Justice Ministry demonising drivers who defend themselves

Forum for general chat, news, blogs, humour, jokes etc.

Postby fungus » Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:15 pm


I have just read this on the ABD website.

Innocent Drivers To Be Treated Like Witches
Ministry of 'Justice' proposals hark back to the Middle Ages.
From October, drivers who defend themselves against a motoring charge will have to pay the bulk of their costs, even if found not guilty 1. They will only be able to reclaim costs equivalent to the rate for legal aid, which is considerably lower than that applied by solicitors to private clients. So drivers who know they are innocent face the choice of pleading guilty and being punished for a crime they did not commit, or prove their innocence and be punished financially.

ABD spokesman Nigel Humphries comments,
“This is like the way witches were tried in the Middle Ages — throw them into a pond and, if they float, they are guilty and burned at the stake. If they drown they are innocent, but they're just as dead! This type of justice has no place in the 21st century.”
The new system is clearly designed to discourage drivers from seeking justice and is discriminatory against a large section of the population. Drivers are automatically assumed to be guilty, yet there have been many cases where drivers have been accused unjustly, especially for speeding. As Nigel Humphries remarks:
“Local authorities often fail in their duty to provide and maintain the signs legally required to show what speed limits apply, and some speed measuring devices used by the police have been shown capable of giving seriously inaccurate readings. It is quite wrong that drivers should be prevented from defending themselves in such cases.“
ABD Chairman Brian Gregory added:
“I find it ironic that whilst the government has done much to eliminate the evils of discrimination against many sections of society, it is itself the main protagonist in the discrimination against drivers.”

I feel my blood pressure rising. The levels this government will stoop to knows no bounds. :twisted:

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer
User avatar
fungus
 
Posts: 1739
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:16 pm
Location: Dorset

Postby michael769 » Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:09 pm


fungus wrote:I feel my blood pressure rising. The levels this government will stoop to knows no bounds. :twisted:

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer


In Scotland defendants in criminal cases do not get any costs at all if they win, unless the prosecution has behaved "unreasonably" - which basically means never.

What usually happens is that when a driver is falsely accused after they are acquitted they raise a civil action for malicious prosecution in order to recover their "losses" - the net result is that it ends up costing the state about twice what it would if they just paid the costs. (Of course most folks don't bother so the state probably ends up coming out ahead overall). I would imagine the same thing will start to happen down south.
Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open
Thomas Robert Dewar(1864-1930)
michael769
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Livingston

Postby MGF » Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:40 pm


ABD website wrote:From October, drivers who defend themselves against a motoring charge will have to pay the bulk of their costs, even if found not guilty 1. They will only be able to reclaim costs equivalent to the rate for legal aid, which is considerably lower than that applied by solicitors to private clients. So drivers who know they are innocent face the choice of pleading guilty and being punished for a crime they did not commit, or prove their innocence and be punished financially.


Why are are solicitors in private practice charging rates significantly higher than legal aid rates?

If competence costs more than the legal aid rate then no-one should have to rely on legal aid to defend a prosecution.

If legal aid was available for defending driving cases then people wouldn't need to pay for solicitors in private practice. If you are defending yourself from a prosecution by the state then why should you have to fund the defence yourself?

The governement is committed to reducing the cost of the administration of justice. I have no doubt a change in government will not see a change to this commitment. Things can only get worse.


No sooner said...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8206463.stm
MGF
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Warwickshire


Return to General Car Chat Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests