Safe Speed Forums

This looks like one to watch very carefully:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4412220.stm

Magistrates' courts face shake-up

Thousands of people could be sentenced in their absence if proposals by the Lord Chancellor to alter the way magistrates' courts work are adopted.

Minor motoring, TV licence and council tax offences could all be dealt with by mail rather than in the courts.

It means that millions of offences could be removed from the court system and fines imposed by letter.

The magistrates' courts plan, designed to cut JP workloads, suggests dealing with non-attenders in their absence.

'Process too complex'

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is due to publish a White Paper - Supporting Magistrates' Courts To Provide Justice - on Monday.

"This paper sets out where we will be taking forward further reforms - many of them based directly on the ideas and suggestions from magistrates, district judges and court staff," he said.

"This needs to be a platform from which we deliver simpler, speedier justice for our communities. Cases take too long to come on. The process is too complex.

"We need to help magistrates to deliver for the law-abiding citizen."

Costly disruption

The White Paper will also clarify employers' duties to allow time off for those who wish to become magistrates.

However, despite proposing changes to the way some road offences can be dealt with, ministers are not proposing to remove cases against motorists who have driven without insurance.

This is because it is thought to be a serious offence with broader implications.

The paper says those who refuse to attend court create "costly disruption" and can now expect to be sentenced in their absence unless they have a good reason.
========================================

Sounds to me like they have almost broken the court system with needless speeding prosecutions and now plan to undermine justice in an attempt to apply a splint.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Is this not just opening the door to an abuse of process, where a raft of paperwork gets 'lost' in the post and someone may only discover months or years later that they have been tried and convicted in their absence with no duty on the courts to trace whereabouts??

This was on the radio this morning too. The story is different from the BBC version: it is reported that people accused of these 'minor' offences will initially be sent an automatic letter of sentence, and can then appeal if they wish.

That sounds very far fetched and they might have it all wrong, but if true it is very sinister.

Yes, I just heard this on the radio. Very dangerous for justice.

Silly me, I forgot that this doesn't apply to drivers.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

What about the law abiding citizen who finds themselves in court for something they are not guilty of?

Or doesn't having a criminal record matter any more?

I can see having a criminal record going the same way as points on your licence. Most people have one so it doesn't matter any more. As long as you havn't comitted mass murder it's OK.

Well what do you know, a few hours later and the proposal has already changed to include clamping or impounding the cars of people accused of motoring offences, therefore bypassing the courts entirely and forcing the 'offender' to immediately admit guilt.

So, an accusation is now as good as guilt.

We will soon have children denouncing their parents for exceeding 30mph. Totalitarianism here we come - I'm joining Neue Arbeit straight away to get in before you lot and get my black shirt.

The social scientists always used to blame "society" for any ills. Now it really is true that "We are all guilty".

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Maybe this is supposed to improve relations with North Korea by making them look libertarian?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

It is likely that the "trial by post" would only apply AFTER the accused has indicated the intention to plead guilty (with or without mitigating circumstances) and given their permission to be dealt with in this manner. Pretty much the same as the "Accept a guilty plea in my absence" option that we already have, except that the "hearing" will become a pure paperwork exercise done in an office rather than an actual trial proceeding held in a courtroom.

What they CANNOT do is remove the right of the accused to plead not guilty and defend himself in court. They would have to get official approval from the Queen (at the very least) if they wanted to do this!! It just wouldn't happen.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

Really? Never had a 'decriminalised' (i.e. criminal, but bypassing the courts) fine then?

I always thought that parking & road tax offences were civil rather than criminal.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

See my views on this here:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... iminalised

They call it a civil matter, but this appears to be a term of convenience to allow them to impose a fine whilst circumventing the proper burden of proof.

Agreed. The distinctions aren't clear.

I suppose that the partnerships could state that, on one hand, speeding is such a serious criminal offence that it requires excessive enforcement and penalties, but on the other hand is trivial enough not to require a court hearing.

It wouldn't be the first time they have contradicted themselves in this way.

Perhaps we should be worried?

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken