Sunday, 8 April 2012

Crown Advocates lose the plot

Dick Falle and Robin Morris pictured today 
So I had a great day out today in the Magistrate's Court, I had to wait a while to have my turn. Approximately three and a half hours to be precise but I am left somewhat perplexed by our legal team and I am afraid that appeals to the Royal Court of Jersey have been filed already.

I fear that Dick Falle was ill-advised by Crown Advocate Robin Morris' incorrect assertion that the keeper of the vehicle is responsible for all parking fines when the law clearly states that it is the driver.

Unlike last time MR DARIUS JAMES PEARCE was clearly able to identify the driver of the vehicle as JERSEY ONLINE TRADERS LIMITED on one occasion and NIGEL PEARCE & SON, JEWELLERS on the other, both of whom were in the Court and assured the Magistrate that this was the case and even offered to make immediate payment, but for some reason Advocate Morris seemed to forget that he served the law.

At one point he was seeking to apply the penalty to 'whomever you are when you are not those persons', I'm fairly certain that God would have something to say about this attempt to interfere with his exclusive rights as beneficiary and administrator of the trust He has placed in me.

It seems fairly obvious to me that when business car is parked in a business unloading bay with a business card showing that the driver of the car is the business, whatever person that happens to be called, but apparently the obvious is not even worthy of consideration and I was found guilty on the basis that I could appeal the decision, without even having the opportunity to present my case. So that is both Statute and the demands of Natural Justice contravened. A real kangaroo court.

By five o'clock the appeal against the conviction was filed with the Judicial Greffier. I may be seeking sworn statements from witnesses to the proceedings in due course.

8 comments:

  1. Darius you're not using the same legal advisors to the Pitmans are you? :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe it to be inadvisable for a politician to object to being the subject of satire.

      Politicians never seem to understand that they are generally despised and ridiculed by a sizeable segment of their electorate irrespective of their views, actions or intentions.

      Even Ron Paul who has the most ardent, devoted, fanatical supporters and is as pure and ideologically true to his beliefs as I have ever known in a politician is not everyone's cup of tea.

      Delete
  2. why would appeal? you've already won.

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An appeal is not a re-trial, it is uncommon for new evidence to be submitted, but questions the judgement given on technical points of law.

      The judgement can clearly be shown to be incorrect on a point of law, so it would seem likely that the appeal must be upheld.

      So why not appeal? I want to win bigger!

      Delete
  3. Clearly another case of fraud against the people using tax payers money to commit the fraud. You should lodge a complaint with the Bayleaf against Richard Falle for misleading the court. He clearly stated that the registered keeper of the vehicle was liable, this is a lie, it is the driver who is liable, it says so in their own statutes!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I dont get it. If you offered to pay the fine why the appeal against conviction? Why argue the case if you intend to pay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I offered to pay the fine why did they refuse to allow me to, is I believe the more pertinent question...

      Delete