It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money,
plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own
court
costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because
it's cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified)
that one in four who challenge a ticket win their case.

It also applies to other offences, I think..

Petition at

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

Gordon H wrote:
Nice scare story , but I'm not signing on on your say so,,

The petition itself says:

"The Ministry of Justice plan to implement a new costs recovery system
from October 2009. Under new rules any defendant acquitted of an offence
in the Magistrates' Court will only be reimbursed at prevailing legal
aid rates regardless of the level of costs they paid to their lawyers."


MOST drivers don't take a lawyer to Magistrates Court - so unaffected.
If you are stupid enough to pay a 'World Class' lawyer for a speeding
ticket, when duty lawyer would have got you off - tough.

ISTR from similar posts on uk.legal that the government want a get-out
clause so any person found innocent has to pay their own defence costs
- it wouldn't surprise me if there would be something in the ECHR act
that would prevent this as it's a blatant abuse of power.

Colin Wilson wrote:

Some legal begals are investigating wether you can sue for the costs
through the civil courts against the individual who issued the ticket
, they are looking at different angles from false accusation ,breach
of human rights act to distress at being falsly accused .

They are also looking at hitting the cps every time a case is delayed
due to proceedural errors or infomation not being forwarded which is
very common and the police every time an officer is not available at
short notice to attend court

Some reckon just going after the cps will cost the government twice
what they save


If the government really do want to save money stop offering legal
aid to asylum seekers and ilegal immigrants which costs an estimated
one billion a year

Paul wrote:
As I posted over in uk.rec.cars.misc a few days ago:

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=20842

Pete

Paul wrote:
I think the majority of wrongly accused drivers would want a proper,
pre-briefed lawyer who could marshall evidence & witnesses for their
defence.

You might choose settle for 10 mins of the duty lawyer's time (and a
conviction) but you have no right to impose that on others.

Steve Walker wrote:
to get you off, and if he doesn't then there is the appeals process
through the crown court, where presumably you will still be able to
claim costs.
(its also debatable whether the case would even BE at the magistrates if
you are pleading not guilty).

I object to paying tax money to use a sledge hammer to crack a nut -
either the guy is innocent and a tax funded lawyer is good enough, or he
is guilty and trying to use a loophole to get around it in which case he
can use his own money to pay for his fancy lawyer.

What really bugs me is the fact that we provide an interpreter for those
who can't speak English. If they are accused of an offence in this
country why can't they provide their own interpreter if they can't speak
the lingo?

Rob Graham

Rob Graham wrote:
Sod that, why not just forget the trial altogether and stamp the word
"GUILTY" on their foreheads in bright red ink? Think of the money the
country would save.

Paul wrote:
Sorry, but that's utter bollocks. Shame on you for denying justice to
innocent people.