drug-driving convictions overturned - dodgy lab work |
drug-driving convictions overturned - dodgy lab work |
Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 19:19
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 19:19
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 19:29
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
What happens about consequential losses, e.g. sky rocket insurance premiums, loss of job etc?
-------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 20:43
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
They could sue those responsible for any losses.
If the lab could be classed as agents of the Police then I think that would give you a case against the Police. This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 20:44 -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 12:41
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 617 Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Member No.: 6,174 |
Crown immunity ?
|
|
|
Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 13:51
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 15:44
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
From 2011
The closure of the Forensic Science Service has been so rushed that police forces have been forced to turn to untested private suppliers to fill the gap, a police authority has warned. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/03/...-closure-police Long predicted Suddenly it's not such a bright cost-saving idea |
|
|
Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 16:09
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Crown immunity ? You want to read up on the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 17:49
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,535 Joined: 16 Jan 2009 From: Up north Member No.: 25,505 |
Crown immunity ? You want to read up on the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. rather than leave us guessing, why not just explain what you think the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 adds to the conversation. Are you saying it agrees with any point made here or it disagrees with any point made here? -------------------- Bridges burnt, Rubicons crossed. Parthian shots delivered, but always with style
|
|
|
Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 18:05
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Crown immunity ? You want to read up on the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. rather than leave us guessing, why not just explain what you think the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 adds to the conversation. Are you saying it agrees with any point made here or it disagrees with any point made here? If it were a complex or obscure point I would expand. But given that it takes all of 5 seconds to google the act and click on the link to the "Liability of the Crown in tort." section, I feel its more beneficial if people just look it up for themselves. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 23:19
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Crown immunity ? You want to read up on the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. rather than leave us guessing, why not just explain what you think the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 adds to the conversation. Are you saying it agrees with any point made here or it disagrees with any point made here? If it were a complex or obscure point I would expand. But given that it takes all of 5 seconds to google the act and click on the link to the "Liability of the Crown in tort." section, I feel its more beneficial if people just look it up for themselves. + 1 -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 08:49
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Does the liability in this situation come under 2(1) or 2(5) ?
This post has been edited by Redivi: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 09:26 |
|
|
Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 11:17
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
Crown immunity ? You want to read up on the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. rather than leave us guessing, why not just explain what you think the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 adds to the conversation. Are you saying it agrees with any point made here or it disagrees with any point made here? If it were a complex or obscure point I would expand. But given that it takes all of 5 seconds to google the act and click on the link to the "Liability of the Crown in tort." section, I feel its more beneficial if people just look it up for themselves. And now you've managed to score even more points without answering the question. Surely, you've won the game now? --Churchmouse |
|
|
Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 11:25
Post
#13
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
If it were a complex or obscure point I would expand. But given that it takes all of 5 seconds to google the act and click on the link to the "Liability of the Crown in tort." section, I feel its more beneficial if people just look it up for themselves. And now you've managed to score even more points without answering the question. Surely, you've won the game now? --Churchmouse To be fair it takes more like 10 seconds in total, but it's still probably faster than posting just to repeat a spoon-feeding request. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Sat, 8 Dec 2018 - 16:18
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Does the liability in this situation come under 2(1) or 2(5) ? 2(5) is about judicial immunity, it doesn't come into it as the forensic laboratory is not a court, nor is it discharging a judicial function. At most they could be seen as agents of the executive (the police being part of the executive branch of the state) so if they are found to be: 1) agents of the police / the Crown / the executive branch of the state, and b) liable in tort the losses could be recovered from the Crown under section 2(1). I would hope the Crown would seek to recover those losses from the private companies involved but the track records on such matters is not so good. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 11:30
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Thank You
That's what I suspected but wasn't sure |
|
|
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 13:35
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
I would hope the Crown would seek to recover those losses from the private companies involved but the track records on such matters is not so good. Looks like they've already set aside £2M as an initial cost, that includes the fact they are paying for the retests at other labs. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 10:34
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
retests ?
surely the chain of evidence is somewhat questionable -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 12:20
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Depends, in many cases a small amount of a test sample is used and the rest stored in which case a retest may well be robust enough.
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:41 |