We visited a District Court recently, and were astounded by the amount of Women being prosecuted for NOT having a TV Licence.
For two hours solid it was ALL Women that were before the Judge. The Judge took the "lenient" position of fining all the women, and asking them if they had since purchased a TV Licence.
Most of the Women responded that they had. For those that had not yet purchased "the licence" the Judge directed them to do so, and to return to Court at a later date with the licence, notwithstanding they now also had a fine to pay. ….
Absolutely NONE of these Women challenged the case(s) against them.
They were probably told, "just plead guilty, accept the fine, and bring a copy of your new TV licence to the Court for the Judge to see" …. It was like a conveyor belt of money rolling up the aisle. My guess would be, there would have been at least forty or so Women in Court that day paying fines, and presenting newly acquired TV licences.
Imagine if just ten of the Woman (One in Four) had decided to challenge the cases against them, and go to trial? And the week after another ten Women or Men decided to do the same, and so on for a year?
Each of their cases could possibly take months and months to sort out, and would and could have the potential to hold up that specific District Court for a few years. The Court would not be able to process any other cases, as it would have so many cases in the system clogging it up.
Very little if any revenue would be generated for the Court, the State and/or for the Legal agents/representative of the TV Licencing Authority.
The local TV Licence inspectors would not have the time to inspect/investigate "the Crime" of not having a TV Licence by other Women or Men, as they would be too busy with Court proceedings, and preparing "evidence" against the People they were trying to prosecute, there would be total anarchy.
All it would have taken for these Women to delay and challenge the validity of the charges against them, would be to say to the Judge, that they were seeking a "Gary Doyle Order".
A Gary Doyle Order means that you are seeking to examine ALL THE "EVIDENCE" that is being used against you, if any. You may later decide to plead guilty or not-guilty, and may consider challenging the validity of evidence, and/or may seek to cross examine potential witnesses, which in most cases is the TV Licence Inspector him/herself.
Can they PROVE you have a Telly? Can they PROVE that you were in possession of a Telly on the day in question? Have they got photographic evidence of you with a Telly on the day in question, they can PROVE you own? …
Surely, you are not going to give evidence against yourself, by saying/stating that you have a Telly?
Surely the BURDEN OF PROOF in LAW is always on the accuser (the TV Licence Inspector), to prove their case? Which in most cases they cannot … as in most cases they cannot prove that you were in possession of a Telly on the day in question (unless you admit it).
At Least … THINK ABOUT IT!!!
The Book "Dear Plonker" has a chapter dedicated to dealing with "TV Licence" inspectors (amongst other things).
In the ideal world, no one needs to end up in court over the "TV Licence" issue, and dealing with their agents/inspectors before any Court action is taken is of vital importance.
Listen to The CLS Talks, with King: Aidan, as this will go a long way towards dealing with TV Licence agents/inspectors and a host of other things: HERE --->