Cyclists win police court battle!

[John Wright]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:56:13 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:20:49 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> What would you prefer to come across:
>>
>> 1. As a pedestrian walking on a footway, a cyclist knowingly cycling
>> on the pavement?
>>
>> 2. As a cyclist riding on a mandatory cycle lane, a motorist
>> unknowingly driving in the cycle lane?
>
>3. Anna Friel's breasts?

Morphing can do a lot - a quote from Scarlett Johansson's section on
IMDB goes:

I was driving through Los Angeles and I look up and see the biggest
photo of me I have ever seen in my life on a massive ad space. I
screamed and slammed on the brakes. I couldn't believe it. It's very
strange to see my cleavage the size of a brontosaurus. My breasts were
huge. I had long hair and my goodness, I couldn't get past the
cleavage.

I'd prefer her anyway...
--
John Wright

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:12:43 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> I have never condoned adults who cycle on pavements. The comparison
> with driving offences is purely

"tu quoque"

For a teacher you're rather resistant to learning. But that seems to typify
the breed.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:38:40 +0000 (UTC), Mark Thompson wrote:

> The problem is, according to Paul Boateng, the Home Office Minister when
> fixed penalties were introduced, there IS an excuse:

Paul Boateng is a useless here today gone tomorrow politician. I give his
opinion less weight that I do that of my local dustman.

 

[Tony Raven]

Steve Firth wrote on 16/07/2006 13:20 +0100:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:38:40 +0000 (UTC), Mark Thompson wrote:
>
>> The problem is, according to Paul Boateng, the Home Office Minister when
>> fixed penalties were introduced, there IS an excuse:
>
> Paul Boateng is a useless here today gone tomorrow politician. I give his
> opinion less weight that I do that of my local dustman.

The difference of course being that Mr Boateng was responsible for the
relevant law and you and your dustman weren't which means that the
Courts will pay attention to what Mr Boateng said but not you nor your
dustman (unless you are directly involved in the case)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:50:38 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote on 16/07/2006 13:20 +0100:
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:38:40 +0000 (UTC), Mark Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is, according to Paul Boateng, the Home Office Minister when
>>> fixed penalties were introduced, there IS an excuse:
>>
>> Paul Boateng is a useless here today gone tomorrow politician. I give his
>> opinion less weight that I do that of my local dustman.
>
> The difference of course being that Mr Boateng was responsible for the
> relevant law and you and your dustman weren't which means that the
> Courts will pay attention to what Mr Boateng said but not you nor your
> dustman (unless you are directly involved in the case)

Mr Boateng as previously observed is an ass, and so is any cyclist who
believes that it's OK to cycle on the footpath. The opinion of the courts
in respect to this is of little interest other than to observe that despite
Mr Boateng's efforts it remains illegal to cycle on the footpath.

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Steve Firth wrote on 16/07/2006 13:20 +0100:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:38:40 +0000 (UTC), Mark Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is, according to Paul Boateng, the Home Office Minister
>>> when fixed penalties were introduced, there IS an excuse:

>> Paul Boateng is a useless here today gone tomorrow politician. I give his
>> opinion less weight that I do that of my local dustman.

> The difference of course being that Mr Boateng was responsible for the
> relevant law and you and your dustman weren't which means that the
> Courts will pay attention to what Mr Boateng said but not you nor your
> dustman (unless you are directly involved in the case)

The courts pay - and are supposed to pay - no attention at all to what
ministers claim the law is about. They pay close attention to the wording
of the law and to judicial interpretations of what that wording means, and
not to the intentions which are claimed to lie behind it. There have been
several recent examples of politicians trying on the Boateng trick - only
to be rebuffed. Boateng should, of course, know better.

 

[Tony Raven]

Steve Firth wrote on 16/07/2006 14:13 +0100:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:50:38 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> Steve Firth wrote on 16/07/2006 13:20 +0100:
>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:38:40 +0000 (UTC), Mark Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem is, according to Paul Boateng, the Home Office Minister when
>>>> fixed penalties were introduced, there IS an excuse:
>>> Paul Boateng is a useless here today gone tomorrow politician. I give his
>>> opinion less weight that I do that of my local dustman.
>> The difference of course being that Mr Boateng was responsible for the
>> relevant law and you and your dustman weren't which means that the
>> Courts will pay attention to what Mr Boateng said but not you nor your
>> dustman (unless you are directly involved in the case)
>
> Mr Boateng as previously observed is an ass, and so is any cyclist who
> believes that it's OK to cycle on the footpath. The opinion of the courts
> in respect to this is of little interest other than to observe that despite
> Mr Boateng's efforts it remains illegal to cycle on the footpath.

Just as it remains illegal to do 31mph in a 30mph limit or 71mph on the
motorway but you won't be prosecuted for that either even though lots of
people do it.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Clive Coleman.]

In message <[email protected]>, Steve Firth
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>Paul Boateng is a useless here today gone tomorrow politician. I give his
>opinion less weight that I do that of my local dustman.
You still have those in your neck of the woods? Ours are now Refuse
Operatives.
--
Clive.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:42:37 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tony Raven wrote:
>> Steve Firth wrote on 16/07/2006 13:20 +0100:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:38:40 +0000 (UTC), Mark Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem is, according to Paul Boateng, the Home Office Minister
>>>> when fixed penalties were introduced, there IS an excuse:
>
>>> Paul Boateng is a useless here today gone tomorrow politician. I give his
>>> opinion less weight that I do that of my local dustman.
>
>> The difference of course being that Mr Boateng was responsible for the
>> relevant law and you and your dustman weren't which means that the
>> Courts will pay attention to what Mr Boateng said but not you nor your
>> dustman (unless you are directly involved in the case)
>
>The courts pay - and are supposed to pay - no attention at all to what
>ministers claim the law is about. They pay close attention to the wording
>of the law and to judicial interpretations of what that wording means, and
>not to the intentions which are claimed to lie behind it. There have been
>several recent examples of politicians trying on the Boateng trick - only
>to be rebuffed. Boateng should, of course, know better.

The higher the court the more attention they pay to the intent of the
law, not the wording. In a recent judicial review the judges ruled
that parking adjudicators have discretion and don't need to interpret
the letter of the law. This came about from a case where a woman paid
for the London Congestion Charge online but incorrectly entered her
car's registration number.

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 16/07/2006 14:42 +0100:
>
> The courts pay - and are supposed to pay - no attention at all to what
> ministers claim the law is about. They pay close attention to the
> wording of the law and to judicial interpretations of what that wording
> means, and not to the intentions which are claimed to lie behind it.
> There have been several recent examples of politicians trying on the
> Boateng trick - only to be rebuffed. Boateng should, of course, know
> better.

Is the wrong answer. The Courts often look into the legislative intent
of Parliament to assist their interpretation of the legislation and
reference to what ministers said at the time is relevant to that. That
is very different from Executive interference in the operation of the
Judiciary.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:05:11 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

> Just as it remains illegal to do 31mph in a 30mph limit or 71mph on the
> motorway but you won't be prosecuted for that either even though lots of
> people do it.

Umm untrue.

http://www.radar-detectors.co.uk/news_anger_as_31mph_driver_is_handed_60_police_penalty.asp

Note that the driver *was* issued with a notice of intended prosecution and
it took a campaign to overthrow the decision to prosecute. So it's not at
all true to assert that one will not be prosecuted thought it may be true
to say that a court would be unlikely to convict.

However, having visited magistrates courts several times both in a
professional capacity and for my education, I consider that an abuse of
process at a magistrates court is highly likely. The bench is composed of
lay people who seem to react on a gut feeling as much as to evidence.

I was called as an expert witness for the defence in a speeding case to
testify to a magistrates court that the police had made a serious blunder,
in attempting to prosecute a motorist for speeding. The police officer in
question had used VASCAR incorrectly by relying on pre-programmed marks on
the road for the determination of speed. However he had entered the wrong
selection and the marks on the road were in fact at half the distance that
he believed they were. This lead to the person in question being prosecuted
for driving at >80mph in a 50 limit, which would normally lead to a ban.

His actual speed was 44mph, well within the speed limit, yet the court was
at first unwilling to accept the (impartial) evidence that I provided that
showed the distance between the two marks was other than that given. The
distance was calculated using a surveyor's GPS and also using a Trumeter
and a measuring tape which all agreed. However the repeated assertion by
the police officer that he had made no mistake was taken at face value.

Eventually a skilled and expensive barrister managed to convince the
magistrates that they were ignoring the evidence and that he would pursue
this case for as long as necessary to get an acquittal and they caved in.
The CPS person was possibly the worst prepared I have ever encountered and
seemed both ignorant of the law and even correct procedure as she
constantly tried to introduce evidence of past convictions into evidence -
even the magistrates were shocked by this.

I was left wondering how many other drivers had been similarly prosecuted,
the location was extremely busy when I visited it and it was evidence to me
that any driver proceeding at any speed over 28mph would have faced a fine
and any over 40mph prosecution, for driving within the 50mph speed limit.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:02:02 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
wrote:

>> Just as it remains illegal to do 31mph in a 30mph limit or 71mph on the
>> motorway but you won't be prosecuted for that either even though lots of
>> people do it.
>
>Umm untrue.
>
>http://www.radar-detectors.co.uk/news_anger_as_31mph_driver_is_handed_60_police_penalty.asp

He wasn't prosecuted for his being 3.3% over the speed limit. Your
post simply supports Tony's assertion.

 

[Tony Raven]

Steve Firth wrote on 16/07/2006 16:02 +0100:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:05:11 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> Just as it remains illegal to do 31mph in a 30mph limit or 71mph on
>> the motorway but you won't be prosecuted for that either even
>> though lots of people do it.
>
> Umm untrue.
>
> http://www.radar-detectors.co.uk/news_anger_as_31mph_driver_is_handed_60_police_penalty.asp
>

No, an FPN is not a prosecution and in any case it was dropped.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:42:37 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Firth wrote on 16/07/2006 13:20 +0100:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:38:40 +0000 (UTC), Mark Thompson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The problem is, according to Paul Boateng, the Home Office Minister
>>>>>when fixed penalties were introduced, there IS an excuse:
>>
>>>>Paul Boateng is a useless here today gone tomorrow politician. I give his
>>>>opinion less weight that I do that of my local dustman.
>>
>>>The difference of course being that Mr Boateng was responsible for the
>>>relevant law and you and your dustman weren't which means that the
>>>Courts will pay attention to what Mr Boateng said but not you nor your
>>>dustman (unless you are directly involved in the case)
>>
>>The courts pay - and are supposed to pay - no attention at all to what
>>ministers claim the law is about. They pay close attention to the wording
>>of the law and to judicial interpretations of what that wording means, and
>>not to the intentions which are claimed to lie behind it. There have been
>>several recent examples of politicians trying on the Boateng trick - only
>>to be rebuffed. Boateng should, of course, know better.

> The higher the court the more attention they pay to the intent of the
> law, not the wording.

That'll be why the higher courts have thrown out so much of the current
government's intended interpretation of (certain) law, I suppose.

> In a recent judicial review the judges ruled
> that parking adjudicators have discretion and don't need to interpret
> the letter of the law. This came about from a case where a woman paid
> for the London Congestion Charge online but incorrectly entered her
> car's registration number.

That is simply an alternative reading of the letter of the law and has now
become as valid as any previous other reading of it. That's the way
case-law works.

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote on 16/07/2006 14:42 +0100:

>> The courts pay - and are supposed to pay - no attention at all to what
>> ministers claim the law is about. They pay close attention to the
>> wording of the law and to judicial interpretations of what that
>> wording means, and not to the intentions which are claimed to lie
>> behind it. There have been several recent examples of politicians
>> trying on the Boateng trick - only to be rebuffed. Boateng should, of
>> course, know better.

> Is the wrong answer. The Courts often look into the legislative intent
> of Parliament to assist their interpretation of the legislation and
> reference to what ministers said at the time is relevant to that. That
> is very different from Executive interference in the operation of the
> Judiciary.

....is the *actual* wrong answer.

The poster appears not to appreciate the difference between ministers and
Parliament. Ministers are not spokesmen for Parliament. He is not alone in
that of course - the current crop of ministers appear to have the same failing.

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 16/07/2006 16:31 +0100:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote on 16/07/2006 14:42 +0100:
>
>>> The courts pay - and are supposed to pay - no attention at all to
>>> what ministers claim the law is about. They pay close attention to
>>> the wording of the law and to judicial interpretations of what that
>>> wording means, and not to the intentions which are claimed to lie
>>> behind it. There have been several recent examples of politicians
>>> trying on the Boateng trick - only to be rebuffed. Boateng should, of
>>> course, know better.
>
>> Is the wrong answer. The Courts often look into the legislative
>> intent of Parliament to assist their interpretation of the legislation
>> and reference to what ministers said at the time is relevant to that.
>> That is very different from Executive interference in the operation
>> of the Judiciary.
>
> ....is the *actual* wrong answer.
>
> The poster appears not to appreciate the difference between ministers
> and Parliament. Ministers are not spokesmen for Parliament. He is not
> alone in that of course - the current crop of ministers appear to have
> the same failing.

See for example Justice Laddie in Michaels v Taylor Woodrow (2001)

"the courts are trying to implement the presumed intention of
Parliament. If Parliament has considered the question 'what relief
should be available to a person harmed by breach of this legislation?'
and has furnished an express answer, it is not for the courts to
legislate other forms of relief . . . If no relief is specified then the
court again has to decide what was the legislative intent. It may be
that, from a consideration of the whole of the Act and the history of
the legislation, the legislative intent is found to be not to give any
rights of action to harmed individuals at all. But where no relief is
specified the court may be more willing to assume that the legislative
intent was that the common law should provide a cause of action".

What a Minister says, as the Member of Parliament usually taking the
legislation through Parliament, would definitely count in "the history
of the legislation". There have been numerous recent instances where
Ministers have made clear that some of the literal consequences of a
Golden Rule interpretation of the legislation laid before Parliament are
not intended and should not be prosecuted.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:29:28 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> The higher the court the more attention they pay to the intent of the
>> law, not the wording.
>
>That'll be why the higher courts have thrown out so much of the current
>government's intended interpretation of (certain) law, I suppose.

My understanding of that is that they ruled the legislation or
ministerial rulings to be unlawful. I may be wrong, my reading of the
cases is limited.

 

[John Wright]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:26:35 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Steve Firth wrote on 16/07/2006 16:02 +0100:
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:05:11 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>> Just as it remains illegal to do 31mph in a 30mph limit or 71mph on
>>> the motorway but you won't be prosecuted for that either even
>>> though lots of people do it.
>>
>> Umm untrue.
>>
>> http://www.radar-detectors.co.uk/news_anger_as_31mph_driver_is_handed_60_police_penalty.asp
>>
>
>No, an FPN is not a prosecution and in any case it was dropped.

Only after a campaign supported by the Freight Transport Association.
Some people, without such support, might have caved in at the FPN
stage or the following one, which *is* a prosecution.
--
John Wright

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:31:43 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

> The Courts often look into the legislative intent
> of Parliament to assist their interpretation of the legislation

Which has nothing to do with a minister telling the courts what his opinion
of the intent of the legislation is.

Try again.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:24:28 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:02:02 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>> Just as it remains illegal to do 31mph in a 30mph limit or 71mph on the
>>> motorway but you won't be prosecuted for that either even though lots of
>>> people do it.
>>
>>Umm untrue.
>>
>>http://www.radar-detectors.co.uk/news_anger_as_31mph_driver_is_handed_60_police_penalty.asp
>
> He wasn't prosecuted for his being 3.3% over the speed limit. Your
> post simply supports Tony's assertion.

Heck you can make yourself look an **** by snipping out relevant comment,
and you just made yourself look like an ****.