Man spends £30k fighting speeding allegation |
Man spends £30k fighting speeding allegation |
Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 08:30
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 08:30
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 09:23
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
If the CPS failed to be ready for any hearing he could have applied for a wasted costs order for those, if he just asked new questions it was his fault the costs escalated.
In my mind I'm pretty sure he was speeding, it was his choice to spend the money. He could have just taken a course! The mindest of 'no case to answer' sums it up for me, that is of course 'not guilty' in any normally used language! This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 09:24 -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 10:34
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
More fool him. I don’t like clients like that - the next thing they normally do is go for their lawyers for negligence, or to put it another way “despite advising me my case was shit you should have refused to carry out my instructions to proceed”.
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 11:26
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Richard Keedwell, 71, said a "seriously flawed" legal system meant fighting the fine had taken nearly three years and used up his sons' inheritance money.
Bet they're pleased |
|
|
Guest_Charlie1010_* |
Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 11:42
Post
#5
|
Guests |
Another idiot.
|
|
|
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 - 14:17
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 4 Jul 2009 Member No.: 30,049 |
The gent had a two day trial at magistrates court before a DJ and a three day crown court appeal. CPS didn't cover themselves in glory as far as procedure was concerned but you cant get away from the fact the radar reading was 36 and the secondary check 35.79. Even the defence expert agreed that in a joint report used at the magistrates hearing.
He's just been on radio 2 Jeremy Vine show and still saying he didn't get justice. Then I suppose that depends if you are defence or prosecution. Shame is he is a decent chap led astray by two brothers and an 'expert'. |
|
|
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 - 15:46
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
...the radar reading was 36 and the secondary check 35.79. Yes, but, perhaps the camera was possibly not working correctly and the flash interval was out. Or just perhaps he was actually speeding. This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 - 11:03 -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 - 20:37
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,140 Joined: 19 Jun 2004 From: Surrey Member No.: 1,326 |
Would have been somewhat cheaper to go for the SAC.
|
|
|
Guest_Charlie1010_* |
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 - 10:56
Post
#9
|
Guests |
£29,900 cheaper!
|
|
|
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 - 11:52
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
The gent had a two day trial at magistrates court before a DJ and a three day crown court appeal. CPS didn't cover themselves in glory as far as procedure was concerned but you cant get away from the fact the radar reading was 36 and the secondary check 35.79. Even the defence expert agreed that in a joint report used at the magistrates hearing.
Where did you find this ? So if I understand correctly His own defence expert agreed that the secondary check confirmed the camera reading to be correct His only remaining defence point was an honest belief that he wasn't speeding Can't see that the conviction is a denial of justice I can only see two possibilities that explain his situation: 1 He slowed down when he saw the camera and checked his speed but too late 2 His speedometer's under-reading Regarding the costs which raise a different question regarding justice We know from previous threads that expert witnesses regarding cameras charge £3000/day If his legal advisor didn't warn him regarding the potential cost and his poor chance of success, he was badly advised and a complaint to the Law Society would be in order If he disregarded the advice, he's the author of his own misfortune - who else should pick up the bill ? |
|
|
Guest_Charlie1010_* |
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 - 12:11
Post
#11
|
Guests |
Just listened to the Jeremy Vine broadcast.
When Jeremy mentioned the bit about his sons inheritance he said don’t bring my family into it! Well he brought his family into it himself by mentioning it in the first place in the news article so he’s got ‘no case to answer’ on that! Bet Tim Farrow is laughing his head off! |
|
|
Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 16:37
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 4 Jul 2009 Member No.: 30,049 |
The gent had a two day trial at magistrates court before a DJ and a three day crown court appeal. CPS didn't cover themselves in glory as far as procedure was concerned but you cant get away from the fact the radar reading was 36 and the secondary check 35.79. Even the defence expert agreed that in a joint report used at the magistrates hearing.
Where did you find this ? I was there |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:59 |