Motoring offence, crossing red x on motorway

mcpitman

Marbo wrote: »

save other peoples time of making FOI requests or bad choices.

I don't think there are many people on this planet that would make the bad choices you have.


People who drive like you are the most selfish, ignorant, arrogant users of the public highway and need the book throwing at them.

seatbeltnoob

be careful if you challenge it and lose youre likely to get a larger fine than had you just admitted guilt and gone along with it

AdrianC

seatbeltnoob wrote: »

be careful if you challenge it and lose youre likely to get a larger fine than had you just admitted guilt and gone along with it

Bit late for that, given that he's already turned down an SAC and FPN in favour of a court date.

Car_54

AdrianC wrote: »

Bit late for that, given that he's already turned down an SAC and FPN in favour of a court date.

He can still plead guilty, and so get a discount on the fine and avoid the higher costs.

Andy_L

d123 wrote: »

It's gone beyond popcorn he's been told if all he wants is sympathy he needs to go to mumsnet

AIUI mumsnet can be quite brutal

Billy_Bullocks

Car_54 wrote: »

He can still plead guilty, and so get a discount on the fine and avoid the higher costs.

I think his missed the chance to get a discount as he's entered a nit guilty plea.

Car_54

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

I think his missed the chance to get a discount as he's entered a nit guilty plea.

"Nit" is possibly the right word.

He can still get a discount, though it reduces.

AFAIK its 33% at the earliest, down to 10% on the day of the trial.

redux

Magistrates are naturally disposed towards believing police evidence, even if the bloke goes sick at 20 minutes notice and doesn't turn up.

Mercdriver

redux wrote: »

Magistrates are naturally disposed towards believing police evidence, even if the bloke goes sick at 20 minutes notice and doesn't turn up.

Nothing like a bit of conspiracy to spice things up, eh?

If the defence wishes to question the police officer, then the hearing would be adjourned. As to weight given to evidence, the police officer has no pecuniary reason to lie, the defendant does. Doesn't stop the defendant introducing doubt to the evidence, but I don't think that would apply here as the OP has given various accounts here and elsewhere that confirm what the officer says she saw.

Billy_Bullocks

Mercdriver wrote: »

Nothing like a bit of conspiracy to spice things up, eh?

If the defence wishes to question the police officer, then the hearing would be adjourned. As to weight given to evidence, the police officer has no pecuniary reason to lie, the defendant does. Doesn't stop the defendant introducing doubt to the evidence, but I don't think that would apply here as the OP has given various accounts here and elsewhere that confirm what the officer says she saw.

It's more likely to be thrown out.