Safe Speed Forums

Please be kind to the environment and dispose of parking tickets in an environmentally friendly manner.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080 ... 23e80.html

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

Sounds about right! £500 parking fine compared to £400 for being twice over the limit in France and driving while blind! They love motorists here - really they do!

That true. It seem bizarre even though the fool chuck the ticket on the floor und was hammered for littering.

I fail to see why he had to pay towards the victims of crime though. He not committed a crime against a person.. more an offence of daft parking und then chucking the ticket on the road instead of the litter bin.

I would have understood his rage more had he been nobbled by the Stasi at a certain supermarket in Cockermouth who appears to watch for any tyre lodged on the white bay lines und issue tickets there like proverbial confetti. ... We hear stories.. each week..

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

According to the link you gave he was fined £150 for the two offences. The rest was costs. But it made a good headline and inaccuracies of that kind seem to go unchallenged as long as they are used to make courts sound unreasonable.

If the report is correct he failed to respond to any correspondence and didn't turn up at court. That would have resulted in a trial with the prosecution needing to prove their case. A guilty verdict was returned, not surprisingly as he didn't bother to turn up to deny any of it. The fine would have been assessed on national average income (£350 per week) with no discount for guilty plea. The request for costs was (probably) awarded in full as the total was easily payable within 12 months. If he wanted to be a martyr he failed and instead has shown himself to be foolish. He could have contested the parking ticket at a fraction of the cost and probably generated some support for himself by doing so.

If he can't pay what has been ordered he will need to swallow his pride and attend court where the fine will be re-assessed in the light of his actual disposable income.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Except that the costs are grossley disproportionate to the fine and in breach of the dove case quoted in the magistraites guidelines.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Fair comment Fisherman, but wouldn't the costs have been less if he didn't turn up? From a layman's point of view, it's hard to see how they could have spent a great deal of time on the case if he wasn't there!

from the information given there is no breach of the Court of Appeal guidance which is based on Dove and the BPS Advertising case.
The Prosecution of Offences Act gives courts the power to impose costs which the court considers just and reasonable. I am aware that some motoring forums stress the "grossly disproportionate to the fine" part of the guidance but nearly always fail to mention that there is a duty to consider the costs in the context of the maximum penalty considered by parliament to be appropriate for the seriousness of the offence. In the case under discussion the only statute mentioned is the Environmental Protection Act, which allows a fine of up to £2,500 for the littering offence. I don't know which legislation was used for the parking.
You also have to bear in mind that the guidance is clear that courts should not make any arithmetical connection between fine and costs. The fact that the costs were more than the fine is not sufficient to say that the costs were excessive.

You also have to consider the fact that he failed to respond to any communication from the court. When a trial is conducted in absence there is an extra stage which requires the CPS to prove good service of the paperwork. Then you have to add in that, as the defence is unknown, the trial is not suitable for a Designated Case Worker (or Associate Prosecutor" as they are soon to be known) and a lawyer has to be paid for. The court room, prosecutor, clerk, usher and possibly a security person will be booked for (probably) half a day in case he turns up with a long winded defence. All of which costs the taxpayer money. Then he doesn't turn up.

The court obviously took the view that it was just and reasonable to impose full costs for the occasion. They might well have felt differently if he had put his side of the story, it's common to reduce the requested costs if the defendant had a genuine reason for his not guilty plea . Based on the cost to the public, his income (which is considered to be £350 per week as he hasn't bothered to tell the court anything different) and the maximum penalty available for one of the offences the amount seems reasonable. He will be able to ask for time to pay or to have the costs and fine re-considered if his income is less than the calculated amount. If for some reason he was prevented from going to court he can ask for the verdict to be set aside and the whole process started again.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Ok, I guess you'd know more than me about it! Still sems a bit odd though. I mean, I take your point that they had to staff the court in case he turned up, but presumably his wasn't the only case that day? If I fail to turn up for a dentist's appointment, I'd expect to have to pay SOMETHING but I wouldn't expect him to say that I'd have to pay his wages, the assistant's wages, the receptionist's wages, the rates on the premises, gas, water, electricity etc for the time allocated to me!

I don't know if there was anything else listed or not. Some areas list 2 trials at a time as experience shows that a high percentage don't go ahead. The usual causes being that an important prosecution witness fails to turn up and they offer no evidence. Or that all the witnesses turn up and the defendant pleads guilty.

I take your point about a dentists cancellation fee. It will include a percentage for overheads as do all professional fees, but the major difference is that (if your dentist is anything like mine) he will have plenty of other patients to see in order to fill his time.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.