Nissan Micra driver reconceptualises traffic laws

(By which I mean, the driver decided to drive on the left but on the wrong side of a dual carriageway.)  It’s easily done. 

Ahem.

From Cornwall Live 14/02/17:

Shocking footage has captured the moment a Nissan Micra driver was caught on camera driving the wrong way down the busy A30 at rush hour.

[Bus Driver Jimmers] Thomas told Cornwall Live: "This little car bumbled past obliviously. I was very lucky to meet it by a layby where the road was wider, it's unbelievable that nobody was hurt."

He added that the car had a chance to pull in, but didn't seem interest in stopping.

[Wannabe highway cameraman] Jason Griffiths also posted this scary video with some strong language from this morning to Facebook [.]

But my favourite response was from Tweeter Adrian Edwards who commented:

"OMG just had a near death expeireance we were driving up the A30 and suddenly there was a purple micra coming down the wrong way in the fast lane we only just missed it as there was a van in front of us had ivy in the car too shit me up big time I'm shaking !!!!!"

And just to prove it, here’s a screenshot of the tweet.

Mr Edwards was left so ‘shit up’ (or should that be shat?), that his attention to punctuation deserted him. But that’s pretty much the norm for virtually all exchanges on social media these days. I think we were better off in the days of ‘textspeak’.

And what became the driver of the offending Micra, you ask.

Police said a 58-year-old woman from the St Merryn area, near Padstow, was taken into custody.

How a solicitor could save your driving licence

Guest Post

So you’ve joined the ranks of thousands of other motorists who’ve been charged with drink driving. Although you may think it’s the end of your hopes and dreams for the future, all is not lost. By hiring the kind of solicitor who knows their law on this subject, it could not only save you from a disqualification but also time, money and stress .

Click here to find out the limits across breath, blood and urine in England and Wales Here are some of the ways that a motoring solicitor could save your bacon.

1) They can explain your charges in plain English

There’s a lot of jargon where drink driving law is concerned, and it can often leave you confused about what your actual charge is.

A drink driving solicitor will be able to explain everything to you simply, and answer any queries you have regarding your charge. For example, people can get confused over the difference between being “drunk in charge” and “drink driving”.

You may not be aware that you can be arrested and charged for an alcohol-related motoring offence, even if you had not been driving. In this case, the police can require you to provide specimens, and the same procedures apply to you as for a drink driving offence. There are a range of sentencing options for this charge though, so it’s always best to talk to your solicitor.

2) They can spot any potential for a defence

When you sit down with your drink driving solicitor and relay your side of the story, they’ll be able to spot issues which may not seem important but, in actual fact, could be the difference between keeping or losing your licence. This is why it’s absolutely vital that you try to recall as much about an incident as humanly possible, as soon as you’re in the position to do it. It’s only natural that your memory will start to fade about an accident, and the slightest piece of information could be vital.

For example, after being involved in an accident, were you taken to hospital? Can you recall how the procedure was carried out? Were you in a position to provide fully informed consent to the provision of a blood sample? A procedural error on the part of the police may have occurred upon which a defence to the charge may be based.

3) They can instruct the best forensic experts to provide evidence which supports your case

In drink driving cases, expert evidence in relation to the performance of the breath testing device, alcohol levels or medical issues may be important to support your defence. A specialist drink driving solicitor such as at drinkdrivesolicitor.com should have the expertise required to recognise which expert to instruct in your case.

Never underestimate what your solicitor will be able to do for you. Have you been to see a drink driving solicitor for an offence? Let me know your experiences.

Woman jailed for excessive ‘vocalising’ during sex

From the Metro 01/06/15:

Gemma Wale [or is that wail? ;-) ] 23, was ordered to serve two weeks behind bars for breaching an ASBO.

A court heard how she ‘screamed and shouted’ at a level of noise which had offended neighbours during a ten minute romp at her house in Small Heath, Birmingham.

The court heard Birmingham City Council took legal action after neighbour Ghazala Bibi, 40, complained about loud sex noises coming from her home.

Mrs Bibi said in evidence: ‘Gemma started screaming and shouting whilst having sex, which woke us up. This lasted ten minutes.’

In a written judgement Judge Kelly said an anti-social behaviour order had barred Wale from making ‘loud sex noises’ at her home in Hob Moor Lane [which she had breached during a session of raucous hanky panky in the early hours of 29 January].

Here, according to the Metro, is the love shack where Gemma Wale wailed like a trooper in breach of her ASBO. Looks romantic, doesn’t it?

I suppose It would have been pointless for a police officer to have attended the scene to ask her to come quietly.

  Ahem!

Sorry folks: I can’t take the credit for that one. It’s from an episode of classic nineties comedy, The Thin Blue Line, in which the police receive a complaint from a neighbour about loud sex noises made by the ‘noisy nympho at number nine’.

The parallels to this story are uncanny. 

In that episode, resident joker D.C. Kray -- probably the best character in the show -- helpfully suggested that his uniformed colleague should “put the handcuffs on her ankles – that’d solve the whole thing”.

Worth considering, perhaps. I’m not sure how it would square with PACE, though.

Broadchurch creator comes out fighting to defend second series

I came to the Broadchurch party much later than most (in fact, only since earlier this year), but I’ve watched series one and two twice now. It’s one of the best things I’ve seen in a long time.

For what it’s worth, I’m also giving Gracepoint a bash – the bizarre and spectacularly bad remake of Broadchurch, re-engineered to be spoon-fed to American audiences. From the uninspiring location, poor casting, and a complete lack of chemistry between any of the actors, it’s a very poor imitation. On top of all that, David Tennant’s laughably bad American accent - which slips more often than it stays - pretty much drives that final nail home. Seriously: just don’t bother. I bet Tennant wishes he hadn’t as well.

^{10-part mystery? The only mystery is why it was commissioned in the first place.}

Now the dust has settled from series two of Broadchurch, its creator, Chris Chibnall, has come out in combative fashion to defend his baby from the tirade of indignation produced in response to certain aspects of Joe Miller’s trial.

From the Guardian 04/03/15:

This series of Broadchurch, just like the first, garnered plenty of media coverage and opinions. After the early storms (Mumblegate! Music-too-loud-gate! Ratings-wobble-gate!), […] there’s one issue I do want to address: Legalgate!

There’s been plenty of discussion over the accuracy of our portrayal of the trial process. Some argued our court story would never happen. Our research and advisors suggested otherwise.

The story was devised as the result of months of research and consultation. […] The shape and detail of the series was based on their responses. As I wrote, all three advisers (legal and police) were continually consulted. They read and gave notes on every script.

Broadchurch has always been about the impact of crime, on all those affected. The research made me wonder how our characters would fare under the rigours and vagaries of a trial. What’s the emotional cost to witnesses and the families of victims in an adversarial system? It was a story I hadn’t seen and one I wanted to explore.

I knew it would be a big risk to develop and reshape the show this way. […] That choice meant complex procedure had to be compressed. […] Murder trials often last around four weeks. So exact process and wording has to be dramatised.

That’s not a scandal: it’s a legitimate dramatic technique. Drama is not a literal portrayal of events. It’s a depiction, it’s impressionistic.

Oooh. I can already sense criminal lawyers up and down the country smarting over that final comment. A TV show daring to stray from a faultlessly accurate portrayal of the English criminal justice system? Whatever next?

I’m not sure Chibnall needed to dignify the critics’ objections with a response, frankly. I don’t think I would have. People are always inclined to get their panties in a bunch over these things and lawyers are more guilty of it than most. Social media makes it all too easy.

Despite all the noise, despite the fact we took a big creative risk in our second series, our audience of more than nine million came with us, and stayed. […] Some enjoyed the second series less than the first: that’s definitely allowed. We’re now working on the third series. It will be different again. There’ll be plenty more to discuss.

So it’s pretty clear that Hardy didn’t get into that taxi at the end of series two (he finally buttoned his collar and straightened his tie for nothing, then).  But where might the story go from here? Here are some of my thoughts.

*** BIG SPOILER ALERT … I MEAN, REALLY BIG ***
(Don’t read any further if you haven’t seen series one and two.)

The Sandbrook trials are held. There’s got to be at least one ‘not guilty’ plea in there. The show’s anything but predictable after all.

There’s a significant new crime to solve (or at least cause for some more off-duty sleuthing by Hardy and Miller). Given that the Tennant-Colman interplay seems to be the backbone of the show - and the only thing to be universally praised throughout the two series - the storyline of series three has to provide enough room to accommodate more of Hardy and Miller’s inimitable set pieces.

Joe Miller comes back. How could he not? And I’ve a sneaky feeling he’ll want access to his kids. Maybe he’s also going to want Ellie to pay for her role in banishing him from the town.

Joe Miller’s guilt or innocence is confirmed. For a while now, I’ve had an inkling it was Tom Miller who killed Danny and Joe confessed to take the rap for his son. Stranger things have happened. Or what if Tom’s younger brother, Fred, did a ‘Bobby Beale’ on poor Danny? Ok – that one’s less likely, I admit.

The postman killed Danny. What were he and Danny arguing about back in series one? That was never explained, was it?

The prosecution’s contention was correct and Mark Latimer did indeed kill his son and it was Nige Carter (‘that other bald bloke’) who was seen moving the body. Mark’s ‘I-was-writing-a-letter-to-my-wife-saying-our-marriage-was-over’ thing, all after a one-off bonk with another woman on the back seat of her car, never rang true.

In a similar vein, Hardy and Miller were having an affair, and did plot to put Joe away. But that still doesn’t explain who killed Danny.

All of the protagonists were responsible for Danny’s murder – a la Murder on the Orient Express? You never know.

Whatever series three has in store, I sense it’s going to be quite a ride.

It’s a hard knot life

Guest Post
Japanese Knotweed has received some legislative attention recently, perhaps due to recent media interest in how it is affecting the value of properties. The new Anti-Social, Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 seeks to address the issue where homeowners do not tend to the issue of knotweed on their property. According to the legislation homeowners might fall foul of the Act where they do not act reasonably to control or prevent the growth of knotweed.

Under the Act a Community Protection Notice can be issued by a local authority or the police, where the homeowner actions are a) ‘having a detrimental effect, of a continuing and persistent nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality’ and/or b) the homeowner acts ‘unreasonably’. Moreover, a failure to act also falls under conduct that is classed as ‘unreasonable’. The notice, therefore, now requires an individual to control or eradicate the knotweed on their property and breaching the notice without a reasonable excuse is a criminal offence. The notice must state: (1) what the action is that is having a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality; (2) a requirement that such actions will cease; and (3) that the homeowner will treat this INNS (Invasive Non-Native Species) within a specific time and prevent any future occurrence. The notice should also state that sanctions include a fixed penalty of £100 and on summary conviction a fine of £2,500 for individuals and £20,000 for organisations.

An individual or a body can activate a "community trigger" to request that the local authority deal with a persistent or previously ignored anti-social behaviour problem when their case meets a locally defined threshold. This could apply to knotweed or any other INNS. The local authority has a duty to undertake a case review and consider what action they can take to resolve the problem when someone activates the trigger. The local authority can still carry out a case review where the threshold has not been met, based on factors such as the persistence of the problem, the harm (or potential harm) caused, or the adequacy of response from agencies.  

The question remains as to whether this legislation is actually necessary, with one blogger describing it as ‘using a sledge hammer to crack a nut’.  It is hard to understand what the Act can achieve that the law of private nuisance cannot. The power to bring action against one disrupting your reasonable enjoyment of your land has always rested with the individual, it is difficult to see what basis there is for this new legislation.  In addition the new power does not address any damage that a private individual may have suffered.  If an individual wished to claim for damage that he had suffered personally then he would have use the common law of nuisance and or negligence to get redress.

So where does this new legislation leave us? With the threat of an ASBO for knotweed on top of potential private enforcement it is only likely to increase the stigma attached to properties affected by knotweed and cause even greater diminution of value as potential buyers seek to avoid affected properties at all costs.  

Rodger Burnett, Japanese Knotweed Claims

Pringle Criminal

From BBC News 07/11/14:

A man has been ordered to pay almost £500 in fines and costs for dropping a snack lid on the ground in Bristol.

Gareth Daniel, 31, of Humberstan Walk, was seen by a PCSO dropping a Pringles lid in Lawrence Weston, in April.

Bristol magistrates heard he failed to pay a £75 fixed penalty notice, so a final warning was sent. He was taken to court and the fine was raised to £200.

Mr Daniel must also pay costs totalling £298.75. The council said it "would not tolerate littering on any scale".

Well said that man. Littering is a slippery slope towards certain ruin and it represents so much of what’s wrong with modern society.

Incidentally, don’t you think I’ve done well to avoid any references to ‘popping and stopping’? I suspect Pringles have got a more twenty first century slogan now – probably with a wretched smartphone app to boot.

And talking of litter, whatever happened to the humble litter pick? As a primary school kid in 1990s, I remember them being all the rage – a term rarely went by when we weren’t picking up empty crisp packets from the surrounding hedgerows or the nearby beach.

I’m not sure quite what we learnt by wandering around with bin liners, but to this day, I know that if I ever see a spent hypodermic needle on the ground, I must leave it alone and tell a teacher.

Not an entirely wasted exercise then.

And I’m sure clearing up the mess of others did wonders for our moral fibre. It was good preparation for life as a lawyer too.

Wine Fraud: An Escalating Problem

Guest Post
Wine fraud has been a problem for about as long as wine has been produced and enjoyed. Even Pliny the Elder, the Ancient Roman philosopher, complained about it – there was so much fraudulent wine that even the nobles couldn’t be sure what they were drinking. And the problem has only got worse as time has gone by. But what exactly is wine fraud, and can it be combatted?

What Is Wine Fraud?

There are a few different varieties of wine fraud, but they all involve the same outcome: the customer ends up paying well over the odds for a wine of a much poorer quality than they’d expected.

Sometimes, the wine is adulterated – cheap products like fruit juices, chemicals and sweeteners can be added to the wine to help improve the substandard colour or flavour. Some instances of wine fraud are even simpler than that: the label of a cheap wine will be steamed off, and replaced with the label of a much more expensive variety.

There have even been a few cases in which an entire auction consignment of rare fine wines has turned out to be entirely fraudulent, costing people a massive amount of money for a few bottles of a wine that’s barely worth drinking. Wine Spectator magazine estimates that more than 5% of auctioned wine is counterfeit.

Notable Cases of Wine Fraud

Just this year, there have been two massive wine fraud cases. In September, a probe into an elaborate fraud operation uncovered well over 200,000 bottles’ worth of fake Brunello di Montalcino. A wine connoisseur had obtained fake labels of the Tuscan wine and managed to falsify certification in the area’s wine database, and was selling low-quality wine to local producers, passing it off as the coveted Brunello.

Luca Albertario, the chief of Siena police, stated that it was “the biggest fraud ever carried out in the food sector.” 220,000 bottles of poor wine was confiscated before it could go on the market; it wine would have sold for around £4m. The US – the world’s biggest importer of Brunello – stopped all imports of the wine until they were satisfied that good quality controls were in place.

In August, Rudy Kurniawan – one of the world’s top oenologists – was jailed for ten years and ordered to pay almost $30m in restitution. Kurniawan had sold more than $20m of fake wine over a decade or so, most of which was to just seven clients.

His deception was discovered in 2012, when a consignment of his (worth $3m) was rejected by the wine inspector at Hart Davis Hart auction house. Allan Frischman noticed some inaccuracies on the labels, and Kurniawan’s lies came to light. He had been blending cheap recent wines with substandard vintages, and passing them off as more prestigious varieties. For more on this, an authoritative independent wine merchant, Yapp Brothers provided more details of this within their ‘what is a fair sentence for wine fraud?’ post.

What Can Be Done to Combat Wine Fraud?

There are a number of ways to tell whether a wine is the genuine article or not, without having to open the bottle. Most of these methods involve looking for inconsistencies – the wrong kind of glass, a foil capsule instead of a wax one, labels using an incorrect font – but there are other ways being developed.

For wines currently being produced, some producers have started engraving serial numbers on the glass, or tightening the reins on their distribution processes. For older varieties, stable isotope analysis is being employed.

Car tax – is it an offence to fail to display a valid tax disc?

(As distinct from paying the relevant rate of tax for the vehicle in question.)

***UPDATE***  The law concerning the display of tax discs in vehicles in England and Wales changed on 1 October 2014.  The summary of the legal position in the post below is as the law was in June 2014.

Judging from my site stats, there seem to be a lot of drivers out there who are curious on this subject. So I thought a specific post might be in order. I’m helpful like that. :p

It’s generally well known that motorists who use a car (or leave it parked) on a public road must have paid the car tax that applies to their car and display the tax disc on the windscreen. Failing to do so is a criminal offence. I say this because there are numerous comments left on motoring and self-righteous (ahem) self-help forums on the web, confidently asserting that drivers will ‘get done’ for not displaying a valid tax disc for their vehicle when on public roads.

Lovely. But where is this set out?

The relevant law relating to car tax (or vehicle excise duty as it’s formally known) is principally set out under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (“VERA”).

Section 29 of VERA provides:

29 Penalty for using or keeping unlicensed vehicle.

(1) If a person uses, or keeps, a vehicle which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) a vehicle is unlicensed if no vehicle licence or trade licence is in force for or in respect of the vehicle.

Section 33 (1) of VERA provides:

A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he uses, or keeps, on a public road a vehicle in respect of which vehicle excise duty is chargeable, and

(b) there is not fixed to and exhibited on the vehicle in the manner prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State a licence for, or in respect of, the vehicle which is for the time being in force.

Good show. And those regulations are the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 (“RVRs”)

Regulation 6 (4) of the RVRs states:

The licence shall be exhibited on the vehicle—

(c) in the case of any vehicle fitted with a glass windscreen in front of the driver extending across the vehicle to its near side, on or adjacent to the near side of the windscreen [.]

Regulation 6 (5) states:

In each case referred to in paragraph (4), the licence shall be so exhibited that all the particulars on the licence are clearly visible in daylight from the near side of the road.

So there you go.

In summary: not having tax for a car which is used or parked on a public road is an offence – as is not displaying the tax disc.

Note: there are certain exceptions to the offence of being the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle (such as the ‘grace period’ between licences), but I’m not getting into that now. If you’re interested, look at section 31B of VERA.

Enforcement of car tax is typically carried out by HMRC (by means of third party enforcement agencies) and the police - almost invariably by the relevant agency cross-checking the vehicle’s registration plate against the relevant national computer. The days of the wooden-topped bobby peering over at the vehicle’s tax disc are largely gone – hence the government’s decision last year to abolish the concept of tax discs and move the vehicle tax regime into the 21st century.

Above The Law: How The Rich Can Buy Themselves Out Of Trouble

Guest Post

Image from: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8110/8496877807_4089b9864e_o.jpg 

16 year old Ethan Crouch attained notoriety when he killed four people and seriously injured two in a devastating drunk driving incident. Instead of receiving jail time, Crouch was sentenced to spending an undefined amount of time in a luxury rehabilitation facility. His probation is limited to 10 years, during which he has to refrain from consuming drugs or alcohol and cannot drive.

Psychologists blamed the wealthy, privileged parents for overly coddling and letting the kid run wild without restrictions. The judge maintains that this assessment didn’t play a part in her ruling.

 The rehabilitation centre, which costs a massive $450,000 a year, will be paid for by Crouch’s parents. If Crouch breaks the terms of his probation, he could face up to ten years in jail, but otherwise, he won’t have to spend any time in a juvenile prison.

 Crouch obviously had some top motoring lawyers, working on his case.

 Irreparable Damage

Prosecutors called for the maximum 20 year sentence and were shocked when Crouch received no jail time at all. Sergio Molina and Soliman Mohmand were knocked around in Crouch’s car on impact – Mohmand received internal injuries and broken bones, whereas Molina is likely to be paralysed for life. Molina’s family have already amassed one million dollars in medical costs and will have to constantly care for Sergio from now onwards.

Even though Crouch’s blood-alcohol levels were three times over the legal limit, Crouch has shown no remorse for what he’s done and didn’t apologise for the incident. A little remorse on his part would have at least marginally comforted the victims.

It’s hoped that Crouch will get the therapy he needs at the centre, rather than none behind bars. But for Eric Boyles (who lost his wife and daughter in the incident), and Sergio Molina’s family (who now have to look after their paralysed son), this doesn’t go far enough. They believe that Crouch was given a forgiving sentence because he could afford the expensive defence team, experts to comment on the case, and the rehabilitation fees.

Mr Loophole

Rich members of society have always gotten off lightly, when it comes to driving offences. Mr Loophole, Nick Freeman, is famous for getting celebrities off the hook (if they can afford him). Most recently, Coronation Street actress Barbara Knox. Some other famous clients include Alex Ferguson (who avoided a traffic jam by driving down the hard shoulder of a motorway), Andrew Flintoff (accused of driving 87mph in a 50mph zone), David Beckham (again, speeding), and Jimmy Carr (spotted on his mobile phone).

Celebrities are often caught committing crimes, but rarely go to jail. Is this because they have the money for expensive lawyers? Wealth undoubtedly plays a part in the justice system, but this can’t be fair. When it comes to legal sentencing, the poor and the rich should receive equal treatment, otherwise justice isn’t justice. If Crouch had been from deprived circumstances, would he receive the same punishment? Are the rich really above the law? 

How to Protect Yourself from Money Laundering

Guest Post

^{Graphic from: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Credit-cards.jpg}

Purely by providing your bank account to facilitate money laundering, you’re acting illegally. Unfortunately, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, leading to potential jail time, unless your money laundering solicitor provides a credible defence against your apparent misdemeanours.

Be wary of any job offers that have come from nowhere, especially if they are based overseas – you will struggle to verify their legitimacy if they’re not based in this country. Always check that the company that you’re dealing with is legitimate and trustworthy. Never give away your bank details to an organisation that you don’t trust and know.

As soon as you start feeling suspicious about money laundering, contact your bank. If you’ve been given an opportunity to make ‘easy money,’ it’s likely to be too good to be true. Although each job position may be advertised differently, you will specifically have to hand over your bank account details to receive and move money.

Sometimes it can be initially challenging to spot a money laundering scheme. Always be wary about adverts that are full of poor English or contain obvious grammar and spelling mistakes. If you receive any emails which look like a scam, do not click on any of the links in the text and delete the correspondence.

Drunk woman nearly killed stone dead

(As distinct from being killed stone alive.)

From BBC News 20/03/14:

A Londonderry woman, who was captured on camera being left in a bus lay-by by two police officers while incapacitated, has called for the officers to be sacked.

Bridget Mongan, 23, admits being drunk at the time, but said the officers should have left her on the pavement.

"My boyfriend was arrested and I got a bit upset," said Ms Mongan.

"I could have been killed stone dead.

Because being killed can result in you being left in some other condition, of course. Ahem.

"I don't remember how I ended up lying on the road. I don't remember a whole lot," she added.

That stands to reason, I guess.

Assuming the officers did in fact leave Mongan floundering around in a drunken stupor at a bus stop, I’m surprised they’d be willing to take the risk. As well as potentially committing an offence under the Irish equivalent of the Road Traffic Act by causing danger to other road users, it’s also very likely that the officers would be exposing themselves (and their employers) to civil liability through claims for negligence.

Handcuffing her to a lamppost while she ‘slept it off’ would have been a much safer bet.

Lousy Legislation and Miller’s Malapropism

Maria Miller MP’s speech on the rights and responsibilities of the internet age was published online earlier today.

Having a mooch through it, I spotted a bit of a howler.  Given that the context relates to child abuse online, the slip, if that’s the best term for it, was very unfortunate indeed.

In tackling child abuse online, the new National Crime Agency is bringing greater resources to bare [sic].

Really? Isn’t it, ‘to bear’?

And talking of howlers, I’m not sure I agree with her claim that English law, as it relates to the relatively recent phenomenon of social media, exists as a ‘strong and durable framework’. In fact, it’s anything but.

Quoting again from the speech:

The internet isn’t a ‘Second Life’, it isn’t something where different rules apply, where different behaviour is acceptable – it isn’t the wild west.

To put it simply the rules that apply offline are the same rules that apply online.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

The same already applies on social media

The legislation is already in place. And we have the guidelines by the Attorney General on contempt of court - and the Director of Public Prosecution’s on prosecutions involving social media communications – put together they present a strong and durable framework.

Outdated, ill-adapted and unclear would have been a more apt description of the law in my opinion.

Taking just one example from an inordinately long list, what about the bewildering duplication between section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communication Act 1988?

Does that sound like a strong and durable framework to you? Lousy legislating more like.

Let’s stop pretending that papering over the cracks with ‘guidance’ is an adequate substitute for proper public debate, consultation and legislative reform.

Because that’s what’s clearly needed.

Motoring law – Speeding and New Drivers

Guest PostDoes a speeding fine matter if I’ve a clean licence? Well, apart from the fine it can have a bigger effect than you thought if you only passed your test in the last 2 years. If you’re still on a provisional licence courts may take an even dimmer view

If you’ve passed your test fairly recently you will want to keep your new licence shiny and clean as long as possible. Fairly clearly, not breaking the speed limit is a very good start but that’s not always as easy as it sounds. If you drive a car or motorcycle we’re all familiar with the speed limits of 30 mph in a built up area, 60 on single carriageways and 70 on dual carriageways and motorways. If you’re towing a caravan or trailer you can take off 10 mph from each limit over 30. What often catches drivers out though are the local limits that are imposed on stretches of road by specific signs. Repeater signs are not always used or not used very frequently so can be easy to miss.

If you are accused of speeding, the best outcome is that the police decide to let you off with a warning. Abdul Ali of DFR Solicitors said “How you come across to the police can have a significant impact on this so think and act carefully if you are stopped.” If, however, the charge is pursued and you are found guilty you will face a minimum penalty of a £100 fine (up from its previous £60) and 3 penalty points added to your licence. Any penalty points or endorsements must stay on your driving licence for 4 years, (possibly 11 depending on the offence).

The fine itself is not a cheap impact, however, it may end up being a lot worse than this over the coming years.

Even without picking up further penalty points you can find you are out of pocket more than the £100 fine. Insurance companies in the past tended to generally ignore the first 3 or 6 penalty points but they are now starting to pay attention to any penalty points picked up by younger and newer drivers. This means that at your next renewal, and renewals for the following 3 years, you can find that you’re paying a premium to the insurance companies for that one offence. This can easily add up to 4 times the initial fine.

According to gov.uk “If you only recently passed your driving test – within the last 2 years, your driving licence will be revoked (withdrawn) if you build up 6 or more penalty points rather than the normal 12 for more for more experienced drivers.” So just a single 3 pointer has already taken you halfway there.

If you’ve picked up penalty points on a provisional licence any that haven’t expired when you do pass your test will be carried over to your full licence. The same rules then apply as above – if you reach 6 points within 2 years of passing you’ll lose your licence.

All this means that it makes a lot of sense to engage specialist legal advice if you’ve only passed your test within the last 2 years, even though it’s “just” a first offence. Specialist solicitors will work hard to ensure you aren’t found guilty in the first place. If it looks as though you will be found guilty, as a very useful alternative they can often make a reasoned argument for you to take up a specific driver training course instead. All this can save you much bigger costs and problems ahead.

Connubial Chaos – it started with a kiss

Actually, it started with a water pistol and a pork pie. Like all true love stories, right?

From the Telegraph 17/02/14:

A couple's wedding celebrations were interrupted by a brawl that is thought to have started over a pork pie.

Officers from the dog section at West Yorkshire Police tweeted that they were on the way to the ''large fight'' in Bradford which led to three arrests.

The tweet said: ''All started over a pork pie apparently!''

Ah. The food for the reception must have been selected from the ‘garage snack’ range rather than the gourmet menu. More shopping cart than a la carte.

Around 30 to 40 wedding guests were involved in the disturbance at the wedding of Wendy Carter and her fiance Ryan Barraclough.

Chris Sowden, 43, steward at the Harold Club said: "People had been drinking since 2pm.

The class of a traditional English wedding!

"It all started with a water pistol then a pork pie got thrown.

It beats confetti I suppose.

"It was completely out of control and by the end about 30 to 40 guests had got involved.

"The bride was devastated. Her dress was ruined, she had a lovely big white gown and it had beer and WKD all over it.

Thank God no champagne was wasted in the brawl, that’s all I can say.

"Mostly people had some cuts and bruises but one of the women involved the initial fight had her cheek bitten and her ear bitten.

Sgt Claire Smith, of Tong and Wyke Neighbourhood Policing Team, said: "Two arrests were made for assault and one for a public order matter."

The public order arrest resulted in a fixed penalty and the other two people were bailed pending further enquiries.

I wonder if the bride and groom honeymooned in Melton Mowbray?

Driver faces court after splashing schoolchildren with puddle

From the Telegraph 22/01/14:

A motorist is facing prosecution after he allegedly drenched children walking to their primary school by driving through a puddle.

He has been summonsed to appear before magistrates for driving without reasonable consideration over the incident, which was witnessed by a passing policeman.

The man faces a charge under a little-known provision covered by [section 3 of] the Road Traffic Act [1988], which makes it an offence to “drive through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed”.

Let’s be clear here: the Act itself does not contain a provision which expressly makes it an offence splash pedestrians by driving through puddles. However section 3 of the RTA provides:

Careless and inconsiderate driving
If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.

S3ZA of the RTA gives guidance as to the meaning of careless or inconsiderate driving. Further guidance is provided by the CPS by way of their 'Policy for prosecuting cases of bad driving'.

This gives the following examples of conduct appropriate for a charge of driving without reasonable consideration to be made out: flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way; misuse of any lane to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers; unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane; unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause; driving with undipped headlights that dazzle oncoming drivers; driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed; and driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.

“Driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers”. You what?!?  From my recollection of riding on a bus, most bus drivers operating in the country must be routinely guilty of committing this offence!

By virtue of section 3ZA(4) RTA, this offence is made out only if other road users are inconvenienced by the driving of the defendant. Evidence of such inconvenience may be provided either by the direct testimony of another road user, or by inference to be drawn from evidence of the reactions or behaviour of other road users.

Anyway, back to the story.

Debbie Pugh was walking her children, David, 8, and Emma, 11, to St George's Junior School in Colchester, Essex, when a motorist allegedly ran through a pool of water standing along the road.

They’re also known as ‘puddles’. Moving on.

She said: "We got soaked. My son was crying his eyes out. I was yelling obscenities at the driver.”

Classy.

A police car stopped and the officer spoke to her about what had happened.

Mrs Pugh said: "He said the puddle could have had a stone in it that could have hit us. I can laugh about it now because I have got a sense of humour but it wasn't funny when I was trying to get my children to school and keep them warm and dry."

I think all pedestrians have experienced being deliberately splashed by cars driving through puddles on wet days. When it’s raining, pedestrians are often faced with a dilemma: do they walk sensibly and with dignity by the larger puddles but run a greater risk of being splashed by a car or skip, hop or jump rather camply around them. I’ve faced many a soggy and ignominious trudge to work having made the wrong call in the past.

It’d be nice to think that a few more cases like this being brought to court will start to curb the behaviour of drivers who otherwise delight in making pedestrians’ lives even more of a misery than they need be.

I’m not particularly hopeful though.

Police station representation: what to do if you get arrested

Guest Post

Many of us don’t know our rights when it comes to interacting with the police, whether it’s being stopped and searched in the street or something more serious like being arrested. Even those who have been on the wrong side of the law on several occasions might not necessarily know what is the best practice in these situations.

If you’re arrested, though it  might be a time of heightened stress, try to keep calm and have in mind that you have a right to be treated fairly and with respect by the police. Panicking may cause you to say something that might jeopardise your case and resisting arrest can lead to injury and even more serious criminal charges.

Firstly, it’s important to remember that you are not required to say anything to the police when arrested and questioned. As you will have no doubt heard in plenty of movies and TV programmes, the arresting officer will usually say something along the lines of: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

At the station, it is usually recommended that you make “no comment” in response to questions and don’t write or sign a statement until you have spoken to a solicitor. You have the right to consult with a solicitor privately and are entitled to free police station representation by a legal professional. If you want to make the point clearly you can always say: "I have been advised that I should answer no questions. It is not right that I should have to give a complete case for myself until charges have been made and properly explained and until there are other people around to check that questions put to me are fair and legal. I will say nothing until I am advised to do so by a fully qualified legal advisor".

You should never refuse representation at a police station since evidence collected in any interview can be used against. Your solicitor will be able to advise you how to conduct yourself when being questioned. If you know of a solicitor, you can ask for them in person, otherwise the police custody offices have contact details of solicitors held by the ‘Duty Solicitor Call Centre’. When interviewed on tape, you can protect yourself by saying that your solicitor has advised you to make “no comment” - this way if your case has to go to court, the solicitor can take responsibility for offering poor advice and you will not be to blame for comments.

After an initial arrest and before you can be charged with an offence, police will often continue to investigate a crime to gain evidence which is then submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who will then advise the police what to do. Whether you are charged or not, there are several possible outcomes:

• You will be bailed back or released on bail, meaning you can go free but must return to the police station at a future date and time. Your bail might have certain conditions attached to it such as not being able to contact certain or having to hand in your passport. If police suspect you have skipped bail in the past or been convicted of a serious crime, you are less likely to be granted bail.
  
• You will be cautioned. This is a formal warning which is kept on record and can be used as evidence in future criminal proceedings.
  
• NFA or No Further Action means that you are free to go and no action will be taken against you unless further evidence comes to light.
  
• You can be charged and bailed. meaning that there is enough evidence to prove that you are guilty in court. This doesn’t mean you will be found guilty by a jury however. You will be given a court date and released, at which point it is advisable to seek legal advice.
  
• The worst case scenario involves you being charged and remanded in custody. This means you will be kept at the police station and taken to court as soon as possible for a hearing at the Magistrates’ court. Essentially, you will be in prison and can be remanded after this hearing, if for example you case is passed on to the Crown Court for trial or sentencing.  

This article is a guest post.

Goodwill to all: charity volunteer assaulted over Christmas greeting

From Las Vegas CBS Central 17/12/13:

A Salvation Army bell ringer claims she was assaulted by a woman for saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” outside of a Walmart.

Kristina Vindiola was ringing a bell outside of a Phoenix-area Walmart when she said “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” to a woman.

“The lady looked at me,” Vindiola explained to KNXV. “I thought she was going to put money in the kettle. She came up to me and said, ‘Do you believe in God?’ And she says, ‘You’re supposed to say Merry Christmas,’ and that’s when she hit me.”

What the woman did next caught Vindiola by surprise. She told KNXV that the woman hit her in the arm and proceeded to go inside the store to shop. Vindiola told a manager who called the police.

The surveillance video didn’t have enough evidence for Phoenix police to arrest the woman accused in the assault. However, Vindiola said she plans to take legal action.

As a non-American, I’ve always found the expression ‘Happy Holidays’ to be a little odd.  But, come on: punching someone because they used that phrase is a touch OTT – even in America.  

Why is it the original values behind celebrating Christmas seem to grow scarcer (and more alien to the modern world) as each year passes?

UK Drink Driving Law: Is Enough Done To Curb Deaths?

Guest PostWith the Christmas period quickly approaching, police forces all over the country step up their efforts to fight drink driving over concerns that too much enjoyment of the festive period (and all it brings) will inevitably lead to a rise in the crime. They’re not wrong to be concerned either – according to the Department for Transport, while deaths caused by drink driving have had a trend of steady decline in the last thirty years, last year’s statistics showed a rise of almost 30%.

It comes as no surprise, then, that there have been consistent calls this past year for tougher laws and regulations against a variety of driving offences – whether it’s drug/drink driving, or just using a mobile phone. There are plans to introduce stricter ‘drug driving’ laws next year (with harsher sentencing), Scotland plans to cut their limit by almost 50% and a victim’s sister has handed a petition to Downing Street calling for an immediate ban for those arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

A Steady Drop and a Sudden Rise: What’s Behind the Increase?
The RAC’s David Bizley has called these rises, which were announced earlier this year, a ‘call for concern’, and he’d be right to do so – while figures have shown a general decline since records began in 1979 (from 1,640 a year down to just 230 in 2011), last year’s figures showed a one of the first rise in almost a decade.

The reasons behind the rise are unclear, and it’s still lower than the figures from 2009 (as well as all years previously), but the suggestion seems to be that limits need changing and more effective enforcement of existing law is needed – both too high a limit and ineffective policing could be behind the cause.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (Rospa) has therefore called for a drop in the drink drive limit (recommendations have suggested lowering to 50mg per 100ml of blood) and for the government to re-evaluate their anti-drink driving campaigns, as well as to invest in tighter policing.

The Line between Lower Limits & Stricter Bans
A terrible case was brought to our attention once again recently as the sister of a student, who was killed by a drunk driver in 2010, submitted her 13,000-signature petition calling for a drastic change in law. As it stands, by default, those arrested and awaiting trial for a drink-related driving offence are still able to drive – a ban is to be handed down by a sentencing judge in the event a guilty plea is entered or guilty verdict is reached.

Of course, there are always going to be exception circumstances (like repeat offenders, High Risk Offenders, incredibly serious incidents etc.) and in these instances judges do have the power to ban anyone on bail. The Ministry of Justice have argued that, as a result, the powers already exist for judges to ban drivers in these most serious of cases.

A much lower drink driving limit could help to curb deaths, as well as result in harsher sentencing for what seems like a serious case but is not considered as such by law. As it stands, the UK’s alcohol limit is 80mg per 100ml of blood – while there are no plans for changes across the board, Scotland is going through legislative changes cut this by almost 40% to 50mg.

Automatic Bans – Not Considering ‘Special Reasons’?
However, a blanket ban could have adverse effects on either those who might later be found innocent, or those who are successfully able to argue exceptional hardship to appeal a ban. There are also special reasons to consider including drinks spiked/laced, or driving in an emergency (eg. if you’re fleeing from very real threats to your life).

Of course, incidents like the one above are absolutely awful, and shouldn’t ever happen – the man found guilty of causing the teenager’s death was, quite rightly, sentenced to four years in jail for death by careless driving. He was also almost twice the legal alcohol limit, so it’s perfectly understandable why the victim’s family felt the defendant’s ability to continue to drive while awaiting trial was ‘totally disrespectful’.

Nonetheless, the law has a duty to be fair and judges need the power to be able to make their own judgements (which is why the MoJ argue the powers already exist) – the appropriate line is a difficult one to find, especially with cases such as this and figures revealing a rise in deaths.

This guest post was written by Tom McShane – blogger and writer for drink driving specialists McMillans Drink Driving Solicitors. While all drink driving offences should be taken seriously, Tom hopes new legislation changes won’t fall down hard on innocent drivers or defendable cases.

Jimmy Savile Zombie pulled from Amazon

From Breaking News.ie 21/10/2013:

Yes, that's right - online retail giant Amazon have been forced to withdraw a Jimmy Savile Zombie Halloween costume from sale after a flurry of complaints.

[…] Jimmy Savile, the late UK TV presenter alleged to have sexually abused hundreds of young girls in the 1970s and 80s.

The costume, which had been available on Amazon for £14.99, included a metallic blue shell suit, pink glasses, medallion, fake cigar, platinum wig, face paint and a bottle of blood.

It was described on the site as "perfect for bad taste parties, dead celebrities and Halloween".

However the outfit was heavily criticised by children's charities and is now listed as 'currently unavailable'.

After all of the revelations of 2012, I think it would take a ‘special’ kind of person to wear a Jimmy Savile outfit – irrespective of the occasion. In fact, anybody who ever felt the need to dress up as him was probably making some kind of cry for help.

While I guess a human rights argument can always be wheeled out to support the notion that people should have free choice as to what they wear in public, there’s a broader public policy argument at play too. Quite aside from that, selling a Savile outfit is a PR disaster for any business and, for individuals, I can’t think of a graver example of poor taste. Actually, those words don’t even come close.

Inevitably, though, you’ve got to think there’ll come a time when the concept of a Savile costume becomes less repugnant, notwithstanding the fact his unique (read: warped) style of fashion was never exactly in vogue.  If people are now in the habit of attending fancy dress parties styled as Adolph Hitler, I’m sure we haven’t seen the last of the Jimmy Savile lookalikes.

Now that’s a disturbing thought.  Halloween is scary enough without that prospect.

More tweaks to the Dangerous Dogs Act

From: BBC News 09/09/13:

Dog owners will be safe from prosecution under revised dangerous dogs laws if their pet attacks someone trespassing in their home - even if the "intruder" is doing a good turn.

Ministers say dogs cannot be expected to "ascertain the intentions" of those entering a property before reacting.

The clarification comes in response to MPs who are scrutinising proposals to update the law in England and Wales.

The government plans to extend existing laws to cover dog attacks in homes.

It is currently updating the controversial 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act.

Ah yes – one of the most heavily criticised pieces of legislation that has ever been enacted!

In fact, in the seven years following the original enactment, there were 35 editorial items in the press that used the Dangerous Dogs Act as an example of bad regulation. And just in case there was any doubt of the extent of the criticism, a very interesting article* I came across sets the record straight:

In public debate the DDA has become a synonym for any unthinking reflex legislative response to media hype. Indeed, the Government's own Better Regulation Task Force (BRTF), the official arbiter of good and bad regulation, has condemned the Act.

Back to the trusty BBC article:

At present, the act covers only attacks by dogs in public places and private areas where animals are banned from being - such as a neighbour's garden or a park.

[D]og owners will not be able to be prosecuted if the victim was trespassing in their home.

In a response to MPs on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee - which has made a number of recommendations to ministers - the government rejected the idea of a similar exemption in relation to attacks on people trespassing in gardens or outhouses.

"A child retrieving a ball from a garden, or a neighbour retrieving garden cuttings, should be protected from dog attacks," officials said.

I think the drawing the distinction between those trespassing within a dwelling with those trespassing elsewhere is a sensible one (particularly when you consider the scenarios of a friendly neighbour retrieving hedge cuttings or a child collecting a lost ball given above).

However, I’ve long thought that it should be mandatory for all dog owners to erect signage of a specific size which is featured prominently at all likely entrances of premises where a dog is kept.

I accept the point that it’s more likely for a trespasser to have ill-intent if s/he enters a dwelling (compared to just a garden, say) and it’s therefore logical for the Act to not apply should a dog attack subsequently take place. However, we would be on much firmer ground – from a good regulation standpoint – if any trespasser who went on trespass within a dwelling did so knowing that a dog was on the premises.

After all, all dogs have the capacity to be dangerous, but often times you don’t find out which ones actually are until it’s too late.

* Hood, C., Baldwin, R. and Rothstein, H. 2000. Assessing the Dangerous Dogs Act: When does a regulatory law fail? Public Law, Summer 2000: 282-305.