Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard-Dog
As far as I could gather, the guy was disqualified or suspended from driving but a car registered to his name was captured speeding on a camera and he was attempting to argue it wasn't him driving... or something like that. Anyway, the details of his case aren't really what I'm griping about, mainly it was the judge's attitude that bothered me.
|
Not trying to defend the judge here, but I'm sure there's more to it in there.
1. If he was suspended or disqualified, then he's obviously got plenty of traffic offence history (either convictions, tickets or failing to pay fines).
2. If it was a camera fine then it would be for speeding, and I'm guessing he paid the ticket, which is an admission of guilt. Connecting the dots from that to his licence suspension of disqualification, it becomes hard to argue that although he has agreed to speeding, he's now saying he actually wasn't the driver? If so, he's clearly wasting the courts time and tax payers money with his frivolous case.
3. If he didn't pay the ticket and/or nominated the actual driver, then something else has happened in the investigation that has meant there is evidence to put him before the court.
Either way, as you say, you weren't too interested in the details of the case, so my theory above could be wrong, but just my thoughts from a different point of view.