Not all Cyclists are Nice

"Mr R@t -ratsnest23-zulu alpha" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

These ASBOs aren't primarily to deal with traffic offences anyway - they are intended to disrupt
the lives and circles of friends of these people to prevent them getting involved in a gang. what
they do is make sure the person is "marked" and will have to be careful where they go in that city
or avoid getting into trouble!

I realise that. They seem to be about causing hassle to antisocial yob whose behaviour is apparently
not adequately controlled by existing law. However I was just commenting on the grossly
disproportionate manner in which a "cycling ban" is handed out on the whim of a magistrate when no
traffic offences have been committed and the cycling is merely incidental to the offending
behaviour, whereas repeated criminal motoring offences only seem to get a slap on the wrist and a
"naughty boy, please don't do it again".

James

vernon levy said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm sure that you know that speeding is a civil offence.

Oh, now I get it. You really _are_ from a different planet.

No, just conversant with the law as applied to breaking speed limits. Been there, done it, paid
the fine and omitted all references to the 'conviction' when filling in application forms
requiring details of criminal convictions.

That's because its a non-recordable criminal offence.

Quoted message said:

Become conversant with the law before you base your arguments on faulty interpretations James.

Oh! The humanity!

Quoted message said:

As far as I know the Crown Prosecution Service do not handle civil matters. They do, however,
handle speeding.

The CPS do not handle speeding, they do handle dangerous driving which may arise as a consequence of
speeding. The majority of speeding offences are dealt with by fixed penalty notices which can not be
handed out for criminal offences....Criminal acts have to be dealt with by an appearance in court
and I'm not aware of burglars and muggers pleading guilty by letter and accepting a penalty issued
in accordance with a fixed tariff....

The CPS exists to advise the police on the chances of a succesful prosecution being brought about in
criminal law. The issuing of fixed penalty notices is undertaken by the police and the bodies that
administer the speed cameras. Moving traffic offences are dealt with as civil offences unless they
become charges of dangerous driving. There are criteria that the police use to determine whether or
not a motorist can be charged with dangerous driving at this point the CPS may become involved.

Enforcement of the Road Traffic Act is undertaken by the police despite the fact that is a civil
matter like tresspass. The police do not have powers of arrest unless a criminal act has taken
place, driving under the influence of drink or drugs is one instance that springs to mind. A
speeding motorist who has been pulled and has no documentation can not be arrested even though
(s)he has infringed the Road Traffic Act. They are either warned or issued with a fixed penalty
notice and a 'producer' demanding the presentation of driving license, insurance, and MOT
certificate.

vernon levy said:

Quoted message said:

As far as I know the Crown Prosecution Service do not handle civil matters. They do, however,
handle speeding.

Quoted message said:

The CPS do not handle speeding, they do handle dangerous driving which may arise as a consequence
of speeding.

They can also handle speeding, according to my sources.

Quoted message said:

The majority of speeding offences are dealt with by fixed penalty notices

And if you don't accept the FPN and fight it in court, who stands up on the prosecution side?

Quoted message said:

The CPS exists to advise the police on the chances of a succesful prosecution being brought about
in criminal law.

And to handle such cases in court.

Quoted message said:

The issuing of fixed penalty notices is undertaken by the police and the bodies that administer the
speed cameras. Moving traffic offences are dealt with as civil offences unless they become charges
of dangerous driving.

So you say, but others disagree. I am writing to my Grate Frend Mike, who is a barrister in the CPS
and will know for sure. As far as I can see the law makes no distinction between a civil offence and
a criminal offence. Things are either offences, in which case the Crown prosecutes, or civil
matters, in which case you must be sued anf the burden of proof is different. Looking at the actual
legislation, I can't see any distinction in the law which supports the assertion that, say, causing
death through bad driving is a "criminal" matter whereas speeding is "civil." But I am not a lawyer.

Quoted message said:

Enforcement of the Road Traffic Act is undertaken by the police despite the fact that is a civil
matter like tresspass.

Really. The RTA covers numerous offences which can be prosecuted in court and lead to
custodial sentences. I don't know of any civil tort for which you can be imprisoned, but again
I am not a lawyer.

Quoted message said:

The police do not have powers of arrest unless a criminal act has taken place,

There are offences which are arrestable and offences which are not. They are still offences.

As far as I can tell, the wording is the same in laws which you protray as civil and criminal: a
person who does such-and-such shall be guilty of an offence. Or words to that effect. I have loked
at a couple of Acts of Parliament, some which include prison and powers of arrest and one or two
which don't, and there is no distinction made in the wording, that I can see, which supports this
distinction.

I found this via Google (FPNs are not mentioned):

Criminal law
============
Criminal offences are punishable, unlawful acts against the public.

There are a wide range of criminal offences, including murder, assault, theft and dangerous driving.
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the prosecution of all criminal acts begins in a magistrates'
court, before magistrates. More serious cases may go on to a crown court, where the case will be
heard before a judge and jury. In Scotland, the Procurator Fiscal Service decides whether the case
will be heard in district courts, sheriff courts or the high court of the justiciary.

Civil law
=========
This covers disputes over the duties and rights of individuals, dealing with areas like debt
recovery, trespass and disputes over property boundaries. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland,
most civil cases are held in magistrates', county or small claims courts. In Scotland the sheriff's
court deals with most civil cases.

So, whether an offence of speeding is criminal or not I still don't know (awaiting response form One
Who Does) but it sure as heck isn't a civil matter.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

James Annan <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

vernon levy said:

No, just conversant with the law as applied to breaking speed limits. Been there, done it, paid
the fine and omitted all references to the 'conviction' when filling in application forms
requiring details of criminal convictions.

The fact that you might be allowed to leave them off some forms is a matter for those who design
the forms. That's got nothing to do with the law on speeding. If it was a civil offence, why would
the state have any interest in prosecuting you?

Eg the first google hit (obviously referring to the USA, but the principles are the same):

----------------
What is the difference between criminal law and civil law?

Civil law suits are private suits between two or more citizens. Civil law is the area of law by
which private individuals resolve their differences with the help of the civil courts.

Criminal law involves a citizen or a business and the state. The rules of the federal government
and all individual state governments are codified into statutes. When an individual violates the
rules, as listed in the statutes, then the federal government or the state will prosecute the
individual.

The remedies available in civil courts are generally limited to money damages. The remedies in
criminal court may involve a money fine and/or a prison sentence.
----------------

Quoted message said:

Become conversant with the law before you base your arguments on faulty interpretations James.

Thank you for your patronising comment. Unfortunately you are the one with the faulty
interpretation, based apparently on the fact that you may not be obliged to enter details of your
offence on certain forms. It's still criminal law that you broke.

James

Actually, the extract is a little bit out of date. In recent years, Congress has become enamored of
so-called "Civil Money Penalties". These are transparently criminal fines in that they are assessed
by the state, punitive in nature (and severity!) and not based on any theory of compensation for
damage. But because they are described as "civil" in nature, they can be assessed by regulatory
agencies (rather than real courts) on the basis of civil rules of evidence and without need to prove
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

But in most (all?) states, speeding violations are explicitly criminal, result in "convictions",
and, yes, may result in jail time in extreme cases (or so the statute books say). And yes, most
employment applications, loan forms etc. allow you to ignore them.

Peter Storey

Peter Storey said:

But in most (all?) states, speeding violations are explicitly criminal, result in "convictions",
and, yes, may result in jail time in extreme cases (or so the statute books say). And yes, most
employment applications, loan forms etc. allow you to ignore them.

Having looked a little further into it, it appears that in the UK, minor speeding offences are not
considered "recordable" in relation to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, meaning that they do not
normally have to be disclosed (they may be in some cases, such as when applying to become a taxi
driver?). That is only the impression I get from googling and it may not be precise in every
respect. But in any case, this is a long way from the gibberish that Vernon Levy seems to keep on
spouting about how speeding is a civil offence, which is of course nonsense.

James

James Annan said:

this is a long way from the gibberish that Vernon Levy seems to keep on spouting about how speeding
is a civil offence, which is of course nonsense.

As far as I can tell there is no such thing as a "civil offence" - I could be wrong, IANAL etc. etc.
but the law appears to divide between the criminal, being offences against society or the state, and
the civil, being disputes between individuals.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Not brilliant, but pertinent:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onelife/legal/the_law/civil.shtml>

and

<http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/?pageID=154>

Eddie

Quoted message said:

Does anyone who literally and deliberately uses a car as part of their planned criminal activity
(eg getaway) ever get a driving ban?

Most criminals have long since lost their licence and drive without one.

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:48:41 GMT, "Frobnitz"

eddie_d@@@blueyonder.ocbackwards.uk said:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onelife/legal/the_law/civil.shtml>
<http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/?pageID=154>

Thanks - this seems to confirm my view that "civil" refers to the civil division, disputes between
individuals or bodies. An offence is undoubtedly not a civil matter.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

In message-id <[email hidden]>, vernon levy <[email hidden]> wrote: [...]

Quoted message said:

The majority of speeding offences are dealt with by fixed penalty notices which can not be handed
out for criminal offences....

They're handed out for minor breaches of the Road Traffic Act, which are _de facto_
criminal offences.

Until recently, parking offences also came under criminal law, but the less serious (non-endorsable)
parking offences are being "decriminalised". The Scottish Executive, at least, has also considered
decriminalising some speeding offences and enabling local authorities to appoint "speed wardens",
but this was not possible because the subject is reserved and can only be acted upon by the UK
Parliament. An advantage of decriminalisation would be that the revenue from prosecuting _all_ such
offences could be hypothecated; the fines must currently go to the Exchequer (with the exception of
the Safety Camera Partnership camera revenues, which are hypothecated by statute.)

In message-id <[email hidden]>,

Just zis Guy said:

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:48:41 GMT, "Frobnitz"

eddie_d@@@blueyonder.ocbackwards.uk said:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onelife/legal/the_law/civil.shtml>
<http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/?pageID=154>

Thanks - this seems to confirm my view that "civil" refers to the civil division, disputes between
individuals or bodies. An offence is undoubtedly not a civil matter.

Yes, basically. The decriminalisation of parking offences is a process that makes the Fixed
Penalty a civil debt that can be enforced by the normal debt collection methods. The local
authority is the creditor.

This decriminalisation has not been applied to speeding offences so they still come under criminal
law. The main obstacle for decriminalising speeding offences is that normally they are endorable. As
well as a fine you lose points on your licence and you may be banned.