| Norwoods DD appeal on 12:58 - Oct 5 with 2355 views | JammyDodgerrr |
Obviously we need to be careful what we post but I've found this whole case very strange. He has consistently appealed and pleaded not guilty to something - you would think - is fairly cut and dry in terms of was or wasn't over the limit. His legal team must know something or something must not be disclosed in the public domain otherwise why appeal? |  |
|  |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 12:59 - Oct 5 with 2329 views | chicoazul |
Edited. [Post edited 5 Oct 2021 13:10]
|  |
| |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 13:13 - Oct 5 with 2232 views | homer_123 |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 12:59 - Oct 5 by chicoazul |
Edited. [Post edited 5 Oct 2021 13:10]
|
Balls of steel there Chico! ;) |  |
| |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 13:24 - Oct 5 with 2166 views | J2BLUE |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 12:58 - Oct 5 by JammyDodgerrr |
Obviously we need to be careful what we post but I've found this whole case very strange. He has consistently appealed and pleaded not guilty to something - you would think - is fairly cut and dry in terms of was or wasn't over the limit. His legal team must know something or something must not be disclosed in the public domain otherwise why appeal? |
People should wait for the facts. In all cases, not just this one. |  |
| |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 13:35 - Oct 5 with 2120 views | BlueBadger |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 12:58 - Oct 5 by JammyDodgerrr |
Obviously we need to be careful what we post but I've found this whole case very strange. He has consistently appealed and pleaded not guilty to something - you would think - is fairly cut and dry in terms of was or wasn't over the limit. His legal team must know something or something must not be disclosed in the public domain otherwise why appeal? |
There's got to be some kind of w@nky loophole or error in process is my suspicion. Even Norwood wouldn't be thick enough to carry on with this otherwise, right? [Post edited 5 Oct 2021 13:36]
|  |
| |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 13:37 - Oct 5 with 2084 views | JammyDodgerrr |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 13:24 - Oct 5 by J2BLUE |
People should wait for the facts. In all cases, not just this one. |
Quite | |
| |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 13:59 - Oct 5 with 1977 views | rfretwell |
Hasnt Chambo got space for him to bunk down? |  | | |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 14:07 - Oct 5 with 1941 views | JammyDodgerrr |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 13:35 - Oct 5 by BlueBadger |
There's got to be some kind of w@nky loophole or error in process is my suspicion. Even Norwood wouldn't be thick enough to carry on with this otherwise, right? [Post edited 5 Oct 2021 13:36]
|
Even if he was, you would assume his counsel isn't. They must've found something. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Norwoods DD appeal on 14:44 - Oct 5 with 1869 views | HighgateBlue |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 12:58 - Oct 5 by JammyDodgerrr |
Obviously we need to be careful what we post but I've found this whole case very strange. He has consistently appealed and pleaded not guilty to something - you would think - is fairly cut and dry in terms of was or wasn't over the limit. His legal team must know something or something must not be disclosed in the public domain otherwise why appeal? |
As a matter of law, his ban is suspended during his appeal.
Individuals can have multiple reasons for wanting to appeal. Sometimes the fact of a suspension of a penalty might itself be sufficient reason to want to appeal. Sometimes one just has enough money and might figure it's worth a shot even if the chances are slim.
But in this case, I don't think anyone on here knows anything about the contents of the grounds of appeal, so attempting to speculate about the prospects of success is not wise. |  | | |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 14:48 - Oct 5 with 1847 views | BlueBlueBluex2 |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 14:44 - Oct 5 by HighgateBlue |
As a matter of law, his ban is suspended during his appeal.
Individuals can have multiple reasons for wanting to appeal. Sometimes the fact of a suspension of a penalty might itself be sufficient reason to want to appeal. Sometimes one just has enough money and might figure it's worth a shot even if the chances are slim.
But in this case, I don't think anyone on here knows anything about the contents of the grounds of appeal, so attempting to speculate about the prospects of success is not wise. |
No one has speculated? | | | |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 14:53 - Oct 5 with 1830 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 12:58 - Oct 5 by JammyDodgerrr |
Obviously we need to be careful what we post but I've found this whole case very strange. He has consistently appealed and pleaded not guilty to something - you would think - is fairly cut and dry in terms of was or wasn't over the limit. His legal team must know something or something must not be disclosed in the public domain otherwise why appeal? |
I suspect his legal team are just be doing their job and will explore every avenue. It doesn't necessarily have to be linked to any new or withheld evidence. Some cases are settled on matters of the process rather than the proof or otherwise of the alleged offence. It could be anything, but will all come out in the wash when his appeal is heard. |  |
| |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 14:58 - Oct 5 with 1816 views | HighgateBlue |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 13:35 - Oct 5 by BlueBadger |
There's got to be some kind of w@nky loophole or error in process is my suspicion. Even Norwood wouldn't be thick enough to carry on with this otherwise, right? [Post edited 5 Oct 2021 13:36]
|
Cases like these are never reported with a great deal of detail, but assuming he was convicted under s. 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the offence, and statutory defence, are as follows:
"(1)If a person–
(a)drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, or
(b)is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place,after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.
(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit."
So where someone is charged under s.5, it is a defence to prove that it was not likely that the proportion of alcohol exceeded the limit. Juries (and judges where they are the tribunal of fact) will be naturally sceptical of arguments that may be raised in seeking to establish the s. 5(2) defence, but nonetheless it is very fact specific. If, for example, a defendant persuades the magistrates that he only had one sip of someone else's glass of wine, the magistrates may be persuaded that the defendant drove at a time when it was unlikely that he was over the limit, even though in fact he was.
An appeal affords a defendant another crack at seeking to prove such a thing. How likely it is to succeed will of course depends on the facts of the case. An appeal to the Crown Court on a criminal matter from the magistrates can be a total rehearing, so a defendant is entitled to have all of the evidence heard again. It is not a species of appeal where one has to find an error of law or loophole that put the lower court into error. If one has the financial means to pursue this sort of appeal (and the initial trial was only a day, so it's not going to be that expensive), then there's nothing really more irrational about pursuing the appeal than there was about pleading not guilty in the first place. It's just another crack at it, and the bench in the Crown Court (a proper judge and a couple of magistrates) are not supposed to give any particular weight to what was found at first instance - they just re-hear the thing again on its merits. | | | |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 15:18 - Oct 5 with 1744 views | King_of_Portman_Rd |
A huge amount of the non guilty pleas at first hearing and subsequent appeals to the sentencing are simply to prolong the inevitable.. kicking the can further down the road for just a little bit longer.
I can’t see how him or any legal rep can see a plausible way of overturning the decision having blown 58.. but stranger things have happened and the courts do work in odd ways.. perhaps if they suppose it long enough he might get a reduced van etc. |  | | |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 15:20 - Oct 5 with 1729 views | HighgateBlue |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 14:48 - Oct 5 by BlueBlueBluex2 |
No one has speculated? |
Well, I'm not sure that's right if you take into account posts that have been edited, but even if you don't:
"something - you would think - is fairly cut and dry in terms of was or wasn't over the limit."
I would say that that is speculation based on a limited understanding of the position, which I don't think is sensible. I'm not saying it's outrageous, just that it's not sensible.
It's not simply a question of whether he was over the limit, there is a statutory defence at s. 5(2) that he is entitled to argue. | | | |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 15:23 - Oct 5 with 1694 views | BlueBlueBluex2 |
Whichever way it goes, he should not be here, I think we can all agree on that. | | | |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 15:24 - Oct 5 with 1700 views | Fixed_It |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 15:20 - Oct 5 by HighgateBlue |
Well, I'm not sure that's right if you take into account posts that have been edited, but even if you don't:
"something - you would think - is fairly cut and dry in terms of was or wasn't over the limit."
I would say that that is speculation based on a limited understanding of the position, which I don't think is sensible. I'm not saying it's outrageous, just that it's not sensible.
It's not simply a question of whether he was over the limit, there is a statutory defence at s. 5(2) that he is entitled to argue. |
Just an observation, but you seem to have written more about this than anyone else... |  |
| |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 15:24 - Oct 5 with 1684 views | Fixed_It |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 15:23 - Oct 5 by BlueBlueBluex2 |
Whichever way it goes, he should not be here, I think we can all agree on that. |
Can we? | |
| |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 15:28 - Oct 5 with 1654 views | HighgateBlue |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 15:24 - Oct 5 by Fixed_It |
Just an observation, but you seem to have written more about this than anyone else... |
Yes, in order to make people aware of the legal framework, and in order to counsel against people expressing a view on how likely the appeal is to succeed or fail.
I have not expressed any view on how likely it is for the appeal to succeed or fail, and I don't intend to. | | | |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 15:28 - Oct 5 with 1655 views | BlueBlueBluex2 |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 15:24 - Oct 5 by Fixed_It |
Can we? |
I would very much like to think so yes.
Nice guy, bad guy, good player, bad player, it makes no odds. There simply is no excuse and I would not want that type of individual playing in front of my children being revered by others. | | | |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 15:43 - Oct 5 with 1585 views | JammyDodgerrr |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 15:20 - Oct 5 by HighgateBlue |
Well, I'm not sure that's right if you take into account posts that have been edited, but even if you don't:
"something - you would think - is fairly cut and dry in terms of was or wasn't over the limit."
I would say that that is speculation based on a limited understanding of the position, which I don't think is sensible. I'm not saying it's outrageous, just that it's not sensible.
It's not simply a question of whether he was over the limit, there is a statutory defence at s. 5(2) that he is entitled to argue. |
I wasn't really trying to speculate on his success or not, or whether he is entitled to argue it. Of course he is - I was trying to say there must be some reason behind it rather than just, he can argue it so that's what he is doing, if that makes sense. I probably am not explaining it very well. | |
| |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 16:01 - Oct 5 with 1539 views | J2BLUE |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 15:28 - Oct 5 by BlueBlueBluex2 |
I would very much like to think so yes.
Nice guy, bad guy, good player, bad player, it makes no odds. There simply is no excuse and I would not want that type of individual playing in front of my children being revered by others. |
Drink driving is terrible and you're right there's no excuse.
We don't agree about him being here though. | |
| |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 16:27 - Oct 5 with 1450 views | Tonytown |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 16:01 - Oct 5 by J2BLUE |
Drink driving is terrible and you're right there's no excuse.
We don't agree about him being here though. |
He does come across as a bit of a tool though | | | |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 17:20 - Oct 5 with 1337 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 16:01 - Oct 5 by J2BLUE |
Drink driving is terrible and you're right there's no excuse.
We don't agree about him being here though. |
It feels like a read the room moment for me.
Saying "being unable to drive was “hugely inconvenient”
Being injured or dead because of a drunk driver isn't exactly convenient either.
It smacks of a lawyer trying their luck about a loophole or an inconsistency in process Norwood has the money to pay a legal team to try every possible angle to avoid a near 4 year ban.
His reading was almost double the legal limit. That's a matter of fact in the court documents.
I'd be really interested to know what he is appealing and on what basis. Readings weren't accurate? Someone didn't read the correct wording to him at the right time?
And why wasn't that part of his initial "not guilty" response.
All just looks like someone not accepting responsibility for their actions. |  | | |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 17:24 - Oct 5 with 1326 views | Cotty |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 12:58 - Oct 5 by JammyDodgerrr |
Obviously we need to be careful what we post but I've found this whole case very strange. He has consistently appealed and pleaded not guilty to something - you would think - is fairly cut and dry in terms of was or wasn't over the limit. His legal team must know something or something must not be disclosed in the public domain otherwise why appeal? |
We don't have to be THAT careful, since he has already been convicted. From the reported facts of the case it seems open and shut to me. There is no excuse for what he did. |  | | |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 17:36 - Oct 5 with 1286 views | ZXBlue |
| Norwoods DD appeal on 14:58 - Oct 5 by HighgateBlue |
Cases like these are never reported with a great deal of detail, but assuming he was convicted under s. 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the offence, and statutory defence, are as follows:
"(1)If a person–
(a)drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, or
(b)is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place,after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.
(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit."
So where someone is charged under s.5, it is a defence to prove that it was not likely that the proportion of alcohol exceeded the limit. Juries (and judges where they are the tribunal of fact) will be naturally sceptical of arguments that may be raised in seeking to establish the s. 5(2) defence, but nonetheless it is very fact specific. If, for example, a defendant persuades the magistrates that he only had one sip of someone else's glass of wine, the magistrates may be persuaded that the defendant drove at a time when it was unlikely that he was over the limit, even though in fact he was.
An appeal affords a defendant another crack at seeking to prove such a thing. How likely it is to succeed will of course depends on the facts of the case. An appeal to the Crown Court on a criminal matter from the magistrates can be a total rehearing, so a defendant is entitled to have all of the evidence heard again. It is not a species of appeal where one has to find an error of law or loophole that put the lower court into error. If one has the financial means to pursue this sort of appeal (and the initial trial was only a day, so it's not going to be that expensive), then there's nothing really more irrational about pursuing the appeal than there was about pleading not guilty in the first place. It's just another crack at it, and the bench in the Crown Court (a proper judge and a couple of magistrates) are not supposed to give any particular weight to what was found at first instance - they just re-hear the thing again on its merits. |
Isn't the 5(2) defence about people being drunk in charge, but not driving? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
