is that the court found the second possibility of the two I outlined in post #6 - that is that you committed two offences but they were committed on the same occasion.

If the court had both offences before them they would have imposed two fines, two endorsements but only one lot of penalty points (those pertaining to the offence which attracted the greatest number of points).

The court obviously took account of the fact that you had already accepted a FP for the first offence so, with that in mind and bearing in mind their findings, it was left to them to record a conviction, impose a second endorsement and a fine, but no points.

The court did not need to find guilt for the first offence - it had already been dealt with and in fact you accepting the FP barred any court proceedings being taken against you for it. It only had the second offence to deal with.

S28 deals only with penalty points and has no effect on convictions, endorsements or fines.

So this seems to explain the outcome - and it should have been properly explained to you at the time. But the deficiencies I believe the court displayed remain.

[islandgirl]

"islandgirl I think you probably have a slight leaning/bias against drivers that speed in favour of prosecution where possible, not where procedurally appropriate. Nothing wrong with having such a bias. Some people believe in procedural justice, and some people believe in justice as an outcome."

You could not be more absolutely and completely wrong. I am in favour of justice and appropriate outcomes. In my view the mags got it right. I do agree that you should have been able to make your case as you have done here. On the facts I have heard the mags were correct. It is utterly ridiculous to say I am "in favour of prosecution"! I am in favour of upholding the law as it stands. I belive justice has been done in this case. You do not and that is fine. However do not accuse those of a different opinion of bias - it is unfair and utterly inappropriate.

[Tremarl]

HandyAndy Yes, that is how I understand it. S28 applied so just the fine in this instance.

islandgirl You say I couldn't be more wrong, but then immediately confirm my statement. "and appropriate outcomes" - so for you you preference outcomes over procedure. This doesn't match up with you then saying "upholding the law as it stands". The law as it stands (rule of law) does not care for outcomes, its procedural. Which is why we have the old proverb hard cases make bad law. Theoretically, in a perfect "rule of law" scenario, the courts would be replaced with a logic bot. {rather dystopian I know)

Everyone has their own biases and opinions and views, you can choose to ignore that truism, but doing so doesn't progress any sort of self understanding. Please do not take this as a criticism or anything, it was just an observation.

I am heavily biased for procedural justice. Some people are heavily biased for justice based on outcomes, and sometimes people have leanings in certain instances towards both based on preferences and other factors. Both have their positives and their downsides. A purely outcome based system is nothing more than arbitrary justice, while a purely procedural justice system, can end up so asbtracted from reality that it often leads to bad outcomes. Our system itself is a mixture of the two.

[islandgirl]

So an appropriate sentence is not an appropriate outcome? And what is the nonsense about outcomes over procedure? As long as you are happy thinking as you do then carry on - I will continue to do what I do fairly and well.

[Tremarl]

So an appropriate sentence is not an appropriate outcome? And what is the nonsense about outcomes over procedure? As long as you are happy thinking as you do then carry on - I will continue to do what I do fairly and well.

We're digressing a lot now into legal philosophy.

Not every morally incorrect action is proscribed in law. However, few would say such actions shouldn't get punished. For example Martial rape was not a crime until what the 90s?

Equally its a widely held principle that you shouldn't be punished for something that you knew to not be illegal. (This is why retrospective justice is frowned upon).

We can agree raping your wife = bad. But it is also unjust to punish someone for a legal (although questionable) action criminally.

Now, that is an extreme case on one side to make a point about outcomes against procedure. But what about grey area moralistic preaching?

BDSM community had this in the 90s when suddenly acts that they had been doing for years were found to be illegal. Apparently even cutting the skin is a criminal act even if consent is given, but yet at the same time a married couple could brand each other perfectly legally.

This is surely a case of the courts invading people's private lifes and forcing upon people a certain moralistic view on their interpersonal relations. Why is branding your wife with a butter knife okay, but homosexuals partaking in rough sadomasochism for pleasure criminal. Where is the line drawn between the two?

The problem with justice based on outcome is that it can often be a crap way of operating a legal system. The higher courts make nonsense law that no lower court can properly follow, and there is a heavy bias/prejudice impinged into the view of any judgement as justice is a subjective measurement. You only have to look at a couple of Lady Hale's judgements to realize that, or take a gander to any of the family courts. However, I accept the contra point on that is Lord Denning who made some very sensible and well reasoned decisions that did have legal foundation, as he had a very extensive knowledge thanks to his experience prior to becoming a judge.

The problem with procedural justice is increased complexity in a system that makes people understanding the law impossible and therefore defeating the point of the law, and abstraction that layers itself in beaucracy. The contra is that a not well detailed procedural system fails, in grey areas and edge cases.


Anyway those are my views on that matter, but its probably best left in a discussion for a different thread.

[wales01man]

We're digressing a lot now into legal philosophy.

Not every morally incorrect action is proscribed in law. However, few would say such actions shouldn't get punished. For example Martial rape was not a crime until what the 90s?

Equally its a widely held principle that you shouldn't be punished for something that you knew to not be illegal. (This is why retrospective justice is frowned upon).

We can agree raping your wife = bad. But it is also unjust to punish someone for a legal (although questionable) action criminally.

Now, that is an extreme case on one side to make a point about outcomes against procedure. But what about grey area moralistic preaching?

BDSM community had this in the 90s when suddenly acts that they had been doing for years were found to be illegal. Apparently even cutting the skin is a criminal act even if consent is given, but yet at the same time a married couple could brand each other perfectly legally.

This is surely a case of the courts invading people's private lifes and forcing upon people a certain moralistic view on their interpersonal relations. Why is branding your wife with a butter knife okay, but homosexuals partaking in rough sadomasochism for pleasure criminal. Where is the line drawn between the two?

The problem with justice based on outcome is that it can often be a crap way of operating a legal system. The higher courts make nonsense law that no lower court can properly follow, and there is a heavy bias/prejudice impinged into the view of any judgement as justice is a subjective measurement. You only have to look at a couple of Lady Hale's judgements to realize that, or take a gander to any of the family courts. However, I accept the contra point on that is Lord Denning who made some very sensible and well reasoned decisions that did have legal foundation, as he had a very extensive knowledge thanks to his experience prior to becoming a judge.

The problem with procedural justice is increased complexity in a system that makes people understanding the law impossible and therefore defeating the point of the law, and abstraction that layers itself in beaucracy. The contra is that a not well detailed procedural system fails, in grey areas and edge cases.


Anyway those are my views on that matter, but its probably best left in a discussion for a different thread.

All this cos you were speeding and got caught ?

[Tremarl]

All this cos you were speeding and got caught ?

No not at all lol. Just a question that was raised about outcomes and sentences, because I mentioned a bias in regards to justice by outcome as opposed to by procedure.

As I said was a digression.

Really this thread has no reason to be more than a couple of posts long as all this was ever meant was to warn other people looking up information about this sort of scenario.

[HandyAndy]

Really this thread has no reason to be more than a couple of posts long as all this was ever meant was to warn other people looking up information about this sort of scenario.

I think if the court had explained their findings (that you committed two offences but on the same occasion) to you properly we could have put this to bed in perhaps half a dozen posts.

[islandgirl]

"Really this thread has no reason to be more than a couple of posts long as all this was ever meant was to warn other people looking up information about this sort of scenario."

We will consider ourselves duly warned that a correct decision will be reached by a magistrates court in these circumstances

[Tremarl]

"Really this thread has no reason to be more than a couple of posts long as all this was ever meant was to warn other people looking up information about this sort of scenario."

We will consider ourselves duly warned that a correct decision will be reached by a magistrates court in these circumstances

A correct decision isn't one founded on incorrect law though. There are several grounds for appeal in this specific case many with a high chance of success, its just its not worth pursuing any of them, because of how minor the offense is.

[islandgirl]

In your opinon...

[Tremarl]

In your opinon...

No, that's literally how the law works. If the decision as a matter of law itself is incorrect that is grounds for appeal, just because a person doesn't appeal a bad decision, doesn't make that decision correct.

In the same way when a company sells a faulty product and then refuses in violation of the CRA, but nothing happens because the time and effort of small claims is more than the value of the £5 clock or w/e.