Fixed Penalty legal time-lapse

TooManyPoints

This seems to be descending into confusion over whether the offence, generically speaking, is trivial, or whether this particular offence was trivial. Of course “trivial” is subjective. However, the triviality of the generic offence can be judged by comparing it to other offences which carry similar penalties. However, whether this particular occurrence is covered by triviality (and is more properly “de minimis” as I mentioned earlier) is a judgement which firstly the police must make. It seems they did not judge it trivial as they have taken enforcement action. If the matter goes to court, the court could decide that it is indeed trivial and in the event of conviction (either by way of a guilty plea or being found guilty following a trial) they could impose a penalty that reflects this. The normal way would be to impose an absolute discharge, find that there are “Special Reasons” not to endorse the driver’s licence, and award no prosecution costs.

Ebe_Scrooge

My view is that, from what the OP has said, he was particularly unlucky.  There are many offences that are technically "absolute", but where the police often apply discretion.  It could be that in the OP's case, the police took the view that it was actually dangerous, and that's why they booked him.

My personal experiences, gained from approaching 40 years of driving.  A rear light out.  I've been stopped for this 3 times over the years.  Technically it's a fine.  Each time I've been stopped, first off it's the attitude test.  "Sorry Officer, I didn't realise, I'll fix it first thing in the morning".  Driving licence and Insurance all in order.  Car is obviously in a good state of repair generally.  I did get one PC who gave me a right grilling - "We check all of our lights every time before we go out, you should too!".  Me, thinking to myself, "Yeah, but you've always got a partner with you to check when you press your brake pedal etc., grr".  But I got let off after enduring the lecture.  And to all of you on here, do you honestly, hand on heart, walk around your car and check every single bulb, every single time you go out?  Honestly?

The one and only time I've got stopped for speeding.  30mph limit, speedo was showing 35-ish, got pulled for, apparently, 33mph.  One copper gave me the lecture whilst his mate went round my car checking tyres, lights, bodywork, everything.  He sent me on my way with a dire warning of the consequences of speeding.  Meanwhile, the car behind me that had also got pulled for doing the same speed (it was a roadside speed-gun affair), got handed a ticket.  I can only assume there were other "offences" to do with the state of his car or something.

So yeah, in my experience, most coppers are actually pretty decent guys, and use a liberal amount of common-sense when it comes to "relatively minor" offences - even though they would be within their rights to issue a ticket for all of them.

Belenus

Ebe_Scrooge said:

....... And to all of you on here, do you honestly, hand on heart, walk around your car and check every single bulb, every single time you go out?  Honestly?....

I don't but I think my car does a check on start up. It is a 2016 BMW Series1.

I think I get a warning light on the dash if there is a bulb failure.

Don't most if not all modern cars do that?

Jenni_D

Belenus said:

Don't most if not all modern cars do that?

Don't think so ... open-circuit detection would require those lamps to be wired back to the control module and require a trickle current to flow through the loop even when the lamps are "off". Perhaps some BMWs and other higher-end vehicles might do that, but I doubt it is common.

brianposter

TooManyPoints said:

This seems to be descending into confusion over whether the offence, generically speaking, is trivial, or whether this particular offence was trivial. Of course “trivial” is subjective. However, the triviality of the generic offence can be judged by comparing it to other offences which carry similar penalties. However, whether this particular occurrence is covered by triviality (and is more properly “de minimis” as I mentioned earlier) is a judgement which firstly the police must make. It seems they did not judge it trivial as they have taken enforcement action. If the matter goes to court, the court could decide that it is indeed trivial and in the event of conviction (either by way of a guilty plea or being found guilty following a trial) they could impose a penalty that reflects this. The normal way would be to impose an absolute discharge, find that there are “Special Reasons” not to endorse the driver’s licence, and award no prosecution costs.

In theory a court should act as a backstop in reviewing inappropriate actions by police officers (and others with similar powers) but our legislators have become so keen on saving court costs that in several areas the system has ceased to function adequately.