| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | |
| Posted by: | Andrew Jones | |
| Date/Time: | 14/04/25 12:20:00 |
| Lots of reasons why this would never happen. The driver may have been mistaken and they weren’t in fact speeding, so there would need to be some other evidence rather than just the driver’s say-so. It would only be the case IF a driver claimed they were speeding AND the adjudicator accepted that as indicating access had taken place that anyone is seriously accepting of the idea that a speeding offence had taken place. And the claim by the driver they were speeding probably would have been made verbally. No evidence, and if the driver was tackled about speeding… I’m sorry, on reflection I must have been mistaken, and I mistakenly remembered stopping for access, that must have happened another day. “As a judge said in a case I was involved in, the Law can’t have its cake and eat it” - if the offences are mutually exclusive I.e. if one is proven the other has to be dismissed, and vice-versa, you should adjudicate on the offence that you think is most likely to have taken place. I realise the offences/infractions aren’t something that would end up in High Court, and so there’s a lower burden of proof, but the principle of not prosecuting for multiple things with the hope that one and only ever one might stick is to be discouraged! |