Crash

[London89]

I was involved in a dd crash. How does the court deal with crashes? Do they take into account the value of things l damaged in the crash? How does it affects sentencing of a failure to provide a specimen?

 

[WinterSnow]

I was involved in a dd crash. How does the court deal with crashes? Do they take into account the value of things l damaged in the crash? How does it affects sentencing of a failure to provide a specimen?

I’m sorry you’ve had no replies but you have failed to see how rude you have been in response to peoples advice. I will however still comment because you deserve support. The court will see the damage as an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing however your biggest problem is you will probably get invoiced by the council for their bollard. Your insurance will also be invalid for the collision so they will bill you too. There are many posts on here pertaining to insurance problems; please read them as it may help prepare you for what could happen.

 

[London89]

I’m sorry you’ve had no replies but you have failed to see how rude you have been in response to peoples advice. I will however still comment because you deserve support. The court will see the damage as an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing however your biggest problem is you will probably get invoiced by the council for their bollard. Your insurance will also be invalid for the collision so they will bill you too. There are many posts on here pertaining to insurance problems; please read them as it may help prepare you for what could happen.

WinterSnow l am truly humbled with your character. You are still supporting me yet I have been rude to you. I am really sorry for the replies. It was hurtful and uncalled for. I am sorry. I think I was still in denial and I lashed out on people who are really supporting me with facts and a well of wisdom. In life l never ever thought l would be done with drink driving so l took out my anger and frustrations on you. I am sorry. I pray that you will accept my apology. Once again I am sorry for my behaviour.

 

[WinterSnow]

WinterSnow l am truly humbled with your character. You are still supporting me yet I have been rude to you. I am really sorry for the replies. It was hurtful and uncalled for. I am sorry. I think I was still in denial and I lashed out on people who are really supporting me with facts and a well of wisdom. In life l never ever thought l would be done with drink driving so l took out my anger and frustrations on you. I am sorry. I pray that you will accept my apology. Once again I am sorry for my behaviour.

Thank you for the apology and we won’t mention it again. Let’s look on getting you the best advice and best outcome.

 

[London89]

You are spot on… insurance is invalid. Phoned a few lawyers and l will proceed with accepting the guilty plea. I broke the law and deserve the driving thread.

and the most

Thank you for the apology and we won’t mention it again. Let’s look on getting you the best advice and best outcome.

thank you.

 

[Sundog]

I caused damage to a TP, and that was a whole other story.

But in court, the TP was mentioned only as an aggravating factor, it had no bearing on sentence nor fine. As I think will be very much the same for you. Good luck, and keep dry. Trust me it'll help.

 

[London89]

I caused damage to a TP, and that was a whole other story.

But in court, the TP was mentioned only as an aggravating factor, it had no bearing on sentence nor fine. As I think will be very much the same for you. Good luck, and keep dry. Trust me it'll help.

Thank you very much

 

[London89]

Thank you very much

I have gone teetotal. My life changed in the blink of an eye. Luckily no life was lost. If there were people in the bus stop it would have been a nightmare. Insurance will cover all damages. If l am found guilty they reclaim expenses from me.

 

[12eason]

I caused damage to a TP, and that was a whole other story.
But in court, the TP was mentioned only as an aggravating factor, it had no bearing on sentence nor fine. As I think will be very much the same for you. Good luck, and keep dry. Trust me it'll help.

I'm curious about this, because in my recent case for driving on a revoked licence I was charged £70 odd as a victim's surcharge even though there was no victim. Doesn't that charge change according to damages, or is it just another way to scam more money out of people for nothing? Although thinking about it, surely that's up to the insurance company to retrieve via civil proceedings.

 

[Sundog]

I'm curious about this, because in my recent case for driving on a revoked licence I was charged £70 odd as a victim's surcharge even though there was no victim. Doesn't that charge change according to damages, or is it just another way to scam more money out of people for nothing? Although thinking about it, surely that's up to the insurance company to retrieve via civil proceedings.

That £70 I think is a contribution that goes into what funds all victim compensation. Could be wrong there though.

But having said that if £70 was the limit of my alleged liability, I’d double it and say cheers thanks ta see you thanks in all honesty.

 

[Gilln1]

That £70 I think is a contribution that goes into what funds all victim compensation. Could be wrong there though.

But having said that if £70 was the limit of my alleged liability, I’d double it and say cheers thanks ta see you thanks in all honesty.

That's my understanding too. That money essentially goes into a big pot.

@12eason - you were not scammed my friend, money wasn't taken from you for nothing. If you broke the rules, and broke the law, you 'pay' the consequences.....as did I, as did many others.

 

[12eason]

That's my understanding too. That money essentially goes into a big pot.

@12eason - you were not scammed my friend, money wasn't taken from you for nothing. If you broke the rules, and broke the law, you 'pay' the consequences.....as did I, as did many others.

Weak line of reasoning. By that logic people should get life in prison for stealing some bread, they broke the rules after all. Fines were originally intended to cover ALL the costs and we tailored to be proportional to the crime. These additional fines are just a backdoor way of making the system unjust again without passing new laws.

 

[Gilln1]

Weak line of reasoning. By that logic people should get life in prison for stealing some bread, they broke the rules after all. Fines were originally intended to cover ALL the costs and we tailored to be proportional to the crime. These additional fines are just a backdoor way of making the system unjust again without passing new laws.

And you think I have a weak line of reasoning??

 

[12eason]

Yes, and more specifically it's a fallacy called an appeal to the law. Just because X is a crime, neither means Y is the correct punishment nor that X was immoral/wrong in the first place.

 

[Gilln1]

Yes, and more specifically it's a fallacy called an appeal to the law. Just because X is a crime, neither means Y is the correct punishment nor that X was immoral/wrong in the first place.

Oh god, you're like my ex Mrs .....she's was never wrong either and everything was always someone else's fault.

Quoting info off a website in the USA probably isn't the best way to make your point but anyway, I see what you were intending. There is one main reason you got hit in the pocket.....same reason I did, guess what it sucked, so did the fine, so did the ban, so did the whole sorry experience. If they just stuck another £70 on the fine and diverted the money elsewhere would that have made you feel better?

Fortunately though I didn't get life in prison, and quite likely the person who stole a loaf of bread didn't either because the system is more sensible than that

 

[12eason]

There is one main reason you got hit in the pocket.....same reason I did,

Because somewhere in this Kafkaesque mess of a government, people are skimming off the top or implementing half baked ideas into law. In this specific example I remember reading a few years ago that claimed rape victims get paid £1000 in compensation even if their case never makes it to court, even in fact if it turns out they made the story up and end up going to prison themselves for false rape accusations. The compensation system was meant to make up for the fact the justice system was so bad it often failed to get a conviction or even find the rapist, but often now ends up just rewarding dishonesty and creating perverse incentives. These kind of bizarre and backwards rules exist everywhere within the system, they are implemented because the seem like the 'right' thing to do, but they are never revisited to check on their effectiveness. So should I pay £70 because someone else raped a girl in another part of the country? Am I responsible for that crime, or for that matter all crime everywhere? In that case, just make it a tax.

Saying all that, I've learnt since covid that a sizeable proportion of the population will accept any abuse the government does. They can take their freedoms, lock them away, cost them their job, destroy their relationships, and so long as big dady government says it's what the experts tell them is best, so long as they can wear a mask and think they are virtuous, people will bend over and take it, then ask for more. So on this, let's just agree to disagree. We're not the same.

 

[Gilln1]

"So on this, let's just agree to disagree. We're not the same"

Perhaps the most sensible thing you said so far, and the bit we don't disagree on.
Best wishes

 

[mrturk]

In this specific example I remember reading a few years ago that claimed rape victims get paid £1000 in compensation even if their case never makes it to court,

This is 100% not true.

In cases of a 'victimless' crime the victim is the CPS/public services for the purposes of the victim surcharge. You have done something that is a danger to the public and as a result a number of public services had to be involved in the effort stop you, such as the police, the CPS, in some cases the NHS, ambulance service, forensic services etc. Someone who is speeding or drink driving needs intervention because it's in the public interest. In other words, it's what the general public want to happen.

You'll find that £70 you paid didn't even cover the wages of the people involved in prosecuting you. The tax payer cost of people who speed or drink drive is massive. Your surcharge is a small mitigation to that cost.

 

[12eason]

This is 100% not true.

https://www.gov.uk/claim-compensation-criminal-injury/eligibility - note it only says the claim must have been reported to police, not that it was proven to have happened in a court of law.

In cases of a 'victimless' crime the victim is the CPS/public services for the purposes of the victim surcharge.

That cost is covered by the fine. They are public body and get their funding through taxation though. If they are relying on successful convictions to get money that creates perverse incentives. This is obvious to all with speed cameras - councils will change speed limits specifically to increase their revenue. If the justice system is devolved to getting their funding the people they go after, they become no better than the Mob.

it's what the general public want to happen

Funny, I don't recall it being part of manifesto we could vote for. And it's funny, we introduce all these things to somehow save the government money, and yet our taxes are higher than they've ever been and the national debt just keeps getting bigger.

 

[mrturk]

https://www.gov.uk/claim-compensation-criminal-injury/eligibility - note it only says the claim must have been reported to police, not that it was proven to have happened in a court of law.

That cost is covered by the fine. They are public body and get their funding through taxation though. If they are relying on successful convictions to get money that creates perverse incentives. This is obvious to all with speed cameras - councils will change speed limits specifically to increase their revenue. If the justice system is devolved to getting their funding the people they go after, they become no better than the Mob.

Funny, I don't recall it being part of manifesto we could vote for. And it's funny, we introduce all these things to somehow save the government money, and yet our taxes are higher than they've ever been and the national debt just keeps getting bigger.

If you think the compensation scheme is a simple matter of claiming to have been raped and getting free money, I suggest you try it and let the Daily Mail know how it goes.

Yes, as I already explained to you, all the public services get money through taxation, and the cost of preventing a dangerous act is high. Upon successful conviction they are entitled to reclaim some of the costs from you. They can't claim it from you if you aren't convicted, so yes they will only get that minor compensation if you are convicted. They aren't getting the funding from the people they go after, the £70 you paid doesn't even scratch the surface compared to what the taxpayer paid.

No, it doesn't work through a vote.

I think it's clear you spend your time on this forum trying to pull people into endless spurious debates about how broken you feel the system is. I've explained how it works, not why it works that way and I don't care to get into that with anybody - I'm only on here to explain how processes work when people have an actual question about their own case, which clearly you don't.

If you really feel the system is broken you're not going to change it here.