Driver over limit banned at Dover

[orys]

roadhog69:
Doesn’t say if he was inbound or outbound, one assumes he was inbound and had been enjoying hopsitality in the bar of the ferry - but why only banned from driving in the UK? In theory he could have dropped and swopped with another driver on the ferry terminal and driven back to whence he came!

Does this mean we could get banned in Lithuania and still drive in the UK?

Because UK court has no jurisdiction in Lithuania. It’s only Americans who thinks that they rule the whole world and think that their court sentences should be respected elsewhere (see American citizens who sue Polish goverment in American court, win their cases easily (as Polish goverment pff course ignores the summits), then go to Poland and are very surprised that nobody cares about these american cases), but in real world, the court of one country can only judge about this country.

Off course there are some mutual agreements, for example, if I got too much speeding points in Germany, Germans can inform Poland about that and they can look into my license, but in theory it will be separate trial.

And yes, if you get banned in Lithuania, you will still be legal to drive in UK. Unless, off course, you had Lithuanian driving license.

tachograph:
According to this article he was stopped at 20:00 charged at 09:21 the following morning and convicted by 11:35.

So he would have been sober when charged and convicted

I can tell you how it works from my interpreter’s experience (but off course I am familiar with scottish procedures only).

He is stopped and asked to blow into the machine. If it shows he is over the limit, he is taken to the police station, where interpreter is called (it’s mandatory), he is explained what his situation is and then, after all the instructions are read to him, he signs that he was instructed how to use the stationary machine and he is tested on it. If he is over the limit, he can be arrested. His rights are read (and interpreted) to him and he is informed that he can call his own lawyer. If he don’t have one, he is informed that the lawyer can be supplied to him.

If he is too drunk, the doctor is called to examine him.

The court is on the next day when he is sober (or at least under the limit), because he has to be sober, if he will be too drunk in court, it can be argued that his rights to defend himself were not respected

[sir]

I presume they still have the ‘Road traffic laws apply in the ferry terminal’ signs?

[limeyphil]

Sir +:
I presume they still have the ‘Road traffic laws apply in the ferry terminal’ signs?

yes.
but i think it’s totally unfair. you get ■■■■■■ on the ferry, then stagger into your cab. as you depart from the ferry you see the sign “road traffic laws apply in the ferry terminal”.
well it’s a bit [zb]in late.

[limeyphil]

[djw]

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.

It’s the other way round. Statistics show that magistrates are more likely to convict than a jury. As Slapper and Kelly remark (it’s section 11.7.1 in the edition of “The English Legal System” I have to hand - you will have a later edition):

The conclusion of the [Royal Commission for Criminal Justice reporting in 1993] seemed to be that, because defendants do not trust the magistrates’ court, and there is some justification for this in respect of the rates of acquittal, and do have more faith in the Crown Court than is warranted in terms of sentencing, then they should be forced to use the magistrates’ court.

The Commission’s proposal that the right to jury trial be curtailed in what are currently ‘either way’ offences has not been implemented.

Opting for jury trial in the Crown Court is a gamble. You may be more likely to be acquitted, but you open yourself to the higher sentencing powers of the Crown Court if convicted.

switchlogic:
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.

There are advantages and disadvantages to jury trial.

It is a common misconception that Magna Carta 1215 grants an unfettered right to jury trial in England and Wales. Most of Magna Carta is no longer part of English law, but the clause people are thinking of in this context is one of the three that remain law. The relevant sentence is “NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land” - the final “or” being crucial. Jury trial is only available when law permits it.

The majority of offences are “summary only” - they can only be tried in a magistrates’ court by magistrates or a District Judge. The most serious offences are “indictable only” - they can only be tried in a Crown Court. In between are certain offences, including dangerous driving, that are “either way” - usually the defendant gets to choose which mode of trial, though the magistrates may decide a case is too serious or complex for them to try, in which case they will send the case to the Crown Court anyway.

As you say, Luke, the figures show that the vast majority of criminal cases do not involve a jury. Around 98% of all trials take place in a magistrates’ court - and of the 2% of trials that take place in a Crown Court, a sizeable proportion involve a guilty plea and therefore no jury.

The controversy is why juries are more likely to acquit than magistrates. Some allege that magistrates are ‘case hardened’ - more likely to agree with those in the criminal justice system that they deal with regularly than with the defendant, though Grove rejects this in his book “The Magistrate’s Tale”, noting that he only sat on about seven or eight trials a year because sitting more that half a day a week is frowned upon (the average is sitting just over 40 half-day sessions a year) and many defendants plead guilty.

The other possibility is what is sometimes referred to as “jury equity” - the jury exercising its discretion to acquit a defendant. Juries do not give reasons for their verdicts (much as this can lead to questions about how to ensure the fair trial promised by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights), and, indeed, are prevented from discussing their reasoning outside the jury room by the law of contempt of court.

The apparent arbitrariness of some jury decisions, also the problems of juries following complex and lengthy trials and even of understanding the judge’s directions over the relevant law are all valid concerns. Like you, I have grave doubts as to whether juries act in the interests of justice.

Jury duty can be a tiresome and sometimes distressing experience. If called you may spend the entire week waiting around - or you may find yourself unlucky enough to try a lengthy or horrific crime.

[boss_amp_driver]

limpyhill has a point
he should of been held in custody until he was sober

[djw]

Wheel Nut:

Spacemonkeypg:
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.

It is stepping on dangerous ground in my opinion. I haven’t read the whole thing in a broadsheet yet.

wirralnews.co.uk/wirral-news … -31313588/

I’ve checked the news databases and no broadsheet paper has run this story - the Wirral Globe was the only paper that ran it.

Hayes’ committal to prison was for non-payment of council tax. This is not a crime - so there cannot be a jury (very few civil matters involve juries) nor is there a prosecution and a defence side. Rather, it was dealt with under civil procedures relating to debt.

For committal to be possible, the debt had to be proved before the court in earlier proceedings, a liability order issued, and the debt remain unpaid. At this point, the council applied for committal proceedings, requiring Hayes to appear before a court for an enquiry into his circumstances, also to decide whether his failure to pay was “wilful refusal” or “culpable neglect”. Hayes failed to attend, so unsurprisingly a bench warrant was issued for his arrest and transportation to appear before the court. The hearing then took place, Hayes was found to have wilfully refused to pay his council tax, so he was committed to prison for 21 days.

Hayes could have avoided his arrest and been legally represented in court simply by attending the court as summonsed with his solicitor. If he could not afford a solicitor, he could have applied for legal aid. It was his choice not to attend the court as summonsed and he should not be surprised by the subsequent response.

The “UKÂ Column” site is linked to the “British Constitution Group” chaired by Hayes. Its claim that Hayes withheld rather than refused to pay his Council Tax is sophistry (a deliberately invalid argument attempting to deceive) - the law does not look at the motive, merely that a proven debt remains unpaid. Hayes chose to make his protest by not paying his Council Tax - and it does not take much research to discover the likely consequences of not paying and not engaging with the immediate consequences of not paying.

The UKÂ Column article is incorrect in other regards. In particular, a common law right can be revoked by a “regulation” - actually, in this case, an Act of Parliament, the Data Protection Act 1998. That is the whole point of parliamentary supremacy - a cornerstone of the British constitution back to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689. Parliament ultimately has the right to set the law.

The Group has some frankly bizarre views on the UK Constitution, not least based on parts of Magna Carta 1215 that have long since ceased to be law. Magna Carta has formed a very small part of constitutional law for several centuries, not least as it came into being in feudal times when little resembling the modern Parliamentary and legal system existed. Far more relevant to the relationship between Parliament, the people and the Sovereign is the Bill of Rights 1689. I suggest Hayes reads a good constitutional law textbook or two.

If Hayes genuinely believes he is wrongfully imprisoned, he should bring habeas corpus proceedings to attempt to secure his release.

[djw]

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.

My understanding is that exactly the same rules apply as to a regular magistrates’ court hearing. The only difference is that the hearing takes place over video link rather than the defendant physically attending a magistrates’ court.

More about virtual courts and especially about the suitability or otherwise of a case for virtual court can be found in the guidance for solicitors issued by the Law Society.

[switchlogic]

I personally think he should be put to death, namby pamby justice system in this country…

[spacemonkeypg]

djw:

Wheel Nut:

Spacemonkeypg:
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.

It is stepping on dangerous ground in my opinion. I haven’t read the whole thing in a broadsheet yet.

wirralnews.co.uk/wirral-news … -31313588/

I’ve checked the news databases and no broadsheet paper has run this story - the Wirral Globe was the only paper that ran it.

Hayes’ committal to prison was for non-payment of council tax. This is not a crime - so there cannot be a jury (very few civil matters involve juries) nor is there a prosecution and a defence side. Rather, it was dealt with under civil procedures relating to debt.

For committal to be possible, the debt had to be proved before the court in earlier proceedings, a liability order issued, and the debt remain unpaid. At this point, the council applied for committal proceedings, requiring Hayes to appear before a court for an enquiry into his circumstances, also to decide whether his failure to pay was “wilful refusal” or “culpable neglect”. Hayes failed to attend, so unsurprisingly a bench warrant was issued for his arrest and transportation to appear before the court. The hearing then took place, Hayes was found to have wilfully refused to pay his council tax, so he was committed to prison for 21 days.

Hayes could have avoided his arrest and been legally represented in court simply by attending the court as summonsed with his solicitor. If he could not afford a solicitor, he could have applied for legal aid. It was his choice not to attend the court as summonsed and he should not be surprised by the subsequent response.

The “UKÂ Column” site is linked to the “British Constitution Group” chaired by Hayes. Its claim that Hayes withheld rather than refused to pay his Council Tax is sophistry (a deliberately invalid argument attempting to deceive) - the law does not look at the motive, merely that a proven debt remains unpaid. Hayes chose to make his protest by not paying his Council Tax - and it does not take much research to discover the likely consequences of not paying and not engaging with the immediate consequences of not paying.

The UKÂ Column article is incorrect in other regards. In particular, a common law right can be revoked by a “regulation” - actually, in this case, an Act of Parliament, the Data Protection Act 1998. That is the whole point of parliamentary supremacy - a cornerstone of the British constitution back to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689. Parliament ultimately has the right to set the law.

The Group has some frankly bizarre views on the UK Constitution, not least based on parts of Magna Carta 1215 that have long since ceased to be law. Magna Carta has formed a very small part of constitutional law for several centuries, not least as it came into being in feudal times when little resembling the modern Parliamentary and legal system existed. Far more relevant to the relationship between Parliament, the people and the Sovereign is the Bill of Rights 1689. I suggest Hayes reads a good constitutional law textbook or two.

If Hayes genuinely believes he is wrongfully imprisoned, he should bring habeas corpus proceedings to attempt to secure his release.

I don’t in anyway shape or form concur with the thoughts, actions or beliefs of the so called “freemen of the land” but reading in between the lines of the drivel posted on the UK Column there is a major part in the process which seems to be fundamental in the removal of his liberties. He claims not to have received his summons to attend court. This is important in regards to this case, regardless of my personal belief that reverting to the Magna Carta for their defence and insistence that acts of Parliament are only accepted under contract being pure lunacy.

On a personal note i cant comment on if in his case this is true, but i know for certain that this has happened to “a friend”. Only recently did “a friend” receive an interim debt order in relation to a claimed debt amount owed. “a friend” did not receive this order from the creditor or from the court, they received from their building society. Obviously the first step in this process is the application for a liability order, in this instance “a friend” contested the debt amount with the claimant prior to magistrates’ court date. “a friend” then received post liability order award notification from the claimant and not from the court in regards the claimed debt. Could said liability order be challenged? no because it fell underunder section 33 of the child Support Act (of which their are numerous referrals for judicial review). The only action available was to apply to the Judge whom issued the interim order for this to be challenged under numerous grounds (incorrect amount, incorrect address, incorrect spelling of fore and surname)

So i believe their is a viable chance that he could not have received his summons, of which resulted in the bench warrant being issued. His reasoning for not paying his council tax are questionable at the very least. I also believe that an application for habeas corpus has been submitted at Manchester Crown Court according to his peers.

[mr_b]

It’s concern for this mans human rights that’s ■■■■■■■ up this country. He was guilty he admitted his guilt in the knowledge a crown court would have sentenced him to 6 months jail.
Returning his truck to Lithuania is his companies problem and no concern of our legal system so long as they pay storage costs.
Justice as been done and more importantly it’s been seen to have been done.

[fileep]

Spacemonkeypg:

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?

Do you have an A level in spouting [zb]

Proves otherwise in this case■■? I refered to my local Mags, was this person before the mags or a district judge? I dont know!

Got what he deserved! Too right, a fine and a ban for a foreign national, what else other than custody? A reading like that would not warrant custody unless he was a repeat offender or there were other aggrevating factors! So yes he got what he deserved!

No I am not legally trained but I see the Courts in action every day and have done so since 1998!, I do however, supply reports to Court on sentencing options following conviction! I’m talking from experience not from google!

Have you possibly had experience from the wrong side of the counter?

[spacemonkeypg]

Fileep:

Spacemonkeypg:

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?

Do you have an A level in spouting [zb]

Proves otherwise in this case■■? I refered to my local Mags, was this person before the mags or a district judge? I dont know!

Got what he deserved! Too right, a fine and a ban for a foreign national, what else other than custody? A reading like that would not warrant custody unless he was a repeat offender or there were other aggrevating factors! So yes he got what he deserved!

No I am not legally trained but I see the Courts in action every day and have done so since 1998!, I do however, supply reports to Court on sentencing options following conviction! I’m talking from experience not from google!

Have you possibly had experience from the wrong side of the counter?

Ok i’ll dumb this down a little. My reference to proving otherwise is that fact that you are indeed the one who seems to be spouting what ever educated swear word you used. Your claim that a district judge sitting in a Magistrates’ court has greater sentencing powers than a Lay Magistrate was my reasoning behind it. Go read your Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 you could even use Google! Then come back and let us know how a District Judge has greater sentencing powers over a Lay Magistrate, and how that falls within your sentencing options reports.

In reply to your question of me having experience from the wrong side of the counter the answer is no. I have however had the opportunity to act as a Mackenzie friend on a few occasions, and indeed been in magistrates courts held in private cases too.