television
Always remembered RIP
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2005
- Messages
- 164,073
- Reaction score
- 367
- Age
- 89
- Location
- Daventry
- Your Mercedes
- 2002 SL500, 216 CL500, all fully loaded
>
> 'NOT GUILTY' MOTORISTS FACE COURT COSTS
>
> Drivers acquitted of motoring charges will pay costs under new government
> scheme
>
> Could you afford to fight an unfair ticket?
>
> 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
>
<http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/research/2009/09/innocent-motorists-to-hav
e-reclaimed-legal-costs-slashed.html>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.
>
> To sign the petition:
> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
> __________________________________________
>
> 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
>
> 'NOT GUILTY' MOTORISTS FACE COURT COSTS
>
> Drivers acquitted of motoring charges will pay costs under new government
> scheme
>
> Could you afford to fight an unfair ticket?
>
> 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
>
<http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/research/2009/09/innocent-motorists-to-hav
e-reclaimed-legal-costs-slashed.html>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.
>
> To sign the petition:
> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/
> __________________________________________
>
> 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
>