Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.


@Richard Peter Whitehurst; Commented on: 12 February 2018 17:59 GMT:

"....A CCJ raises a presumption of financial incompetence - unless suitably explained ...."

Does it? I suppose it was a good thing that you were a Criminal Judge.

OK. You are a young student and have a beer too many down the club Richard. Not pissed, but three as opposed to two pints and don't eat. You then turn right across traffic, when a motor / cyclist, going to fast on the outside heading towards you not on the same side of the traffic against you (overtaking but they all do it). You are breathalysed. You are a bit over. You no longer get the statutory option do you.

You finally 'cough' as lets face it the Duty (Legal Aid brief), are the third prosecutor in Court (after you, the (D)DJ and CPS caseworker).

Your Legal Aid brief just wants to get paid and encourages you so to plead, notwithstanding the motorcyclist was going too fast (even a bit over the speed limit).

Your brief doesn't mention the fact that you will lose your Hackney PHV Licence as a consequence, or that your insurance policy has that condition / warranty on it .....

They refuse to fight the Court proceedings.

Is that the dodgy Legal Aid brief responsible or the (D) DJ?

What part does the culpability of the young driver play?


Your details