Motorists Getting Shafted by the Government again....

[nuster100]

Quoted from Pistonheads....


'NOT GUILTY' MOTORISTS FACE COURT COSTS

Drivers acquitted of motoring charges will pay costs under new government scheme

Could you afford to fight an unfair ticket?
Could you afford to fight an unfair ticket?
New regulations set to come into force later this month will see motorists forced to cough up court costs - even if they're found not guilty or acquitted of motoring offences.

The government-inspired change to the current set-up - where drivers get costs refunded if they're innocent - is being implemented to save cash, in spite of fierce opposition from legal and motoring groups who were nominally 'consulted' before the new policy was drawn up.

According to the Ministry of Justice, the age old principle of 'the loser pays' has been costing the government too much money. As a result the new rules make it clear that in future drivers will have to foot the bill for clearing their name. According to The Taxpayers Alliance, that equates to 400,000 people, or one in four of those who challenge a ticket.

Now the Conservative party has joined the last ditch effort to derail the changes, and campaigners are looking for more signatories to a petition on the Number 10 website. We're off to go and sign the petition ourselves, and you can find out more by reading the press release below, that was issued by the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers today.

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=20842


Does it ever end, or will the government never tire of trying to get as much money out of motorists as possible?

Jay

[Porker]

Reading a little more of the detail of the proposal, it's actually the driver's own defence costs which he/she would be forced to cover, and even then only those in excess of a particular rate per hour.

I find it interesting that they feel they can do this for a particular subset of offences (i.e. driving-related ones).

We'll be seeing a lot more of this type of thing - and lots more indirect taxation - as whichever party's in power next has to work out a way of funding the £2,200,000,000,000 that we have as current and future liabilities.

P.

[Darren]

what really grates me is why the tax payer should have to pay for the banks at all. There are alot of very questionable, immoral things going on right now which really do get to me.

If I don't pay my mortgage I will incur more debt. If I can't repay that debt, the house will either be taken off me, or the bank will get more involved with my finances to work out how I can repay that debt.

The banks got into trouble, the tax payer bails them out, leaving the banks with massive debt but yet the tax payer is the one repaying that debt. Not the banks from their own profits. Instead they are allowed to dole out over 6bn in bonus's from the profits that should be going to pay off part of their debt.

I don't begrudge anybody a bonus for doing well, but another example - the company I work for doesn't owe anybody anything, is family owned and does very well. We get a small bonus if the company is in profit and have no debt. If we are not in profit in any given business year, nobody gets a bonus. Surely the same principle applies. The banks are not turning enough of a profit to write down the debt and as such, still owe the tax payer.

In my view the tax payer should not be picking up this bill. It should be a loan that the banks themselves must repay and nothing more and the government seem to have completely missed this by passing on the debt to the tax payer by increasing tax's and other stupid schemes such as this one.

[michael769]

To some extent this would be bringing things into line with Scotland, where it has always been the case tjhat (unless the court holds that the losing party behaved unreasonably) it is not possible to recover legal expenses in criminal cases that do not carry a possible prison sentence.

EDIT: As mentioned winning defendants would still be able to reclaim up to the legal aid rates. So this is still better than in Scotland, where even that cannot be reclaimed.

[nodigitsever]

that's Illegal as it is a Forfeiture without Conviction under English Law (the Law of the Land or Common Law) as such Common Law overrides any other Law

[michael769]

that's Illegal as it is a Forfeiture without Conviction under English Law

Not true forfeiture without conviction is allowed in some cases, for example confiscation of illegal materials discovered during the course of a search (R. vs Smith - see Modern Law Review, Vol. 65, pp. 781-791, 2002 )

In any case iit *might* only apply if the acquitted were being made to pay the prosecution and court costs (which is not what is being proposed) which go to the crown. In this case the defense costs is a fee paid to your solicitor for a service he provides - it does not go to the crown and thus falls outwith the scope of the law.

(the Law of the Land or Common Law) as such Common Law overrides any other Law

The provisions against Forfieture without Conviction comes from the Bill of Rights Act 1689, which is statutory law and not common law. In any case parliament has the power to override any law including common law via an Act of Parliament.