Council official aquitted ...

paddedjohn

terryw wrote: »

Happens all the time mate. Two months ago I was the victim of an unprovoked attack by a thug. He was caught and had a long previous record. He was ordered to pay me £100 compensation (which I will never see) and ,er, that's it - no penalty whatsoever for the actual assault.

In this case here, I am guessing that it was a first offence and he pleaded guilty and the court reckoned that he had been sufficiently punished by the loss of his job. But what do I know?

thats if he did lose his job, they all look after each other.

terryw

paddedjohn wrote: »

thats if he did lose his job, they all look after each other.

You may well be right but just from the link:

a former official of Exeter City Council, Geoffrey Urwin, pleaded guilty to a charge of wilful misconduct,

the fact he is a "former official" hints at his job being lost.

But what do I know?

bw

paddedjohn

i missed that bit.

mikey72

It's not quite as it appears.

http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Ex-council-man-walks-free-map-charge/article-3272701-detail/article.html

real1314

If the council bloke had sought to gain something for himself out of it, it might have been different.

If the council bloke was on a bonus/reward system, as some "wardens" are claimed to be on, it might have been different.

If the parker had been just anyone rather than someone trying to push the boundaries of the regs, it might have been different.

It seems like a fair outcome to me, as someone says above, a thug got a £100 "fine" that will never be paid. Which one would you rather live next door to?

mikey72

Well, saying as the "the parking attendant recorded it as the wrong space in Southernhay, while trying to show the position of the parking bay.
"The defendant decided to doctor it and place it in the correct designation with where the car was"

it's not exactly "falsifying evidence", as no one is disputing where the car was, or what the parking restrictions were, (just the marking of the lines in the appeal), but it is admittedly wrong by the procedures.
As to the "innocent motorist", he's cost someone his job, and his income....

sarahg1969

He's cost himself his job by falsifying the document.

mikey72

sarahg1969 wrote: »

He's cost himself his job by falsifying the document.

It's not actually false though. No one is disputing the document is a true record of the actual events.

Wig

The driver was described as someone who had a "campaign with others". No, he was just someone who knows the law and brings councils who break the laws to book, and that is an excellent man in my opinion, because without people like that the powers that be would walk all over us as they constantly try to do.

We don't know if the attendant deliberately falsified his report to put the car into another bay, knowing that the bay the car was actually in was wrongly marked. He probably got off by saying it was an honest mistake.

The team leader Urwin, for god knows what reason then decided to put the car back into the correct bay for the parking appeal. Maybe the driver had already submitted his argument that the bay he was in, was incorrectly marked, and maybe the driver knew the attendant had put the car into another bay, and maybe the driver had constructed his argument to say "my car was not in that bay and here is my evidence of that fact, and as my car was in -this bay- which is incorrectly marked, I don't have to pay anyway". Maybe the team leader didn't want the error to be recorded as an error against one of his team but an error of highway's team for painting the road incorrectly, knowing that whatever happened, the driver would be let off.

Alternatively maybe the team leader thought that by doctoring he would get a conviction, not knowing that the markings were wrong in the actual bay. Which would be a worse motive than above.

I think the judge needs to grow up, he is supposed to be impartial and treating every case on it's merits, not comparing one case against another and saying this case should not have been brought before him. If an official is doctoring documents for presentation to an appeal tribunal that is serious, and needs to be dealt with. A conditional discharge may have been appropriate depending on Urwin's motive. An absolute discharge is an outrage.


I'd like to know what Urwin's defence would have been.