RLJ > Straight to summons

[iviehoff]

Can't remember if it was Spike Milligan or Groucho Marx who, when asked to identify himself, looked in a mirror and said yes that's me....

Another tale of Spike Milligan and the police. I've borrowed this version of it from http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php? ... edic-hero/

One Christmas Peter Sellers was bought a Rolls Royce by his wife as a gift .
Sellers noticed there was a strange sound coming from the rear of the car when driving over bumps , so he phone Spike for assistance in tracking down the problem .
He turned up at Spike's late in the night , told him of the problem and his plan ..... Spike was given a torch and a piece of chalk and instructed to get into the boot of the car ... and Spike did so .
Sellers proceeded to then drive the car , up and down the kerbs of the pavements , trying to illicit the mystery noise .
The police saw this car "drunkenly" mounting the pavement and swerving all over the road .
They pulled Sellers over , and suspicious of something weird going on , searched the car .
When opening the boot , they were presented with the sight of Spike eerily illuminated by the torch and still clutching the chalk.

"Oh it's you" said the police and left !

Somehow I don't think people in authority these days would be quite so relaxed about curious happenings merely on the grounds that a well-known comedy actor/prankster was involved. I believe Russell Brand has so discovered.

[Pushin on]

Ok,
I've done all I can now. Returned my forms today, pleading guilty by post, as I'm moving to Spain before the case will be heard.
Mentioned the fact that i stopped after crossing the line, rather than going straight through the junction. But that I recognise it was wrong to do this, and that i should've waited for green.

Didn't bother arguing some of the other parts of the police statement that i felt were incorrect. Just gonna hope that they're (relatively) lenient on me and don't take the micturate when it comes to deciding on a fine.

I'll post an update after the case has been heard and sentenced.

[Gearoidmuar]

What the OP did was the safest thing you can do at a junction like this. I have one wicked roundabout I have to negotiate on my bike and that is EXACTLY what I always do at it.

The law is an ass and unfortunately takes no heed of the fears of cyclists.

Because I'm retired (I live in Irish), I would've enjoyed going to court and pleading that I did this as I thought it was endangering no-one and I was looking after myself..

[reohn2]

Ok,
I've done all I can now. Returned my forms today, pleading guilty by post, as I'm moving to Spain before the case will be heard............

Bit drastic,It'll only be a fine!

[kwackers]

What the OP did was the safest thing you can do at a junction like this. I have one wicked roundabout I have to negotiate on my bike and that is EXACTLY what I always do at it.

The law is an ass and unfortunately takes no heed of the fears of cyclists.

Because I'm retired (I live in Irish), I would've enjoyed going to court and pleading that I did this as I thought it was endangering no-one and I was looking after myself..

I agree, but I doubt you can say anything that would change their minds. Courts basically work to the letter of the law, it was broken whether by a technicality or not therefore you're guilty. You can add mitigation but make it sound righteous and they'll simply use it against you.

Yesterday I was heading up to a large island which has a park a few hundred meters to the right which I intended to cycle through.
At the lights coming on to the island (4 lanes) there's a toucan crossing which connects the cycle paths to the park, so my normal mechanism for handling this is to make my way across to the right hand lane and then at the front cross the stop line and turn right onto the pedestrian island.
As I did this (lights were on red) I remembered this thread and wondered what a court would make of my actions. Conversely I often use toucans as a way of getting from a cycle path to a road.
And I nearly always stop ahead of traffic (even if it means crossing a stop line, although unlike the op I don't move off until the green light).

The whole thing is a can of worms made wormier by the fact bicycles are neither cars or pedestrians.

[Pushin on]

Ok,
I've done all I can now. Returned my forms today, pleading guilty by post, as I'm moving to Spain before the case will be heard............

Bit drastic,It'll only be a fine!

haha! Unrelated

[thirdcrank]

I've just read details of another RLJ "straight to summons" case which should eventually provide an interesting comparison with this one, although it involves a High Court judge, driving a Merc through a red light at an alleged 64mph (in a 30 limit.)

His argument is that a prosecution without the offer of a ticket is an abuse of process. Watch this space - case adjourned until 6 December. If he loses, it's one that may run and run.

http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/?news_id=30514

Incidentally, I don't think we ever had an explanation as to why the OP was not offered the choice of paying a ticket.

[Fasgadh]

"driving a Merc through a red light"

No case to answer - next.

[Regulator]

I've just read details of another RLJ "straight to summons" case which should eventually provide an interesting comparison with this one, although it involves a High Court judge, driving a Merc through a red light at an alleged 64mph (in a 30 limit.)

His argument is that a prosecution without the offer of a ticket is an abuse of process. Watch this space - case adjourned until 6 December. If he loses, it's one that may run and run.

http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/?news_id=30514

Incidentally, I don't think we ever had an explanation as to why the OP was not offered the choice of paying a ticket.

Perhaps the OP, like Mr Singh, failed the attitude test?

[thirdcrank]

All I know about either case is what I've read: the OP seems to imply some argument and I wondered if that had been taken as refusing the ticket, but There's nothing like that in these later reports. I had presemed, as the defendant seems to e suggestig, that the police officer had opted for a report for summons because the speed was seen as an aggravating factor.

As I suggested before, I think this case has the potential to go a long way because it's quite a fundamental issue. As the defendant is representing himself, I suspect he'll take it as far as possible until he either gets a favourable result or is legally prevented from going further.

FWIW, having looked at a streetview of the location, IMO the summons should have been for one of the offences the CPS now calls "bad driving." If anybody had emerged from Stonecutter Street - which looks to be completely masked from Farringdon Street by buildings - and been hit by a Merc being driven at 60+ it's hard to imagine their surviving the collision.

In any event, it's hard to argue that a cyclist crossing the STOP line and waiting is entitled to the same £60 ticket as the driver claims to be his right in the circumstances alleged here.

[Pushin on]

So, I got a message yesterday with the results of my case.

£35 fine, with £15 court costs.
All in all, I'm pretty happy with the result, it could've been a lot worse. (I'd started reading the local newspaper's court roundup over the past few months, and i saw a lot higher fines handed out)

If anyone's interested, I could post up the police statement used against, I got a copy with the summons. It's interesting to see the 'selective memory' of the thin blue line.

[danfoto]

If anyone's interested, I could post up the police statement used against, I got a copy with the summons.

Hmmm ... yes please

[thirdcrank]

... All in all, I'm pretty happy with the result, ...

Since your DIY mitigation seems to have been a good one, perhaps it would be useful for anybody else in this position to be able to read what you submitted.

... If anyone's interested, I could post up the police statement used against, I got a copy with the summons. It's interesting to see the 'selective memory' of the thin blue line.

I did suggest somewhere above that the material from the prosecution would be restricted to the minimum needed to prove the offence. The purpose of this material being served with the summons is to enable you to accept or reject it.

[thirdcrank]

An update on the case of Kuldip Singh QC mentioned above.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ssive.html

In short the case has been kicked back into the long grass and will next be before the court on 29 jan 2013.

(the case is about whether the police can lawfully go "straight to summons" for an RLJ - in this alleged case, a Deputy High Court Judge allegedly driving through an alleged red light at an alleged 60+ mph in an alleged 30mph zone. (Allegedly, that is.)

[kwackers]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ssive.html

No comments section either. Odd that...