Filed under: Etc.
He fought the law: Jeremy Clarkson gets out of speeding ticket
Many of us have tried to evade those pesky speeding fines, more often than not, unsuccessfully. Not so for Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson who managed to have a case against him dropped despite the publicity and string of copy-cat defenses we're sure will ensue. The story goes like this: A V6 Alfa Romeo Brera was clocked doing 82mph in a 50mph zone by a speed camera in west London. A ticket was then issued to the car's legal owner, Alfa Romeo, which then forwarded it to Clarkson because the car was on loan to him at the time.
Instead of coming clean, Clarkson took the matter to court and with the help of celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman managed to convince a Magistrate that since it couldn't be proven he was in fact behind the wheel he shouldn't have to pay the ticket. Clarkson, who wasn't present at the hearing, was awarded full costs.
We wonder if this defense will work for anyone else caught speeding by a camera in a car that doesn't belong to them.
Thanks for the tip, Thom!
[Source: BBC]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
RicardoHead 11:07AM (9/08/2007)
Clarkson is clearly not man enough to own up to his mistake.
Reply
Yaroukh 11:25AM (9/08/2007)
difficult to tell when you don't know for sure he was behind the wheel
Matt 11:38AM (9/08/2007)
a tad jealous, are we?
far jr 1:54PM (9/08/2007)
I have to agree with Ricardohead. He was responsible for the car at the time. If he wasn't driving, he should be able to find out who was. If he cannot track down the driver, the fine should be his responsibility.
Typical of someone with wealth or fame to buy themselves out of thier problems rather than own up.
paul34 1:58PM (9/08/2007)
Wow, interesting how people view this.
He did this on principle. Would have been far easier ot just pay the fine? Of course!
Think about it guys, your arguments make no logical sense. Why go through the trouble, time, and expense of a lawyer just to handle a simple speeding ticket that would have been pocket change for him?
He didn't do it because he was a "coward" or whatever. He did on *principle*.
The flaw with speed cameras is that while they are touted as increasing personal responsibility and personal law abiding, they do nothing but punish whoever happens to own the car. Does this make sense if the intent is truly to punish the speeder to discourage him/her from doing it again?
No, obviously not. Which makes you question whether its really about teaching drivers a lesson or whether the government just gets its money or not.
Clarkson sees through the BS - not everyone does. I applaud his actions, although in the future, he may want to consider slowing down a bit LOL.
far jr 5:26PM (9/08/2007)
Wow paul34 you mean breaking the law is OK? If he was not driving and was truly a stand up kinda guy wouldn't he just say "I was not driving at the time you will need to talk to Jane Doe, I allowed her to borrow the car. I'm not sure why she was violating the law on a public street?"
Perhaps there is a legitimate reason the driver was endangering other "PUBLIC" highway users by excessively ecceeding the posted limit. Taking an injured person to the hospital perhaps? I think most on this blog are intelligent enough to draw thier own conclusions.
I believe the whole argument revolves around wether or not speeding is actually breaking the law enough to justify being fined. The ticket wouldn't have been issued if the car and undetermined driver had not been violating the law.
Money is nothing to Clarkson, he is wealthy. He paid a lawyer big bucks to "FIX" the problem and prevent him from becoming a public spectacle by appearing in court. This type of blemish is not good for someone in his career don't ya think?
Principles my butt! It is also fairly obvious why he despises speed cameras.
Barney 6:21PM (9/08/2007)
far jr @ Sep 8th 2007 5:26PM
Wow paul34 you mean breaking the law is OK?
Prove it. Prove he was the driver and that is the point being made. Innocent until proven guilty.
Matt 10:15PM (9/08/2007)
Breaking the law is not okay, far jr, however correctly allocating blame is the large legal problem.
If I steal your car, take it to the UK and rack up $1000 in speeding tickets, you'd have to pay for them, which is BS, and the exact point.
Derek 11:20PM (9/09/2007)
I didn't think Clarkson was a cop. It is not his responsibility to find or turn over the guilty party. If you want to track down the actual driver of the car, that is the job of the police.
Guglielmo 11:42AM (9/08/2007)
Here in Italy it's quite different. When you are fined using as evidence a speeding camera photo, the owner of the car - whom the fine is sent - can affirm you don't know who was driving when the camera took the photo. Thus no-one will have its driving license points cut, but the car owner has to pay kind of 350 €uro anyway.
Reply
Guenther 12:10PM (9/08/2007)
Seem to recall Germany has a similar arrangement, where the owner is on the hook, unless they get another driver to own up to the responsibility.
Guglielmo 11:43AM (9/08/2007)
I'm sorry, "can affirm HE doesn't know".
Reply
carauto 12:23PM (9/08/2007)
i like new mini skoda
http://www.sun1001.com/
Reply
Evotec 12:25PM (9/08/2007)
i think that was stig...
Reply
TigerMil 12:27PM (9/08/2007)
Yeah, the defense might work in England.
The magistrate probably figured the cost of the lawyer/beagle/barrister was fair enough.
Reply
Barney 8:56PM (9/08/2007)
"Clarkson, who wasn't present at the hearing, was awarded full costs."
Eric M 12:28PM (9/08/2007)
It was me. The Jezza and I are good friends. I've had the Brera for a few weeks now. It's a blast.
Reply
billy pronto 1:45PM (9/08/2007)
I was with Eric M when he was doing 82. It was Eric. Jezza was had a hangover and wasn't even awake yet.
Those cameras really should have better face recognition software.
Eric M 2:20PM (9/08/2007)
Yeah, Jezza was out. That was a helluva night.
Ken 12:36PM (9/08/2007)
Also - knowing Clarkson, he would gladly drop 100,000 pounds on legal representation to fight the ticket on principle just because he hates speed cameras (as much as I do...but could not afford 100k).
Reply