|Nope!!! not this time Capt'n....|
Thursday, 3 January 2013
"PRIDE-less & PREJUDICE"
"The Madness Of Magistrate Shaw-Unhinged"
Here is the link to the previous Bridget Shaw maleficence
On the 20th December 2012, I successfully appealed against the default sentence of 42 days imprisonment for non-payment of £490.00 fines for “parking infractions” imposed by Assistant Magistrate Shaw on 5th November 2012. That’s 7 x £70 individual fines with a default of 6 days imprisonment for each to run consecutively.
The appeal was pretty straight forward my argument being that the default sentence was manifestly excessive.
The Bailiff and Jurats first had to decide whether to allow my appeal.
An argument was made that I had abandoned any further right of appeal upon losing my 29th November 2012 appeal against conviction and sentence for contempt of court (imposed at the same 5th November hearing),so, the question was would I be allowed to abandon the abandonment!
I argued that at appeal on the 29th November I had concentrated on the contempt of court issue and that I had not been given the time I had asked for to be able to review any other issues surrounding the 5th November case.
This was accepted by the Bailiff and Jurats who allowed me to make my case re: the default sentence, the Bailiff did, however state that had I had legal representation he would not have allowed the appeal on 20th December.
Whilst sitting in prison on the afternoon of 19th December I was handed the respondent’s (Adv. Gollop for the AG) bundle, I am now used to receiving these disclosures at the 11th hour, not that I think it’s fair or right, but that’s another fight. Buried behind tab 10 of that bundle I found this;
Please bear in mind that these guidelines are decided by and drawn up by the Magistrates, therefore Bridget Shaw knows exactly what they recommend.
It was immediately apparent that the default sentence of 42 days imprisonment for fines of £490 fell outside the suggested maximum and the only argument the respondent could possibly make was that there were 7 individual fines of £70 each, so this would fall within the structure of the guidelines.
I headed Adv. Gollop off at the pass in my opening submission by saying that the fines should be treated in the aggregate because I had waived my right to individual trials for each ticket, thus saving the court time and money by allowing all the tickets to be dealt with at one hearing. I further argued that treating each ‘infraction’ individually but having an aggregate fine would cause an anomaly insofar as a situation could easily arise whereby someone could be fined £490 for a more serious offence such as thief or assault, default that fine and serve half the sentence I had received for non-payment of parking fines.
This left the Court with the impossible to answer question “how many parking fines equal theft or assault?”
I also asked the respondent where one could find the published guidelines for the default sentences on non-payment of fines or whether someone fined by the Magistrate’s Court received this document, Adv. Gollop admitted he had never seen this document before nor did he think it was available to those fined in the Magistrate’ Court.
I put it to the Bailiff that given this document is not publicly available and not handed out in court, it was impossible for someone who had been fined in the Magistrates Court to know whether to appeal the default sentence. The Bailiff agreed with my observation and instructed the AG to rectify the situation.
In his judgement the Bailiff agreed that the default sentence was manifestly excessive, he reduced the 6 days to 3 days for each infraction giving a total of 21 days, the standard one third remission was deducted and as I had served 17 days in prison for the default, I was free to go.
Having now had time to fully review all of the paperwork surrounding the 5th November ‘trial’ and subsequent events, some serious matters have come to light. Assistant Magistrate Shaw did impose an excessive default sentence which when taken with other actions by her, I believe show to beyond a reasonable doubt that she has purposely shown bias and prejudice against me (and others).
I feel this is probably due to my making Bridget look like a complete twat with the questions I’ve asked, and her barmy replies on the few occasions she has tried to answer them.
I take no credit for making Bridget look twattish, various people, lawyers, police and prison staff can confirm that she has no difficulty achieving that status without any help at all.
Another matter arising from all this are the actions of the Viscount Dept. which I will be writing to the Bailiff about. Watch this space!
Once again I would like to thank everyone who has supported me materially and spiritually, it has confirmed my belief in the inherent good of people, you are all stars.
To finish this short posting I’ll leave you with;
Article 90 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) law 1956
90 Application of fines
(1) A fine imposed for an offence under Articles 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 51 and 53 shall be awarded for the benefit of Her Majesty.
And please sign the petition below to help rid the Isle of Jersey of these disgusting crooks.