'NOT GUILTY' MOTORISTS FACE COURT COSTS
piehead
scheme
New regulations set to come into force later this month will see motorists
forced to cough up court costs - even if they're found not guilty or
acquitted of motoring offences.
The government-inspired change to the current set-up - where drivers get
costs refunded if they're innocent - is being implemented to save cash, in
spite of fierce opposition from legal and motoring groups who were nominally
'consulted' before the new policy was drawn up.
According to the Ministry of Justice, the age old principle of 'the loser
pays' has been costing the government too much money. As a result the new
rules make it clear that in future drivers will have to foot the bill for
clearing their name. According to The Taxpayers Alliance, that equates to
400,000 people, or one in four of those who challenge a ticket.
Now the Conservative party has joined the last ditch effort to derail the
changes, and campaigners are looking for more signatories to a petition on
the Number 10 website. We're off to go and sign the petition ourselves, and
you can find out more by reading the press release below, that was issued by
the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers today.
AMOL press Release:
Tories Back Protest Against the MOJ's New Costs Recovery Rules & Vote for
Parliamentary Debate
Current law dictates that if you have paid for legal representation and are
prosecuted for an offence and found not guilty, you will receive an order
for your costs to be assessed and paid back by the court. However, according
to the Ministry of Justice, this age old principle of "the loser pays" was
costing the government too much money. A consultation was first announced in
2008 on restricting the costs the government has to pay as a result of
losing so many cases.
The consultation attracted responses from over 100 organisations and
individuals. Responses included overwhelming opposition to the change in
rules, as it was felt that if a person is proven innocent they should not be
financially penalised with an extensive legal bill. The new rules, to be
implemented in October, will mean that even if a defendant is acquitted of
an offence, they will be expected to foot the majority of their legal bill
themselves.
In June 2009, the MOJ announced their plans to go ahead with their rule
changes regardless of the resistance. Jeanette Miller, President of the
Association of Motor Offence Lawyers, was astounded that the MOJ ignored the
opposition and steam-rollered ahead with changes in the rules. Not satisfied
with the MOJ's complete disregard to the protests raised during the
consultation process, she launched an e-petition live on the no.10 website.
To date the petition is backed by 3,559 signatures and the number is
increasing every minute - http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery.
Miss Jeanette Miller of the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers (AMOL)
comments:"I recognize that government spending may need to be reduced but it
will be taxpaying motorists and small businesses who will be most penalized
by the planned rule change. Saving money at the expense of having a fair
system with access to justice for all parties accused of a crime is not the
answer. It will most likely result in increased costs as lawyers across the
country are being briefed on a campaign to make wasted costs applications in
every instance of CPS inefficiency which will result in the CPS being forced
to pay sums expected to far outweigh the amount the government are seeking
to save."
The petition itself outlines the affect these rules will have on motorists,
as legal aid is not available for the majority of motoring prosecutions and
most members of the general public will appreciate the grave impact of the
inability to defend a prosecution for a motoring offence being that there
are currently around 27 million licence holders in the UK. However, if
allowed to be implemented, the rule changes will also affect any defendant
acquitted of a crime in the Magistrates' Court if they chose to instruct a
lawyer who charges normal (not legal aid) rates. 1.4 million motorists were
prosecuted through the Magistrates' Courts in 2007. 26% were found not
guilty. This is a huge issue and until now, it seemed to be sweeping in
under the carpet due to a lack of understanding of what it actually means to
the average citizen on the street.
So far the petition has support from the Law Society, dozens of QC's and the
Criminal Bar Association have fully endorsed the sentiments behind the
petition. The petition is also backed by the following organizations:
1. Association of Motor Offence Lawyers (AMOL);
2. Health and Safety Lawyers Association;
3. The Criminal Bar Association;
4. The Association of British Drivers;
5. Drivers' Alliance (responsible for the largest ever petition against road
pricing who obtained 1.8 million signatures over a 3 month period); and
6. The London Criminal Solicitors' Association;
7. The Taxpayers' Alliance; and
8. The AA.
Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive at the TaxPayers' Alliance said:"This
proposal is unjust, unfair and will prevent innocent motorists from
effectively fighting penalties. With police forces too often using speed
cameras more to raise revenue than save lives, it is vital that people are
given a fair opportunity to clear their names when given an unjust penalty
charge; they shouldn't be financially punished if they are acquitted.
Motorists will fight this to the hilt, and the Government is going to feel
the full force of people power until it sees sense and backs down."
Dominic Grieve QC MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice and MP for
Beaconsfield commented:
"I entirely share your concern about these proposals and do not believe that
it is right that the defendant should only receive a fraction of their legal
costs back from central funds if they are acquitted. While there may be an
argument for preventing a claim for grossly excessive costs, the
Government's proposals appear to me to be unfair and wrong."
Since launching the petition, it has gathered increasing support from
members of parliament. After spending an afternoon at the Houses of
Parliament with Shadow Minister for Access to Justice, Henry Bellingham MP,
he made the decision to call for a committee to be selected to pray against
the new cost recovery rules, with a statutory instrument to be implemented
at the end of October.
Mr. Henry Bellingham MP is confident of a vote being organised within the
next two weeks saying:
"It is a disgrace that Ministers apparently have no intention of debating
this issue in the House to justify themselves. That is why we will try to
force a vote and a debate on the new regulations."
Mr. Henry Bellingham MP went on to say:
"If the Conservatives win the next election they will certainly wish to
review this issue as far from saving money, it might actually trigger
numerous additional cost that would far exceed the government's target to
save �20 million per year."
PRESS RELEASE ENDS
Author: Chris-R
peterwn
> Drivers acquitted of motoring charges will pay costs under new government
> scheme
>
> New regulations set to come into force later this month will see motorists
> forced to cough up court costs - even if they're found not guilty or
> acquitted of motoring offences.
>
At present it is heads I win, tails you lose against the Crown. AFAIK
those found guilty where the prosecutor is CPS or a police prosecutor
do not pay prosecutions costs, so why should the prosecutor pay
defence costs where the case is successfully defended.
Richard Miller
<7bb7329b-a61f-4adb...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
peterwn <pet...@paradise.net.nz> writes
>On Oct 21, 10:50�am, "piehead" <rdert...@fgdgdg.com.tw> wrote:
>> Drivers acquitted of motoring charges will pay costs under new government
>> scheme
>>
>> New regulations set to come into force later this month will see motorists
>> forced to cough up court costs - even if they're found not guilty or
>> acquitted of motoring offences.
>>
>This means costs of hiring a lawyer to defend the charge.
>
>At present it is heads I win, tails you lose against the Crown. AFAIK
>those found guilty where the prosecutor is CPS or a police prosecutor
>do not pay prosecutions costs,
Wrong. One of the orders commonly made at the end of a case where the
defendant has been convicted is a contribution towards prosecution
costs, depending on what the defendant can afford.
> so why should the prosecutor pay
>defence costs where the case is successfully defended.
Because the defendant is legally innocent and has just been
unsuccessfully prosecuted, so why should he also have to pay for the
privilege?
--
Richard Miller
Brown Cat
> New regulations set to come into force later this month will see
> motorists forced to cough up court costs - even if they're found not
> guilty or acquitted of motoring offences.
I have heard that if everyone opted to go to court when they get a ticket
then the system would collapse, I guess this closes that loophole.
Mick Hunt
"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QQuhbMSP...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
This happened to me a while back, It was up for failing to notify the driver
in a NIP, anyway my solicitor tried very hard albeit at short notice asking
the Met Police to drop this offence, they never got back in touch so we went
to court and the CPS offered no evidence.
I bought the whole case up on a different posting ID and many here either
thought I was going to get found guilty and also told me not to have a
solicitor. Anyway I went the opposite and was sucessful, I still have my
clean licence without the 6 points I was expecting.
I paid the solicitor but also because of the Traffic divsion of the Met
Police were so slow in responding this whole case need not have gone to
court, so therefore in this instance they should (and were) be liable to pay
my defence costs because they caused it to go to court in the first place.
This was back in May and I have yet to be refunded from my solicitor aswell,
tee hee.
I would not be happy if I was in the same situ again under this new rule.
it works both ways we have to pay costs if found guilty
Jethro
wrote:
> In message
> <7bb7329b-a61f-4adb-83f5-ba48a7867...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> peterwn <pete...@paradise.net.nz> writes
Isn't this getting close to "arbitary siezure of goods" ?
Ian Jackson
<a1b635da-be53-4100...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Jethro <jeth...@hotmail.com> writes
Surely 'natural justice' accepts that, if innocent, you only should get
charged for the cost of your prosecution if the court decides that you
'brought it upon yourself?
--
Ian
Mr X
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xv1napXV...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> Surely 'natural justice' accepts that, if innocent, you only should get
> charged for the cost of your prosecution if the court decides that you
> 'brought it upon yourself?
cost of their prosecution, so why should the state pay for people to defend
themselves?
The way I look at it, there are some risks in life. Having to pay for a
defence is just one of them.
steve robinson
But in that case you should be able to recover the costs from the
organisation or individual who accussed you .
The idea of having your defence costs repayed is that you should as
best as possible be put back into the same position financially as
pre accusation
AlanG
We already have that
Cynic
<pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>At present it is heads I win, tails you lose against the Crown. AFAIK
>those found guilty where the prosecutor is CPS or a police prosecutor
>do not pay prosecutions costs
Yes, they very often do.
>, so why should the prosecutor pay
>defence costs where the case is successfully defended.
Because the defendent was not responsible for bringing the case that
led to the costs.
It's a bit like saying that if I crash into your parked car, then you
will not pay for the repairs to my car so why should I pay for the
repairs to your car?
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>I don't agree. You wouldn't want to chage every convicted person the full
>cost of their prosecution
Yes, that is done if there is a realistic chance that the defendent
will be able to pay.
>, so why should the state pay for people to defend
>themselves?
Because it is the state that has made the choice to bring the case and
incur those costs, whilst the defendent had no choice whatsoever in
the matter.
--
Cynic
nimbu...@yahoo.co.uk
You miss the point here
Bear in mind that the defendant did not actually ask the Crown to
start involving him/her in their prosecution
HTH Phil
Gary Baldi
<ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Surely 'natural justice' accepts that, if innocent, you only should get
> charged for the cost of your prosecution if the court decides that you
> 'brought it upon yourself?
> --
"brought it upon yourself" equating to pleading not guilty?
Back under your bridge ort I'll fetch the hose. And neither of us
wants that, do we?
Cynic
<tim.ri...@gmx.com> wrote:
>On Oct 21, 11:37�am, Ian Jackson
><ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Surely 'natural justice' accepts that, if innocent, you only should get
>> charged for the cost of your prosecution if the court decides that you
>> 'brought it upon yourself?
>> --
>
>"brought it upon yourself" equating to pleading not guilty?
I took it as meaning a person who frequently behaves in ways that are
very close to being illegal, or a person who could easily have proven
that he is not guilty before the case got to court, but deliberately
did not do so.
--
Cynic
Paul Cummins
cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>
> I took it as meaning a person who frequently behaves in ways that
> are very close to being illegal,
So behaving legally then...
> or a person who could easily have proven that he is not guilty before
> the case got to court, but deliberately did not do so.
So leaving the burden of proof with the Prosecution, then...
I see no reason why such a person should be treated as having brought it
upon themselves.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Gary Baldi
> In article <csl8e5homom0jdtas1978efgjat48df...@4ax.com>,
Having read Cynic's somewhat woolly comments (he's normally quite
sensible but seems to have lost it with this thread) I was going to
post exactly what you did but you've beaten me to it.
I can only assume that Cynic believes someone who drives at 69.9mph on
motorways falls into the category he mentioned?
Cynic
<tim.ri...@gmx.com> wrote:
>Having read Cynic's somewhat woolly comments (he's normally quite
>sensible but seems to have lost it with this thread) I was going to
>post exactly what you did but you've beaten me to it.
>I can only assume that Cynic believes someone who drives at 69.9mph on
>motorways falls into the category he mentioned?
No, I was merely explaining my understanding of what the PP meant, not
agreeing with anything at all.
AFAIAC *anyone* who is charged with a criminal offence and found not
guilty should be put back as far as possible to the same situation he
would have been had he never been charged with a crime. Certainly
*all* money that it cost him or lost him should be reimbursed.
I also believe that anyone who was on remand awaiting trial should be
paid damages at an agreed amount per day in prison, and well
compensated for consequential damage caused by that imprisonment.
All damage committed by the police during search & seizure that did
not result in a conviction (including consequential costs) should be
compensated, no matter how lawfully and reasonably the police may have
acted.
It might make the police and magistrates think a bit harder before
issuing a search warrant or refusing bail, and make the police a bit
more respectful of other people's property when they carry out such
searches.
--
Cynic
Norman Wells
But it's not the police who would pay. It's you and me, through our taxes.
Cynic
<no-...@myarl.co.uk> wrote:
>> It might make the police and magistrates think a bit harder before
>> issuing a search warrant or refusing bail, and make the police a bit
>> more respectful of other people's property when they carry out such
>> searches.
>But it's not the police who would pay. It's you and me, through our taxes.
True, but better the cost be distributed than born by a few
individuals who have already suffered at the hands of the state.
The tax coffer is not bottomless, and any government department that
is taking a disproportionate amount from it will be called far more to
account, so I believe it will still have the effect of curbing the
excesses and making individual officers and magistrates more
accountable.
--
Cynic
steve robinson
Possibly taking the costs from the salary budget might focus the mind
in much the same way as it does in the private sector , you screw up
then theres less in the pot for salary increases
Richard Miller
<no-...@myarl.co.uk> writes
No need. Pay it out of the pension pot. Agree to top up the pot by a
fixed amount each year. If the police do more damage than that fixed
amount, it then comes out of their own pockets.
--
Richard Miller