PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Failed Exceptional Hardship plea, Mobile phone offence, extended ban
Foxy01
post Wed, 29 Jul 2020 - 10:07
Post #1


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 4 Mar 2016
Member No.: 82,764



https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/18...t-appeal-fails/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 4)
Advertisement
post Wed, 29 Jul 2020 - 10:07
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 29 Jul 2020 - 10:22
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Not an appeal, it was an defence (or at least an attempted one)!

Second totting ban in circa (possibly less than) 3 years (banned in 2016, this offence April 19), that takes some concerted effort! No wonder they added a couple of months, not sure whether that's for the driving offences are because of the rather inept defence.
While it shouldn't strictly have a effect (well unless you make yourself appear an inveterate liar perhaps), I've always said that presenting a hopeless defence isn't going to put the bench in the right frame of mind for an EH plea when it comes to that.

I do like the Judges comment
QUOTE
Disqualification is meant to involve hardship. None of the evidence given by Mr Taylor suggests to us there is anything even approaching the high threshold of exceptional hardship.



--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Foxy01
post Wed, 29 Jul 2020 - 10:30
Post #3


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 4 Mar 2016
Member No.: 82,764



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 29 Jul 2020 - 11:22) *
Not an appeal, it was an defence

I read it that he was convicted last year and that this was an appeal?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 29 Jul 2020 - 10:41
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Personally, reading between the lines, i think the case was reopened in the interests of justice and it was a simple retrial. Costs look like a typo'd simple magistrates defended trial cost of £620.


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 29 Jul 2020 - 11:46
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I don't think you need to read between the lines, he appealed to the Crown Court and the Crown Court dealt with it as a re-hearing, with one judge and two magistrates.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:38
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here