Mr Loophole

#1
BBC

Woman charged by civilian cleared

A woman has been acquitted of drink driving after it emerged that she was charged by a civilian worker at a police station.
The prosecution case against Patricia Lumley, 57, collapsed at Northallerton and Richmond Magistrates' Court on Thursday, solicitor Nick Freeman said.

Mr Freeman said his client was acquitted after it was found the employee had no power to charge her.

He said he did not believe it was an isolated incident.

The detail emerged unexpectedly during the hearing, he said.

'Not one-off'

Three magistrates hearing the case ruled Ms Lumley, of Harrogate, had appeared before the court on an invalid charge. She was acquitted and awarded legal costs.

Mr Freeman, nicknamed "Mr Loophole" for helping celebrities escape conviction for driving offences, said he suspected the situation was not a "one-off".

He said: "This highlights a situation where civilian employees obviously have limited powers, but the police are taking advantage and extending them unlawfully.

"I don't suspect this is a one-off. How widespread is it? How many people have appeared before the courts on invalid charges?"

Car veering

The solicitor said the court had heard police had followed Ms Lumley on 12 December, 2005, and saw her car "veer from one side of the road to the other".

He said she was taken to Northallerton Police Station and found to have been driving with 45 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. The legal limit is 35 microgrammes.

Ms Lumley said she knew she was over the limit and expected to lose her licence when she attended the hearing on Thursday.

A spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed Ms Lumley was acquitted and said it was considering whether to appeal against the decision.

A North Yorkshire Police spokesman said: "We will consider this decision carefully and will be looking for early discussions with the CPS."
While procedure may not have been followed, she got done good and proper, admitted it and expected to lose her licence - why should our justice system have to let her off and the police pay legalcosts?

"Mr Loophole" has no morals by encouraging those who break the law (abliet normally in a minor way - that can have major consequences mind) to "get off scot free" instead of paying their debt to society for breaking the law.

What has it come to when you can so brazenly get away with committing a crime? Are they taking the lead from our government?

Pre-empt - Sven, bugger off, don't want to hear it
 
#2
Presumably, the police still have the evidence. What's to stop the charge sheet being filled in by a proper copper and the case being brought back to court? Double jeopardy, if it actually applies to an "invalid charge" anyway, has been revoked, hasn't it?

In an honest world, Freeman ought to have advised the prosecution that the paperwork was incorrect at the start of the proceedings, allowing a fair trial to follow. Sadly, courts and solicitors care little for justice but make their money splitting hairs in defence of "the law."

Nevertheless, it would be nice to see someone pay for the wasted court costs out of his wages, rather than the costs be dumped yet again on the taxpayer.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#3
Sorry. She wasn't actually charged by anyone who had the authority to do so. Should I have been allowed to charge her?

No. Nor would you Crabs.

I don't condone it but this loophole should never have arisen. Incompetence, nothing more.
 
#4
Sixty said:
Sorry. She wasn't actually charged by anyone who had the authority to do so. Should I have been allowed to charge her?

No. Nor would you Crabs.

I don't condone it but this loophole should neve have arisen.
No, you're quite right and I wouldn't argue with that - but I object to the morals displayed by the "Mr Loophole" (read none) and by the defendant. In that situation it should be "sorry m'lord, caught me, hard time at home, won't do it again, accept full responsibility and everything coming my way"

And instantly I've adopted the morals of an 8 year old
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#5
crabby said:
Sixty said:
Sorry. She wasn't actually charged by anyone who had the authority to do so. Should I have been allowed to charge her?

No. Nor would you Crabs.

I don't condone it but this loophole should neve have arisen.

and by the defendant. In that situation it should be "sorry m'lord, caught me, hard time at home, won't do it again, accept full responsibility and everything coming my way"

Aye, fair point mate. Not sure I wouldn't have played it the same in her situation though.
 
#6
We need loopholes so the scumbag politicians have a way out of sticky situations, they just havent worked out a way of keeping the loopholes closed to the proles that vote them in.
 
#7
This character appears to have cornered the market in this area. Are there no other competent advocates out there? He appears to be a self-centered, self-publicising git with no morals
 
#8
He is useful in highlighting loopsholes which canbe later closed off, i fthe Police don't do their job properly, then it is right and proper that the case should be thrown out.

Mr Freeman himself siad "The only way to beat him is to train the police properly"
 
#9
Trevelez said:
This character appears to have cornered the market in this area. Are there no other competent advocates out there? He appears to be a self-centered, self-publicising git with no morals
No,he may be a self centred,self publicist,but he is a lawer doing his job....in this case defending his client by any means within the law;morals have nothing to do with it.His job is to get his client off,which he did.
 
#13
Bert_Preast said:
I thought if a lawyer knew you were guilty they're bound to try for a lighter sentence, but not allowed to try and get you off?
I think that applies to Barristers rather than solicitors
 
#14
I think if you are guilty (and you and the lawyer know it) you can still contest if there is no case to answer (such as wrong charge, suspect evidence). This is to stop incomplete and unsafe try ons by the police and CPS. The idea may be to stop an overturn in the court of appeal (which I believe overturns mainly on points of law).
M9
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top