Quote:
Originally Posted by Simple6
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.
|
Yeah, you're probably right on all points. It was hard to piece together the story of what happened because the defendant was claiming he didn't drive so the only info he gave was saying he didn't know what happened and he didn't say who was driving. The prosecution claims that the speed camera was working correctly and they had records to show it had been recently tested by a qualified technician, etc.
My take on it is the guy was probably driving and I think the judge was right to stop him from wasting more of the court's time. I don't know how they can prove he was driving though unless the speed camera captured a clear image of his face behind the wheel.
I really don't know the story. I thought that he should have paid a lawyer to speak for him though.