Legality of electric powered scooters.



Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Marc

Guest
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> After going through the court system the drink driving charge was upheld.

Then I accept that that would be different, an argument was made, and was rejected.

--
Marc T Shirts, Sweatshirts, polo shirts, banners, signs,decals, stickers etc for clubs and
associations of all types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Then I accept that that would be different, an argument was made, and was rejected.

Found this on the status of motorised scooters which confirms they are regarded as motor vehicles
following a High Court ruling.

http://www.leics.gov.uk/community_services/press_releases/2003/01/13.htm

So he had the opportunity to plead not guilty and contest the blood alcohol test (tough), show he
had a license (extremely tough for a 16yr old) and that he was insured but not to contest whether
his scooter classified as a motor vehicle. I suspect in the circumstances he had no realistic chance
of sustaining a not guilty plea and pleaded guilty.

Tony
 
M

Michael Macclan

Guest
"marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1fpjsq1.i2oh9b1ms3u5jN%[email protected]...
> Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "marc" <[email protected]> wrote > Being charged can't be a miscarriage of justice and
> > as he pleaded guilty
> > > neither can the deciscion.
> >
> >
> > Well, what is it then when you plead guilty to a non-existent offence?
>
> Stupidity?
>
> > It doesn't sound like a fair carriage of justice to me.
>
> That's because you make the mistake of thinking that an offence was committed, simply because
> something has happened that somone was charged with. It's only an proved to be an offence when the
> verdict has been given.
>
>
snip
>
> --
> Marc T Shirts, Sweatshirts, polo shirts, banners, signs,decals, stickers etc for clubs and
> associations of all types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

Hey, you wash your typing fingers with carbolic soap or something. If you'd read what I wrote and
not what you wanted to read you'd have seen that I haven't mistakenly thought anything.

It might be "stupidity" to plead guilty to a non-existent offence but some people are easily
intimidated or conned.

In everyday language it's obviously a miscarriage of justice if someone is found guilty of a
non-existent offence. It seems very unlikely that this would happen, though. Is there a precedent?

Anyway, when you're not printing T-shirts I suppose you're a practising barrister are you?

Michael MacClancy
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but the scores on the doors only shows "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" there is no space for
> "wrong charge was brought and the wrong advice given", once the court says you are guilty you are
> "Guilty", whehter you did it or not is another thing entirely.

What is the function of the Court of Appeal and Home Office Review then?

Tony

http://www.raven-family.com

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" George
Bernard Shaw.
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
marc wrote:

> I'm sorry but the scores on the doors only shows "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" there is no space for
> "wrong charge was brought and the wrong advice given", once the court says you are guilty you are
> "Guilty", whehter you did it or not is another thing entirely.

OT: the Supreme Court in the US refused to intervene in the case of a man wrongly convicted of
murder, even though he had evidence of his innocence. Their judgement was IIRC that "actual
innocence was not a ground for review." Needless to say the state of Texas executed him anyway.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
 
G

Gavin Gillespie

Guest
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry but the scores on the doors only shows "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" there is no space for
> > "wrong charge was brought and the wrong advice given", once the court says you are guilty you
> > are "Guilty", whehter you did it or not is another thing entirely.
>
> What is the function of the Court of Appeal and Home Office Review then?
>

Or even the Judge, who would have been monitoring the case, and could have thrown it out before a
guilty verdict was given, if it did not comply with present legislation.
--
Gavin Gillespie Nottingham UK www.Giltbrook.co.uk www.LawrencesEastwood.co.uk
 
M

Marc

Guest
Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

> "marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1fpjsq1.i2oh9b1ms3u5jN%[email protected]...
> > Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "marc" <[email protected]> wrote > Being charged can't be a miscarriage of justice
> > > and as he pleaded guilty
> > > > neither can the deciscion.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, what is it then when you plead guilty to a non-existent offence?
> >
> > Stupidity?
> >
> > > It doesn't sound like a fair carriage of justice to me.
> >
> > That's because you make the mistake of thinking that an offence was committed, simply because
> > something has happened that somone was charged with. It's only an proved to be an offence when
> > the verdict has been given.
> >
> >
> snip
> >
> > --
> > Marc T Shirts, Sweatshirts, polo shirts, banners, signs,decals, stickers etc for clubs and
> > associations of all types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
>
> Hey, you wash your typing fingers with carbolic soap or something. If you'd read what I wrote and
> not what you wanted to read you'd have seen that I haven't mistakenly thought anything.

Then if it wasn't a mistake I can oly believe that you don't understand what your talking about . It
impossible to be guilty of a " non-existent offence" as soon as the guilty verdict arrives it shows
that the offence existed.
>
> It might be "stupidity" to plead guilty to a non-existent offence but some people are easily
> intimidated or conned.
>
> In everyday language it's obviously a miscarriage of justice if someone is found guilty of a
> non-existent offence.

No, it's impossible.

--
Marc T Shirts, Sweatshirts, polo shirts, banners, signs,decals, stickers etc for clubs and
associations of all types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
 
M

Marc

Guest
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> So he had the opportunity to plead not guilty and contest the blood alcohol test (tough), show he
> had a license (extremely tough for a 16yr old)

Not that difficult, I was driving legally , on my own , on the road with a licence at 16.

--
Marc T Shirts, Sweatshirts, polo shirts, banners, signs,decals, stickers etc for clubs and
associations of all types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> marc wrote:
>
> OT: the Supreme Court in the US refused to intervene in the case of a man wrongly convicted of
> murder, even though he had evidence of his innocence. Their judgement was IIRC that "actual
> innocence was not a ground for review." Needless to say the state of Texas executed him anyway.

I assume you are referring to the famous Schlup vs Delo in which case your quotation is highly
misleading. The Supreme Court was simply saying that the evidence he presented for his case to be
reviewed under the "Actual Innocence" rules was not sufficient to merit a review being granted , not
that he was known to be innocent but it didn't matter.

If you are interested the Supreme Court case and reasoning are available to read at
http://www.pilc.net/PDF/cert.PDF .

Although I share your distaste for the death sentence you may be relieved to know that he was not
executed and the sentence was commuted to life.

Tony
 
M

Michael Macclan

Guest
"marc" <[email protected]> wrote > >
> > In everyday language it's obviously a miscarriage of justice if someone
is
> > found guilty of a non-existent offence.
>
> No, it's impossible.
>

Please don't snip my posts to make me look stupid. You don't need to because I manage very well on
my own. If you persist with such actions you'll be labelled a troll.
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
Tony Raven wrote:

> I assume you are referring to the famous Schlup vs Delo in which case your quotation is highly
> misleading.

Nope - Herrera.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
 
M

Marc

Guest
Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

> "marc" <[email protected]> wrote > >
> > > In everyday language it's obviously a miscarriage of justice if someone
> is
> > > found guilty of a non-existent offence.
> >
> > No, it's impossible.
> >
>
> Please don't snip my posts to make me look stupid.

I will try not to , but it was a full sentence that I quoted, hardly a misrepresentation.

> You don't need to because I manage very well on my own.

LOL ! You and me both! :)

> If you persist with such actions you'll be labelled a troll.

You can label somone whatever you like , but it needs the other person to accept the label.
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It impossible to be guilty of a " non-existent offence" as soon as the guilty verdict arrives it
> shows that the offence existed.
>

Is the wrong answer! You don't allow for procedural or intepretation error which can be the basis
for an appeal.

Tony

http://www.raven-family.com

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" George
Bernard Shaw.
 
G

G.Harman

Guest
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:27:09 +0000, [email protected] (marc) wrote:

>Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So he had the opportunity to plead not guilty and contest the blood alcohol test (tough), show he
>> had a license (extremely tough for a 16yr old)
>
>Not that difficult, I was driving legally , on my own , on the road with a licence at 16.

Moped or Tractor?

When I was 16 Tractor included Combine Harvester ,maybe still does. Quite a large vehicle and with
rear wheel steering some what interesting to drive. One of those quirks that a 16 year old could
legally drive one but not a small scooter.

G.Harman
 
G

G.Harman

Guest
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:27:09 +0000, [email protected] (marc) wrote:

>Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So he had the opportunity to plead not guilty and contest the blood alcohol test (tough), show he
>> had a license (extremely tough for a 16yr old)
>
>Not that difficult, I was driving legally , on my own , on the road with a licence at 16.

Moped or Tractor?

When I was 16 Tractor included Combine Harvester ,maybe still does. Quite a large vehicle and with
rear wheel steering some what interesting to drive. One of those quirks that a 16 year old could
legally drive one but not a small scooter.

G.Harman
 
M

Marc

Guest
g.harman <[email protected]> wrote:

> >Not that difficult, I was driving legally , on my own , on the road with a licence at 16.
>
> Moped or Tractor?
>
> When I was 16 Tractor included Combine Harvester ,maybe still does. Quite a large vehicle and with
> rear wheel steering some what interesting to drive. One of those quirks that a 16 year old could
> legally drive one but not a small scooter.

Tractor.
 
G

Gavin Gillespie

Guest
"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I will try not to , but it was a full sentence that I quoted, hardly a misrepresentation.
>
> > You don't need to
> > because I manage very well on my own.
>
> LOL ! You and me both! :)
>
> > If you persist with such actions you'll be labelled a troll.
>
> You can label somone whatever you like , but it needs the other person to accept the label.

Not in this court, it doesn't ;o)
--
Gavin Gillespie Nottingham UK www.Giltbrook.co.uk www.LawrencesEastwood.co.uk
 
M

Marc

Guest
Gavin Gillespie <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > I will try not to , but it was a full sentence that I quoted, hardly a misrepresentation.
> >
> > > You don't need to
> > > because I manage very well on my own.
> >
> > LOL ! You and me both! :)
> >
> > > If you persist with such actions you'll be labelled a troll.
> >
> > You can label somone whatever you like , but it needs the other person to accept the label.
>
> Not in this court, it doesn't ;o)

Touche!
 
G

G.Harman

Guest
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:37:15 +0000, [email protected] (Marc) wrote:

>g.harman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >Not that difficult, I was driving legally , on my own , on the road with a licence at 16.
>>
>> Moped or Tractor?
>>
>>
>Tractor.

Likewise. I remember a very smug feeling when hauled up before the Headmaster as the sports master
had seen me apparently messing around with the grounds mans tractor.

I pointed out to him (this was late 1960's) that gray fergys were common beasts and that if i felt
like coming to school on mine( I got it in lieu of wages from a farmer I worked for at weekends much
to the annoyance of my Dad as it was newer than his.) instead of my bike as the roads were icy then
I would. Typical city dweller who had moved to a school surrounded by fields had never considered a
16 year old could hold a licence. Banned me from bringing it on school grounds,so i just arranged to
park it in the field next door. I always was an awkward cuss. Or is it that country dwellers see so
much real ******** they can handle any sort?

G.harman
 
Status
Not open for further replies.