limeyphil:
the way i see it. he can be convicted by a court whilst still ■■■■■■■ and having no chance of building a case for his defense.
LoL how ridicules is this comment being too ■■■■■■ to defend yourself kind of nullifies your defence anyway.
Instant justice like this should be the norm not an exception and not just for motoring offences.
dieseldave:
Wheel Nut:
I do feel uneasy about these cybercourts.justice.gov.uk/news/features/feature281111
Does the driver get a translator? Does he get a solicitor of choice, does he get time to pay or arrange for his shipping agent to assist him.
Phil has made some very valid points on this topic.
Hi Malc,
I agree that Phil has made some very valid points, but I noticed something when I read the link you just provided.
It’s easily missed, so without altering it, I’ve made it RED:
Virtual courts allow a defendant, charged in a police station, to have their first hearing held over secure video link from the magistrates’ court. This can happen within hours of being charged and if the defendant pleads guilty, the court can often sentence on the same day.
From my reading of that, it looks like a not-guilty plea would result in a normal trial.
DD he/she can also be found guilty via this process with a plead of non-guilty too. If this involves a custodial sentence or not then the accused has right to a trial by jury of his peers. There is a distinct point here that should be remembered, a magistrates court is a court run by people whom are not to be legally qualified people, therefore a bench of up to three normal people. The only legally qualified person in the court is the court clerk whom needs to hold a legal qualification, but works for the court. Hence forth why whenever you can choose trial by jury. Because the court clerk will in essence let the magistrates know “what they can legally get away with in terms of sentencing” rather than ensuring correct justice.
Spacemonkeypg:
dieseldave:
Wheel Nut:
I do feel uneasy about these cybercourts.justice.gov.uk/news/features/feature281111
Does the driver get a translator? Does he get a solicitor of choice, does he get time to pay or arrange for his shipping agent to assist him.
Phil has made some very valid points on this topic.
Hi Malc,
I agree that Phil has made some very valid points, but I noticed something when I read the link you just provided.
It’s easily missed, so without altering it, I’ve made it RED:
Virtual courts allow a defendant, charged in a police station, to have their first hearing held over secure video link from the magistrates’ court. This can happen within hours of being charged and if the defendant pleads guilty, the court can often sentence on the same day.
From my reading of that, it looks like a not-guilty plea would result in a normal trial.
DD he/she can also be found guilty via this process with a plead of non-guilty too. If this involves a custodial sentence or not then the accused has right to a trial by jury of his peers. There is a distinct point here that should be remembered, a magistrates court is a court run by people whom are not to be legally qualified people, therefore a bench of up to three normal people. The only legally qualified person in the court is the court clerk whom needs to hold a legal qualification, but works for the court. Hence forth why whenever you can choose trial by jury. Because the court clerk will in essence let the magistrates know “what they can legally get away with in terms of sentencing” rather than ensuring correct justice.
What you seem to be missing out on is that if had gone not guilty then it would have been adjourned and a trial date set! Letting matey boy trundle off and never to be seen again! Unless bail was denied and he was then remanded in custody until the trial, costing even more money to the tax payer. the system that was used was very fair. And going back to the Magistrates themselves, not all are held by non quailified people lead by a legal clerk, we often have aDistrict Judge in our local Mags, she has gretaer sentencing powers than the mags, you should see the faces of the local solictior’s when she turns up!
Mr B:
limeyphil:
the way i see it. he can be convicted by a court whilst still ■■■■■■■ and having no chance of building a case for his defense.LoL how ridicules is this comment being too ■■■■■■ to defend yourself kind of nullifies your defence anyway.
Instant justice like this should be the norm not an exception and not just for motoring offences.
There is no such thing as instant justice only instant retribution
Whilst it may be tempting to want to act immediately, especially if caught red-handed, those accused of crimes must be left to the hands of the legal law. Instant justice is not justice at all as it shows disregard for society, each other, the rule of law, the criminal justice system. Actual justice means that an individual must have the right to a fair trial, due process, and a chance to explain their actions or defend themselves.
Spacemonkeypg:
Mr B:
limeyphil:
the way i see it. he can be convicted by a court whilst still ■■■■■■■ and having no chance of building a case for his defense.LoL how ridicules is this comment being too ■■■■■■ to defend yourself kind of nullifies your defence anyway.
Instant justice like this should be the norm not an exception and not just for motoring offences.
There is no such thing as instant justice only instant retribution
Whilst it may be tempting to want to act immediately, especially if caught red-handed, those accused of crimes must be left to the hands of the legal law. Instant justice is not justice at all as it shows disregard for society, each other, the rule of law, the criminal justice system. Actual justice means that an individual must have the right to a fair trial, due process, and a chance to explain their actions or defend themselves.
Explain why justice wasn’t done in this particular case? If anything he got away lightly with a fine! If a british driver had the same reading chances are they would still have the fine & also a Commiunity Order with the Drink impaired Drivers course attached to it? So where’s the Justice there?
Spacemonkeypg:
DD he/she can also be found guilty via this process with a plead of non-guilty too. If this involves a custodial sentence or not then the accused has right to a trial by jury of his peers. There is a distinct point here that should be remembered, a magistrates court is a court run by people whom are not to be legally qualified people, therefore a bench of up to three normal people. The only legally qualified person in the court is the court clerk whom needs to hold a legal qualification, but works for the court. Hence forth why whenever you can choose trial by jury. Because the court clerk will in essence let the magistrates know “what they can legally get away with in terms of sentencing” rather than ensuring correct justice.
Yes, that may well be correct, but a first hearing may only last long enough to hear a plea, then set a date for a trial or to argue about bail.
In the interests of justice, I wouldn’t have thought that a first hearing would proceed straight into ‘trial’ mode, because then the arguments above about preparing a defence all come into play.
From my reading of what’s gone on, and ignoring all the theoretical dissection of the ‘what ifs,’ it seems that the guy had the charges and evidence put to him and sensibly decided to plead guilty. If that’s true, then this idea seems to me to be about the same as paying an FPN provided that the accused agrees to the facts.
If proper due process is followed and a defendant has had the opportunity to take legal advice, this represents a logical streamlining of the legal process (like FPNs) when the facts aren’t in dispute, so I’ve got no problem with it.
Fileep:
Spacemonkeypg:
dieseldave:
Wheel Nut:
I do feel uneasy about these cybercourts.justice.gov.uk/news/features/feature281111
Does the driver get a translator? Does he get a solicitor of choice, does he get time to pay or arrange for his shipping agent to assist him.
Phil has made some very valid points on this topic.
Hi Malc,
I agree that Phil has made some very valid points, but I noticed something when I read the link you just provided.
It’s easily missed, so without altering it, I’ve made it RED:
Virtual courts allow a defendant, charged in a police station, to have their first hearing held over secure video link from the magistrates’ court. This can happen within hours of being charged and if the defendant pleads guilty, the court can often sentence on the same day.
From my reading of that, it looks like a not-guilty plea would result in a normal trial.
DD he/she can also be found guilty via this process with a plead of non-guilty too. If this involves a custodial sentence or not then the accused has right to a trial by jury of his peers. There is a distinct point here that should be remembered, a magistrates court is a court run by people whom are not to be legally qualified people, therefore a bench of up to three normal people. The only legally qualified person in the court is the court clerk whom needs to hold a legal qualification, but works for the court. Hence forth why whenever you can choose trial by jury. Because the court clerk will in essence let the magistrates know “what they can legally get away with in terms of sentencing” rather than ensuring correct justice.
What you seem to be missing out on is that if had gone not guilty then it would have been adjourned and a trial date set! Letting matey boy trundle off and never to be seen again! Unless bail was denied and he was then remanded in custody until the trial, costing even more money to the tax payer. the system that was used was very fair. And going back to the Magistrates themselves, not all are held by non quailified people lead by a legal clerk, we often have aDistrict Judge in our local Mags, she has gretaer sentencing powers than the mags, you should see the faces of the local solictior’s when she turns up!
The system used is in no way fair at all. That is why it is held in high disregard by the Human Rights commission. Cost to taxpayer should not be considered when applying justice, because if this is used as a precedent then miss-carriage of justice will prevail, for reasons of cost saving.
In regards to your comment about a District Judge. A District Judge does not hold different sentencing powers, when sitting in a magistrates court they must conduct themselves in conjunction to the Magistrates Courts Act 1980. Should they wish to impose higher sentencing powers than is allowed in the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 they have to refer the case to the Crown Court.
Fileep:
Spacemonkeypg:
Mr B:
limeyphil:
the way i see it. he can be convicted by a court whilst still ■■■■■■■ and having no chance of building a case for his defense.LoL how ridicules is this comment being too ■■■■■■ to defend yourself kind of nullifies your defence anyway.
Instant justice like this should be the norm not an exception and not just for motoring offences.
There is no such thing as instant justice only instant retribution
Whilst it may be tempting to want to act immediately, especially if caught red-handed, those accused of crimes must be left to the hands of the legal law. Instant justice is not justice at all as it shows disregard for society, each other, the rule of law, the criminal justice system. Actual justice means that an individual must have the right to a fair trial, due process, and a chance to explain their actions or defend themselves.
Explain why justice wasn’t donein this particular case? If anything he got away lightly with a fine! If a british driver had the same reading chances are they would still have the fine & also a Commiunity Order with the Drink impaired Drivers course attached to it? So where’s the Justice there?
You just answered your own question there.
mrx:
yeah if ur banned here u can still drive abroad, depending on insurance. no idea what lithuanain insurance would have to say about convictions in forein countries.
lithuanain insurance… Ha!
I’ve been there many many times and never bothered with insurance, it works on the principle that if you damage it you pay for it.
I agree, were all EU arent we? a ban here should be a ban everywhere, the jeffing licence we have to keep paying for is an EU licence afterall, valid throughout europe.
Spacemonkeypg:
Fileep:
Spacemonkeypg:
Mr B:
limeyphil:
the way i see it. he can be convicted by a court whilst still ■■■■■■■ and having no chance of building a case for his defense.LoL how ridicules is this comment being too ■■■■■■ to defend yourself kind of nullifies your defence anyway.
Instant justice like this should be the norm not an exception and not just for motoring offences.
There is no such thing as instant justice only instant retribution
Whilst it may be tempting to want to act immediately, especially if caught red-handed, those accused of crimes must be left to the hands of the legal law. Instant justice is not justice at all as it shows disregard for society, each other, the rule of law, the criminal justice system. Actual justice means that an individual must have the right to a fair trial, due process, and a chance to explain their actions or defend themselves.
Explain why justice wasn’t donein this particular case? If anything he got away lightly with a fine! If a british driver had the same reading chances are they would still have the fine & also a Commiunity Order with the Drink impaired Drivers course attached to it? So where’s the Justice there?
You just answered your own question there.
Its not me that whining about that justice wasn’t done, it was you or have you forgotten! He got what he deserved for a foreign national, little more could have been done! You’re trying to talk about something you don’t really know anything about and skirting the issue! To quote you, ‘instant justice is not justice’! So what would you have like to happen? I work in the criminal justice sector and I am fully aware how it all works, do you?
Spacemonkeypg:
Hence forth why whenever you can choose trial by jury.
Stats don’t back you up on that one, conviction rate is higher in cases involving juries. Having done some recent extensive studies on the jury system I’ve gone from being advocate of juries being essential for a fair justice system to having changed by mind after realising its not a good system at all. In fact only 1% of all court cases are held in front of a jury. It’s a minuscule part of our justice system.
Fileep:
limeyphil:
the course of justice in this country is being eroded.
it is getting to the point of, if you get nicked, then you’re guilty.
fast track court cases by video link. on the spot fines. motor trade vehicles impounded because the MIB database says a car isn’t insured.
what next? road blocks? ID cards? internment camps?i’ve been fined by vosa, and the police. on both occasions i proved them to be wrong. however, if was a foreign driver i would have been held captive until the fine (deposit) was paid.
we only have the word of the police that this bloke was drink driving.
for me this isn’t enough.a friend of mine came out of a local social club about 10 years ago. he and the rest of us were prety hammered. he was sat on the bonnet of his car. his brother had taken the keys earlier in the evening just to make sure my mate didn’t get tempted. but a local traffic officer decided to show off in front of a rookie tasty bird copper. he nicked my mate for DD. it went to court where my mate pleaded not guilty. the CPS dropped it to drunk in charge. my mate pleaded not guilty once again. it then went to trial about a month later. he was found not guilty.
that is judicial process.
that jumped up copper could have ruined my mates future.that particular copper was always up to something. he was a real pain in the arse round here.
You have answered your own question here Phil! Justice at work, the copper was a [zb] and this was sorted via a judge/jury, so whats the problem!
Out of all scenarios you could ever come up with, there are very few where you can say it was ok to Drink & Drive! He will have been dealt with more fairly than if either you or I got brought before a foreign court for the same offence!
what i’m trying to get across, is that my mate had the chance to leave the police station, and get independent legal advice, and build a case for his defense.
without this, he could have lost not only his licence, but his house and way of life.
everyone should have this chance, and the fact that someone is a foreigner that may not return should not be an excuse to deny him his basic rights.
Fileep:
Explain why justice wasn’t done in this particular case? If anything he got away lightly with a fine! If a british driver had the same reading chances are they would still have the fine & also a Commiunity Order with the Drink impaired Drivers course attached to it? So where’s the Justice there?
I don’t understand reading chances!
However the fine, community order and the drink impaired drivers course are all additional tools that can be used, normally after a plea of mitigation.
Driving whilst under the influence is absolute and carries a minimum 12 month ban, plus one or maybe all of the above. It isn’t compulsory.
The Lithuanian lorry driver is unlikely to be bailed as he hasn’t got a bail address, the chances of him returning to court are slim and nil. My only concerns are the speed with which this was carried out.
As suedehead mentioned;
If he was 3x over @ 22:00 . . would he be sober @09:21?
Did someone put his lorry back on the Calais or Dunkerque ferry and wave him off?
Let us just look at another case in the media.
Tetra Pak heir Hans Kristian Rausing has been arrested on suspicion of the murder of his wife Eva Rausing, an inquest heard today.
Police are still waiting to question the 49-year-old after interviews were suspended on Tuesday so he could be treated for alcohol withdrawal.
Detective Inspector Sharon Marman told Westminster Coroner’s Court today: “We have not yet been in a position to interview Mr Rausing. He has been arrested on suspicion of her murder and we await notification of when he would be fit to be interviewed by police.”
Outlining the facts of the case, she added: "On Monday July 9 this year police had the occasion to stop Hans Rausing driving a car in Wandsworth.
"The officer suspected that the driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. As a result he was arrested and his car was searched.
"Within the car a small amount of drugs were found and he was taken back to Wandsworth police station.
"An authority was granted to search his home address. During the course of the search officers found the apparently lifeless body of a female in one of the bedrooms.
“That female has been identified as Eva Louise Rausing.”
Today it was reported that Mrs Rausing was monitored by a team of former SAS operatives to stop her from buying drugs before she died.
The family of the billionairess were reportedly so worried about her habit, they employed an eight-man team of former SAS soldiers to keep her under surveillance, according to the Daily Mirror.
The newspaper reported one of the specialists recruited to disrupt her meetings with dealers was paid £100,000 a year.
One told the Mirror: "We followed her covertly for as long as possible until we knew she was about to buy drugs and then we would disrupt it by beeping horns or walking up to the car and staring.
"Most times the scum who were selling the stuff were terrified and drove off.
“On more than one occasion we called police and told them we were witnessing an open drug deal. The aim was to protect Mrs Rausing from herself. But we couldn’t physically stop her going out at night.”
If someone is too ■■■■■■ to interview them about an alleged murder from 5 nights ago, was the Lithuanian driver in any fit state to understand the charges read out to him?
I hope I have better luck in Turkey or Latvia. Remember when a member of these forums had her relative locked up on the word of a policeman or policemen.
Fileep:
Spacemonkeypg:
Fileep:
Spacemonkeypg:
Mr B:
limeyphil:
the way i see it. he can be convicted by a court whilst still ■■■■■■■ and having no chance of building a case for his defense.LoL how ridicules is this comment being too ■■■■■■ to defend yourself kind of nullifies your defence anyway.
Instant justice like this should be the norm not an exception and not just for motoring offences.
There is no such thing as instant justice only instant retribution
Whilst it may be tempting to want to act immediately, especially if caught red-handed, those accused of crimes must be left to the hands of the legal law. Instant justice is not justice at all as it shows disregard for society, each other, the rule of law, the criminal justice system. Actual justice means that an individual must have the right to a fair trial, due process, and a chance to explain their actions or defend themselves.
Explain why justice wasn’t donein this particular case? If anything he got away lightly with a fine! If a british driver had the same reading chances are they would still have the fine & also a Commiunity Order with the Drink impaired Drivers course attached to it? So where’s the Justice there?
You just answered your own question there.
Its not me that whining about that justice wasn’t done, it was you or have you forgotten! He got what he deserved for a foreign national, little more could have been done! You’re trying to talk about something you don’t really know anything about and skirting the issue! To quote you, ‘instant justice is not justice’! So what would you have like to happen? I work in the criminal justice sector and I am fully aware how it all works, do you?
I’m not whining that justice was not done i’ve copied my original post for your reference.
I have mixed feelings regarding this to be honest. Half of me thinks throw away the key, but the other half thinks Limeyphil’s point is the most interesting and prominent point.
Correct me if i am wrong but for drink driving the machine in the police station is used for measurement, or if refused a blood test from a doctor. If he was arrested at 2000 then charged at 0920 and before the magistrate by 1100. What legal representation did he get? a duty solicitor? one which is employed by the court? payed by the court? was he given the oppertunity to contact his consulate?
While swift justice has its benefits it also has its downfalls. I cant abide drink drivers i think they should be banned forever and never be allowed to drive again if caught,. But i also believe their should be a proper a correct process in the UK justice system which we are currently seeing being eroded. There is a current claim for wrongful imprisonment against a former UKIP party member called Roger Hayes (ukcolumn.org/article/update- … oger-hayes) whom was sentenced to a prison term without trial by jury, or a defence lawyer present. If its justice or not i dont know.
For someone claiming to work in the
criminal justice sector
you need to re learn your sector as this statement
we often have aDistrict Judge in our local Mags, she has gretaer sentencing powers than the mags
proves otherwise. In addition this
He got what he deserved for a foreign national
comment does not bode to well either. It makes no difference his nationality at all, and you should very well know that.
I do not “work within the criminal justice sector” nor do i have ambitions to drive for Tesco’s, Maritime or Eddie Stobart, but this does not defer from a persons legal knowledge. Are you legally qualified?
switchlogic:
Spacemonkeypg:
Hence forth why whenever you can choose trial by jury.Stats don’t back you up on that one, conviction rate is higher in cases involving juries. Having done some recent extensive studies on the jury system I’ve gone from being advocate of juries being essential for a fair justice system to having changed by mind after realising its not a good system at all. In fact only 1% of all court cases are held in front of a jury. It’s a minuscule part of our justice system.
Defendants electing for Crown Court has declined throughout the past decade, but magistrates have sent between 10% and 12% of cases to the Crown Court either for trial or sentence, despite the introduction of new reforms. In the same time period, in cases which magistrates retain for sentencing, they are now responsible for sending more people to prison each year than the Crown Court. That is a fact!
switchlogic:
Spacemonkeypg:
Hence forth why whenever you can choose trial by jury.Stats don’t back you up on that one, conviction rate is higher in cases involving juries. Having done some recent extensive studies on the jury system I’ve gone from being advocate of juries being essential for a fair justice system to having changed by mind after realising its not a good system at all. In fact only 1% of all court cases are held in front of a jury. It’s a minuscule part of our justice system.
Slightly off topic but a guy I used to work with was a juror on a complex vat fraud case. He recons he and the rest of the jurors never had a clue what was going on and felt it was a case where the jurors should have been experts in this field to ensure it was fair.
Spacemonkeypg:
switchlogic:
Spacemonkeypg:
Hence forth why whenever you can choose trial by jury.Stats don’t back you up on that one, conviction rate is higher in cases involving juries. Having done some recent extensive studies on the jury system I’ve gone from being advocate of juries being essential for a fair justice system to having changed by mind after realising its not a good system at all. In fact only 1% of all court cases are held in front of a jury. It’s a minuscule part of our justice system.
Defendants electing for Crown Court has declined throughout the past decade, but magistrates have sent between 10% and 12% of cases to the Crown Court either for trial or sentence, despite the introduction of new reforms. In the same time period, in cases which magistrates retain for sentencing, they are now responsible for sending more people to prison each year than the Crown Court. That is a fact!
Good old google eh? With regards your last point, well of course they are, vastly more people pass through the magistrates court.
It doesn’t say whether the incident happened inside or outside of the dock.
If it happened inside the dock as he came off the ferry, precedent has shown that Dover dock is not part of our national road network, even though the police insist it is and therefor the guy hasn’t committed an offence.
(The story goes, a solicitor acting for the defence of a drunk driver driving off the ferry, attempted to go fishing off the A2 Dover dock.
When he was stopped by the police demanding to know where he was going and what he was doing carrying all that fishing equipment, he said he was going fishing off the A2 inside Dover’s dock. The police replied Dover dock is private property and said he wouldn’t/couldn’t allow it.
The lawyer, being a lawyer demanded he got that refusal in writing giving the reason why he was being denied.
The copper, being a copper, gave that written assurance and when that letter was shown to the magistrates stating Dover dock wasn’t part of the national road network, the case got dropped.)
If the driver was coming into the dock, he was clearly drunk already and there is no contest as to his guilt.
There is no disputing the man’s guilt…if he admits to the charge 
berewic:
It doesn’t say whether the incident happened inside or outside of the dock.
If it happened inside the dock as he came off the ferry, precedent has shown that Dover dock is not part of our national road network, even though the police insist it is and therefor the guy hasn’t committed an offence.(The story goes, a solicitor acting for the defence of a drunk driver driving off the ferry, attempted to go fishing off the A2 Dover dock.
When he was stopped by the police demanding to know where he was going and what he was doing carrying all that fishing equipment, he said he was going fishing off the A2 inside Dover’s dock. The police replied Dover dock is private property and said he wouldn’t/couldn’t allow it.
The lawyer, being a lawyer demanded he got that refusal in writing giving the reason why he was being denied.
The copper, being a copper, gave that written assurance and when that letter was shown to the magistrates stating Dover dock wasn’t part of the national road network, the case got dropped.)If the driver was coming into the dock, he was clearly drunk already and there is no contest as to his guilt.
Do keep up 
We did that on page one
Also you can be guity of drink driving where the public pass or gather. ie, a ferry port
