Beckham's Speeding Fine - And Escape.

[andy-hughes]

The media has got itself into a massive robble about David Beckham's speeding fine, and the fact that he has employed an expensive lawyer who has managed to get the case thrown out.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6217793/Public-fury-disgraceful-David-Beckham-gets-speeding-charge.html

The Mail especially has vilified Mr Beckham, criticising his spending on wine, his marriage, his image, and so on - all completely irrelevant to the issue - in a manner that is utterly beyond reason.

Let me declare from the outset - I do not for one moment condone Mr Beckham's offence, which is serious, and irresponsible.

But the fact remains, his case was dismissed on a technicality - he has not broken to law to have his case thrown out, his lawyer has used legal process open to anyone in the same position.

Your thoughts on this?

[EDDIE51]

Not even remotely interested.

[AuntLydia]

Beckham got off on a technicality and can any one on here say with hand on heart they would not have done the same thing? No one wants to pay a fine if they can get away with it. Beckham would have got away with it had he used the local solicitor in town -because the fine was unlawful. Money has little to do with it, he could afford an expensive lawyer. Boo Hoo.

[HansUrbancka]

[email protected] Good point. In which case perhaps the police should have called upon the Owner of the Bently as soon as Camera evidence was available.

Hans.

[Zacs-Master]

The police don’t have the resources to do that.

[HansUrbancka]

Point taken Zacs.

Thanks.......Hans.

[EDDIE51]

I would speculate that the conditions of his having a Bentley ''On Lone'' is that he does not get any endorsements on his licence. An endorsement would mean the end of his 'Loan'.

[Zacs-Master]

Good job he didn’t then.

[ToraToraTora]

my thoughts are this: why did he even need a lawyer? NIP 1 day late, end of.

[THECORBYLOON]

Does the fourteen-
day period include the day of the offence?

[retrocop]

Apparently it is 28 days

[THECORBYLOON]

Is the period for receipt of the NIP not fourteen days?

[retrocop]

//The lawyer said the so-called 'notice of intended prosecution' should have been received by February 6 at the latest because of the two-week statutory limit.

Prosecutors told the court that the document was sent by the Metropolitan Police on February 2, which should have allowed for it to have been received in time.//
I must be missing something here. I always thought it was 14 days for a NIP to be sent but NJ has stated 28 days in his post? Not that I will lose sleep over it.

[Zacs-Master]

The 28 days is for the recipient to respond to a 172 notice.

[retrocop]

Thank you for clearing that up. I misread NJ's judgement.
This link is quite interesting especially the exemptions at the bottom.
http://www.motordefenceteam.co.uk/knowledge-Guides/n-i-p.htm

[ToraToraTora]

the 14 days is whole days following the offence, the offence was on the 23rd Jan - so 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 = 14 days the NIP arrived on 7th. He could have saved on the legal costs and pointed that out himself.

[THECORBYLOON]

The problem with dates of issue is the fact that an item may show a date but it does not mean it left the office on the same date.

Feb 2nd was a Friday so that may have lead to delays if the NIP was not actually collected and posted the same day.

[THECORBYLOON]

Beckham could have just said it arrived late but how many folk are aware of the limit?

If I were wealthy, I'd not be wasting time looking for links to legal guidance if someone else could do it for me.

[HansUrbancka]

I must be missing something.

Beckham was caught speeding on two days...22nd & 23rd January. NIPs were sent to the Bently firm for both instances.... 22nd arrived within the 14 day period but the 23rd was one day late. Prosecution was only for the 23rd.

I wonder why Beckham was only charged with the 23rd and can he still be prosecuted for the 2nd.

Hans.

[HansUrbancka]

^^ For 2nd please read 22nd.

[Zacs-Master]

Link?