UK: Motorists to pay court costs - Even if found not guilty

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.

Continues:
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=20842


Welcome to yet another piece of modern British "justice."   

That's pretty wrong.  Hopefully the uproar will force them to put it back the way it was.

This is so wrong. I cannot see how anybody in their right mind could have thought this was fair and just.

Did they not stop to think 'Just why is this costing us too much money?' Poor prosecutors, ineffectual laws, unhappy motorists saying enough is a enough?

Who wants to bet that court costs get hiked up?

Not good. Not just for the motorists but the nation as a whole. Might these numpties implement the new changes to cover more than just motoring offenses?

What the...? This goes against every ethical principle in the book!

What's to stop them from prosecuting more "innocent" drivers just to increase their cash flow? Checks and balances, people.

Motorists to pay court costs - Even if found not guilty

Er, not quite.

Under the new rules any defendant acquitted of an offence in the Magistrates' Court will only be reimbursed at prevailing legal aid rates regardless of the level of costs they paid to their lawyers.

Er, not quite.

Under the new rules any defendant acquitted of an offence in the Magistrates' Court will only be reimbursed at prevailing legal aid rates regardless of the level of costs they paid to their lawyers.

Ah, interesting - so what they are doing is going after those people who can afford a top lawyer to get them off on a technicality.

In the US (and I'm not sure if this is the same in every state, so I'm just speaking from my personal experience in my state), you are required to pay court costs regardless of whether you are found innocent or guilty.  This is not in association with lawyer's fees...but it is a set court cost...and you have to pay it whether you go to court or mail in your payment. 

Ah, interesting - so what they are doing is going after those people who can afford a top lawyer to get them off on a technicality.

Surely it affects anyone who doesn't qualify for Legal Aid, which would be pretty much anyone who works full time?

Did they not stop to think 'Just why is this costing us too much money?'

Indeed.  If there has been a substantial increase in the number of cases being dismissed, they should take a serious look at just why so many tickets were issued incorrectly in the first place.

As the system already stands, there's a huge incentive to just pay a fixed penalty ticket, especially the cheaper £30 ones, just to avoid the hassle of having to waste a day in court. 

With this proposed change where for the higher £60 fixed penalties you're practically guaranteed not to come out ahead even if you go to court and win, they'll be handing them out like confetti just to rake in as much money as possible (which I firmly believe is already done anyway precisely because they know that the "it's too much trouble" approach will mean that a lot of tickets which should not have been issued will just be paid in any case).

Under the new rules any defendant acquitted of an offence in the Magistrates' Court will only be reimbursed at prevailing legal aid rates regardless of the level of costs they paid to their lawyers.

So there's another incentive to roll over and submit: Just get the cheapest defense money can buy, even if you know that you're in the right and a better lawyer would guarantee a dismissal, because otherwise it will end up costing you more than if you paid the ticket in the first place.

so what they are doing is going after those people who can afford a top lawyer to get them off on a technicality.

And giving a financial incentive to plead guilty even if you know you are completely innocent. 

Besides, the government likes technicalities, doesn't it?   They're quite happy to use every little technicality to secure a conviction, even if it goes against common sense and what most people would regard as the spirit of the law. 

Some of the motorists I know, when they get done for going 60 in a clearly signed 40 mph zone, they think they were only convicted on a "technicality".

Some of the motorists I know, when they get done for going 60 in a clearly signed 40 mph zone, they think they were only convicted on a "technicality".

That'd be right. They were technically over the speed limit.

It's amazing the guff some of these people spout. "I was only doing 50 in a 40 mph area - that's not much over the limit", or "It was perfectly safe, the road was empty, there weren't any other cars around", or "Why don't the police go after the real criminals (paedophiles/terrorists/bank robbers/whatever)?"

You want to say, "You know, I never noticed, before, that small print under the "40" on the speed limit signs, that says 'or 50 or thereabouts' or 'unless the road is empty' " or "Sure! let's assign all the traffic police to antiterrorist duty! Let the snarlups sort themselves out!" but you don't of course. To so so would be to turn a temporary tedium into an interminable nightmare of boredom, and might even get one a punch on the snoot.
 

It's amazing the guff some of these people spout.

That's as maybe, and I don't think anyone would claim that there aren't people who thoroughly deserve the penalty but get off on some technicality, e.g. it's obvious that the speed limit is intended to be 40 mph, but because one of the two required signs at the start of the zone is missing, or a repeater sign has been removed, it can't legally be enforced. 

But that doesn't alter the fact that in other cases tickets are issued incorrectly.  If the court finds that the defendant is innocent of the alleged offense, why should he have to lose out?   If posts on the Pepipoo forum are anything to go by, a favorite one at the moment seems to be handing out fixed penalty notices for using a mobile phone, just because a driver is observed scratching his ear or brushing his hair back. 

Is that just a mere technicality too, which should be dismissed, and the driver penalized even though he wasn't actually committing any offense?

If posts on the Pepipoo forum are anything to go by

In terms of rigorous research, you can't get much more so!

Sorry, I think I was missing something earlier. It never occurred to me that someone would get a lawyer for just a speeding ticket!