Solicitor advice.

[meatball]

L plate I believe is covered by sect 87 RTA 88, dunno about the private land without owners permission.

Tut,
I believe Kenny is commenting on your spelling.....since you comment on ours so often! hehe
Is the owner of the land making a complaint against your son? Do you know him? Have you spoken to him (be careful with that part, I'd maybe approach him to say sorry rather than what may be see attempting to pervert the course of justice)?
If he doesn't care....a wee letter to the PF from him could kill all of this!

Agree on the comments above about best evidence (chewed L plate displayed shows that the law was respected, albeit it should have been properly maintained/checked.....if you are being fussy.....and they were!) and having someone untrained defending themself.

PS
Can chat in more depth tomorrow.

[GregR]

I'm afraid Criminal work is outwith my (limited) expertise Tut. As a few have said, get Luke along to a specialist in criminal work and if he's not earning/is a student he should qualify for Legal Aid.

Whatever happens, make sure its taken seriously. It may seem relatively trivial at the moment but with 'Disclosure' forms required for everything thesedays a convicion could be a right pain in future.

[pete]

parked up out of site,

tut

Do you mean out of the campsite, or where they couldn't be seen (sight).

Hope it works out.

[tut]

advise, loosing, site, that's three times in one thread.

What the hell is happening to me?

tit

[tut]

L plate I believe is covered by sect 87 RTA 88, dunno about the private land without owners permission.

Tut,
I believe Kenny is commenting on your spelling.....since you comment on ours so often! hehe
Is the owner of the land making a complaint against your son? Do you know him? Have you spoken to him (be careful with that part, I'd maybe approach him to say sorry rather than what may be see attempting to pervert the course of justice)?
If he doesn't care....a wee letter to the PF from him could kill all of this!

Agree on the comments above about best evidence (chewed L plate displayed shows that the law was respected, albeit it should have been properly maintained/checked.....if you are being fussy.....and they were!) and having someone untrained defending themself.

PS
Can chat in more depth tomorrow.

No complaint from the landowner, it is part of Aden Park, a field with access from the road and a pathway into the park centre itself. However I do know the Chief Warden as I helped to set up The Book of Deer Centre there as part of a BCW project a few years ago.
The charge is "did without lawful authority drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road."

Cheers

tut

ps Does it make any difference that they spelt Luke's name wrong in the summons?

[Matelotman]

The second charge was valid,

If he accepts the second charge then plead guilty to that and not guilty to the L plates - I would think that the PF would probably accept that (don't quote me though)

[Titanium S1 111S (gla)]

Tut,

Sounds like a silly question but how close was the camp to the road? More or less than 15 yards?

[j2 lot]

[The charge is "did without lawful authority drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road."

That would suggest it is common ground with no (legal) right for anyone to be using a mechanically propelled vehicle.
If it is privately owned the owner would need to complain, or confirm to Police after the event that he did not give express permission.
It sounds like a trumped up charge to add to the L plate charge so it has more substance, on its own I suspect the L plate charge would be red penned by the PF as a waste of time.
All IMHO of course

[tut]

Cheers Chris, that is what we were going to do. I checked the road traffic act that you sent me some time ago, and that shows that it is a chargeable offence under that RTA, but one in the circumstances when he had done the same thing with me in the Elise, that they could have told him that he should not have been on there with his scooter, don't do it again. The fact that they parked out of sight(sic), then waited for a while so that they could see him ride off so that they could charge him speaks for itself. However that would not be stated in court, I am not stupid and if it was Luke defending himself, which he will not now be, it would be yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir.

The L plate charge sums up what I think of that particular pair, and a situation that happened recently with the same pair with Luke, but this time Verian was with him and they did not see her, means we are considering taking action over what now seems to be harassment.

Even I think twice before upsetting Verian.

tut

[tut]

The field is next to the B road, it has a gate to give cars and bikes access for annual events, and a swinging gate for pedestrians. Luke took his scooter and camping equipment through that and they were camping about 40 metres from the road.

tut

[L111CHT]

I spend A LOT of time in courts....but I am not a solicitor

That second charge is principally used to combat off-road bikes tearing up the countryside. Remember the fairly recent influx of those monkey-type mini bikes that every ned seemed to own? Clearly your son was enjoying a camping trip on land he had used previously.

I would consider writing a letter to the PF stating the facts of your argument. I think that any fiscal worth their salt will just put a pen through that particular police complaint. God knows they are busy enough without this sort of stuff....

[tut]

I see that you are journalist, hence the time in Court, so thanks for the advice.

We saw a Solicitor yesterday, he looked at the summons and said he would not even go to Court, just write to the PF explain the circumstances, and state that he did not want to waste Court time over something so trivial. however he did not do Legal Aid cases, so sent as across the road to a firm that did. We have another meeting on Thursday so will take it from there.

tut

[tut]

From the very useful advice received on here, I spoke to the PF's Office this morning, and we are going to plead by reply as opposed to going to Court. Luke is pleading guilty to having his scooter on private land, but not to using his scooter without L plates. Pretty easy to see why when you see the photos that Verian took.

We have put a letter in from Luke explaining the circumstances, with photos of the field the following week. I also spoke to the Park Manager, and though he said that he was not able to give retrospective permission, he had no interest in prosecuting as he would have given it if asked.

Not difficult to see why we think these two cops have a personal issue with the Duncan family.

tut

[robin]

Tut, were all those cars & caravans parked there when Luke was nabbed? I'm assuming the rest were not nabbed?

It's your business of course, but if you don't mind explaining, what's the logic behind pleading guilty to the "without consent" bit? It feels wrong to plead guilty to anything at all ...

Cheers,
Robin

[tut]

No that was the following week Robin. It is regularly used by Caravan Clubs, car and bike clubs, but as they are larger numbers and organised they write in to the Park Manager for permission. Of course anybody can then go in with vehicles and pitch a tent. This is why Luke and his two friends thought they were allowed to pitch their tents there and take their scooters in.

The two cops actually drove past and saw his scooter parked next to his tent, so they then turned around and parked out of sight and waited for him to drive his scooter to the gate so that they could charge him. Clare saw this as she was driving home. So officially he is guilty of breaking a RTA regulation.

As you can see from the photos, the L plate charge was a farce, in fact when the PF sees them it would restore my faith if he took action. How could they charge him with driving without any L plates when it was so obvious that the rear one was there but had been chewed?

However I suspect that the end result will be points and a fine. They were out to get him and they probably will.

tut