Spot of forelock tugging by Lavender Hill magistrates

Why/how TF did she get away with that? :rage:

Unusual for a simple speeding case to be heard as a Single Justice Hearing so there may be more to it than reported in the article.

She pleaded guilty and was heard by a single magistrate. She did not attend court (you can’t for SJP) but completed a form which included her financial statement and it’s taken at face value. She also had costs awarded against her so the total was more than the usual £100 + 3 points fixed penalty

“The Single Justice Procedure applies to cases involving adults charged with summary-only non-imprisonable offences. It allows cases to be dealt with by a single magistrate on the basis of the papers alone without either party having to attend court for a hearing.”

I bow to your superior knowledge of the process but, let’s face it, it’s a travesty using the “financial hardship” defence.

Costs were £84 AIUI

But a business where finding an extra £50 would cause cash flow problems doesn’t strike me as a particularly viable one.


it’s not a business expense.

OK, true - I knew I’d phrased that badly.

Try: “But a businesswoman for whom finding an extra £50 would cause cash flow problems doesn’t strike me as a particularly good one”.

Sounds very much like she’s taking the piss, and got away with it. What’s the betting on loads more people caught speeding trying it on now a precedent has been set?

1 Like

Not that many I think. Normal people take their bumps but revered scum like her are always on the make. I don’t blame her I blame the arse licking magistrates.


She didn’t attend Court and would they know who she was anyway?

30 years ago her daddy would have made a call and she wouldn’t have got any fine or punishment !

1 Like

Daughter of the Duke of a place that no longer exists … :grinning:

Happens all the time. I’ve just finished a biography of the 7th Earl of Cardigan, the man who led the Charge of the Light Brigade in 1854.

He got away with a charge of duelling even tho’ he told the constable arresting him on Wimbledon Common “I am guilty of duelling”. He repeated this down at the police station. The fact that he had wounded his opponent made the offence more serious.

He was tried by his peers, The House Of Lords. The prosecution’s case was so inept that the Lord Chief Justice, ‘in the chair’ asked in astonishment, “Is that your case, my lord?”

Cardigan’s defence, spotting the deliberate mistake of the prosecution, put it to their noble lordships that the prosecution had at no time proved that the man who admitted to duelling on Wimbledon Common was in fact Lord Cardigan.

The simple question to the witnesses, including the constable, “Do you see in this place the man who admitted to you that he was guilty of duellng?” was never asked!

The result was acquittal. It was generally assumed that this monstrous fudge was a deliberate ploy to avoid trouble in the lordly ranks, especially as Cardigan was, at the time, well regarded by Victoria and was C.O. of the regiment of which Albert was Hon’ Colonel.

Box ticking woke magistrate.

Had the magistrate been woke (rather than a crashing toad-eating snob) she would have been properly fined.

Had the magistrate been a toad eater then she would definately have been properly fined. Unfortunately the british justice system has gone fully down the pan, it is all about virtue signalling whilst the real criminals are having fun, and the rozzers drive around in their rainbow patrol cars pandering to the protesters.

Er no, because the magistrate was a toad-eater, she wasn’t!

Toad-eater: sycophant , toady, lackey, flunkey, minion, stooge, kowtower, truckler, groveller, crawler, creep, fawner, flatterer, lickspittle, Uriah Heep, puppet, cat’s paw, instrument, pawn, underling, hanger-on, camp follower, doormat, spaniel.

Overworked magistrate is more likely :frowning:

1 Like

But she hasn’t ‘got away with it’.

A ‘47 in a 40’ automatic camera speeding offence would usually be an offer of £100 penalty + 3 points or a course at £100 with no points. For an unspecified reason her case was referred to the SJP to be heard ‘on papers’ by a single magistrate. She pleaded guilty and whatever she wrote as an explanation or in mitigation and the income she reported is accepted at face value. Because costs and fees are always added to SJPs despite the reduced fine she ended up paying more that the standard penalty or course. She would have also received 3 points on her licence. It’s fair to assume that the magistrate may have had no idea who she was based the the written submission and sentencing would be within strict guidelines.

Reported, presumably by a local newspaper, which was picked up or syndicated and reported identically, word for word, by a number of national newspapers

It wouldn’t surprise me if there was delay in paying the fine/sending the paperwork back - perhaps she thought daddy would deal with it for her?