Author Topic: Sunday Telegraph: Fining motorists using CCTV evidence ruled 'illegal'  (Read 393 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4004
  • Karma: +98/-3
    • View Profile
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Like Like x 2 View List

slapdash

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Sunday Telegraph: Fining motorists using CCTV evidence ruled 'illegal'
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2023, 11:46:04 am »
I don't think the article made it entirely clear it is a subset of redroute penalties that it applies to.

I understand there is a JR of the decision in progress and you are encouraging individuals to join.

But what then ?

If TFL loses is it then binding (pending further appeal)?

This will presumably mean job ads for more CEOs and TFL lobbying for a law change to enable CCTV enforcement.

It would be frustrating if they obtained that wish and CCTV enforcement restarted. Possibly nationwide.

It would presumably also mean all previous PCNs would be void, but would that force TFL to refund them all or would it be "on demand".

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4004
  • Karma: +98/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Sunday Telegraph: Fining motorists using CCTV evidence ruled 'illegal'
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2023, 11:51:35 am »
I am reliably informed that Parliamentary timetabling issues mean that even if a change in the law were on the cards, it won't happen any time soon. And the PM has just come out with some "I'm on the side of motorists" headline, so a change in the law is unlikely in the extreme.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Sunday Telegraph: Fining motorists using CCTV evidence ruled 'illegal'
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2023, 08:17:38 pm »
My objectives would be:

1.  Immediately cease enforcement.
2.  Reimburse.
3.  Bring this to the attention of Parliament so the next Transport Select Committee orders the CA and Khan to attend.  Similarly, Bus Lane saga.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
  • Karma: +6/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
Re: Sunday Telegraph: Fining motorists using CCTV evidence ruled 'illegal'
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2023, 07:05:39 am »
If TFL loses is it then binding (pending further appeal)?

Yes. The JR (if permission is granted) would be a question of whether the adjudicators were wrong in law (whether their interpretation of the legislation is correct or not). If the adjudicators' interpretation is upheld then the adjudicators would be bound to interpret the legislation as they currently do.
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Sunday Telegraph: Fining motorists using CCTV evidence ruled 'illegal'
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2023, 09:44:17 am »
The story is now on Twitter.  Surely, some TV company should pick this up?
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4004
  • Karma: +98/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Sunday Telegraph: Fining motorists using CCTV evidence ruled 'illegal'
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2023, 10:03:38 am »
It's on LBC, that's something.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
  • Karma: +6/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
Re: Sunday Telegraph: Fining motorists using CCTV evidence ruled 'illegal'
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2023, 06:47:55 pm »
Report from Mahyar Tousi on youtube yeaterday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJyqaxSLiXQ
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.