Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

[Openlaw15]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

mystery1 thank you

Post 11 (by your good self) says (I think) don't send anything back at all (the Single Justice form) and wait for a court date? Then turn up, speak to the prosecutor to try to get rid of the failure part but plead guilty for the speeding part.

Post 26 seems to be about the craziest excuses given & Freddie Flintoff - my son isn't a celebrity yet, so I can't see the relevance of that post, sorry.

I just need to know what he should do now to get the ball rolling.

Yes, he'll get more points. Yes, he'll get another fine and Yes, he will lose his licence. He knows that.

I'm just wondering whether it will make any difference for him to fill/not fill the form out, plead guilty or not guilty on the single Justice form and what else to write on it to lessen the devastation to his life! (his words not mine).

Listen, technically in law, your son can plead not guilty right up to where the Magistrate gives its verdict. Why don't you argue that the first speeding conviction was unduly harsh owing to the police's non use of discretion, ie summons at 50 mph, charging threshold at 35 mph. The guide even alludes the police do not have to charge even if it were above 35 as long as it were proportionate. You could then argue it would be unfair if this punishment for first speeding conviction were then added to the next offence with the effect that my son is disqualified from driving.

My legal studies include criminal law and public law at qualifying law degree level. Public law means I have studied police law and court law including the moral and legal parameters of 'the rule of law' in the UK's unwritten constitution. The constitution includes criminal law where it affects the individual's liberty level. Criminal law means I have studied mens rea (ie intent) offences, ie everything from murder, to GBH, to strict liability offences, ie speeding etc. I am giving my opinion as though I am looking at the state (ie UK court powers) with democratic institutions (including Magistrate) versus 'the individual' in free and democratic countries, critically. I have also studied US constitutional law where it has cross-over relevance to public law and criminal. Now I am providing my opinion based on my relevant legal education.

[wales01man]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

This son sorry to say seems to be a stupid idiot lucky enough to have a father who deals with the crap he creates with a Car he deserves to lose his Licence without his dad I would think he would be a complete and total liability in a car,
If any one does not like my view its aimed at a youngster who deserves a kick up the rear Thank God for his Father

[charitynjw]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

Listen, technically in law, your son can plead not guilty right up to where the Magistrate gives its verdict. Why don't you argue that the first speeding conviction was unduly harsh owing to the police's non use of discretion, ie summons at 50 mph, charging threshold at 35 mph. The guide even alludes the police do not have to charge even if it were above 35 as long as it were proportionate. You could then argue it would be unfair if this punishment for first speeding conviction were then added to the next offence with the effect that my son is disqualified from driving.

As it's a strict liability offence, can penalty points be discretionary?
Also, if 6 or more points, I believe the New Drivers Act means automatic licence surrender/revocation/retest?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/13/section/2

My legal studies include criminal law and public law at qualifying law degree level. Public law means I have studied police law and court law including the moral and legal parameters of 'the rule of law' in the UK's unwritten constitution. The constitution includes criminal law where it affects the individual's liberty level. Criminal law means I have studied mens rea (ie intent) offences, ie everything from murder, to GBH, to strict liability offences, ie speeding etc. I am giving my opinion as though I am looking at the state (ie UK court powers) with democratic institutions (including Magistrate) versus 'the individual' in free and democratic countries, critically. I have also studied US constitutional law where it has cross-over relevance to public law and criminal. Now I am providing my opinion based on my relevant legal education.

Morning, Openlaw.

[mystery1]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

Why don't you argue that the first speeding conviction was unduly harsh owing to the police's non use of discretion, ie summons at 50 mph, charging threshold at 35 mph.

He's already convicted. No point arguing now and in any event he was speeding and 35 mph is the starting point for enforcement, not the sudo limit.

M1

[Openlaw15]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

[COLOR=#333333]

He's already convicted. No point arguing now and in any event he was speeding and 35 mph is the starting point for enforcement, not the sudo limit.

M1

Am saying the speeding conviction stands individually, but it would be unfair if it were to be added collectively to another 3 points where the first conviction did not consider the police's discretion and the end result was disqualification from driving. In public law if an authority, including a Magistrate, including the police have a discretion but do not use it is simply an abuse of a discretion power, ie it could be subject to a judicial review hearing to determine whether the state's actor's (as it were) decision were not illegal in the civil sense (ie fairly but not arbitrary).

[Openlaw15]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

Morning, Openlaw.

Morning to you also Charity, strict liability offences especially must have certain discretions as not all speeding offences are like for like for instance.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

Morning, Openlaw.

The police had the power to charge for breaking the speed limit. The prosecution had the right to prosecute for the same. However , both police and the CPS have discretionary power. It just depends on whether there are any suitable defences where the Op's son didn't confirm he was the one driving. Parliament in Hansard (Lords and Common' public record of debate before legislation is enacted) is a device used by the courts when interpreting statute and Hansard may provide some insight to Parliament intent of said law. The secretary of state is part of the government (executive), but because this new driver law is so strict and there is likely mitigating circumstance, other associated secondary legislation (ie regulations) and other non legal statutory guidance may provide some statutory guidance on the matter too.

Law is complex it's not just a case of reading the law verbatim - the executive usually provides defences, too.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

The NIP said 35mph (but I'm certain I was at or maybe just under 30!)

As it's practically impossible to challenge the calibration, I looked at the 14-day rule for service of the NIP, & won.

Case dropped!

Charity, it's not the speed camera's accuracy that is the issue, it's whether your car's speedometer is accurate and as they're not professionally calibrated ever year like LGVS and Buses etc, the law has the discretion of speed plus 10% + 2. So you can argue the speed issue.

[wales01man]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

Arguments will probably fail in Court as the driver has not responded to previous requests for details of driver one thing I know with Police and the legal system is they come down hard on those who attempt to avoid the results of their actions,

[mystery1]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

Nobody gets disqualified for 2 x 3 point driving offences.

M1

[Openlaw15]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

Arguments will probably fail in Court as the driver has not responded to previous requests for details of driver one thing I know with Police and the legal system is they come down hard on those who attempt to avoid the results of their actions,

This is the problem if there are no adequate statutory defences to the statute, then the Op's son could be disqualified from driving. For this reason people have to think outside the box.

[mystery1]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

Charity, it's not the speed camera's accuracy that is the issue, it's whether your car's speedometer is accurate and as they're not professionally calibrated ever year like LGVS and Buses etc, the law has the discretion of speed plus 10% + 2. So you can argue the speed issue.

Speedos can over read by 10% but are illegal if the under read. If the speedo reads 30 the real speedo is 28/29 in all likelihood.

M1

[Openlaw15]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

Speedos can over read by 10% but are illegal if the under read. If the speedo reads 30 the real speedo is 28/29 in all likelihood.

M1

The law says 10% either way although you're probably right I don't think there's any way to prove that car speedos will be under rather than over, I think it would be too costly too to research the issue I would think. In the absence of this it's has to be 10% either way.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

Some years back I had to drive my OH to an appointment.

England were on the telly - a World Cup game.

The roads were deserted!

I was tootling along at about 25mph, as I knew there were several speed cameras on that stretch.

A police car (or rather, the occupants), pulled me over.....................??

When I asked (as nicely as I could) the reason why, I was told I was going too slow, & so was driving without due consideration for other motorists!

(I reckon he wanted to check if I'd been drinking................or maybe he was just plain bored!)

My apologies to CaptainChaos for my blathering on............I'll button my beak now!

Maybe he fancied you :P

[Openlaw15]

Re: Son's Speeding/Failure to give information

Nobody gets disqualified for 2 x 3 point driving offences.

M1

"The Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 applies to every motorist who passed their first full test after 1 June 1997.
The main effect of the Act is to impose a probationary period for the first 2 years after the test is passed. During this time, a new driver will be subject to immediate revocation of their licence, should they reach 6 or more penalty points. This is an automatic process which is triggered should any offence be committed in the first 2 years lead to a total of 6 points being endorsed on the licence. In theory, a new driver would therefore be given one chance by way of a Fixed Penalty but if two Fixed Penalties were accepted, or a more serious offence resulted in 6 points, the licence would be revoked. " http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingb...newdrivers.htm