Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Shaun Wright-Phillips escapes jail because he doesn’t open his own post

Covered EndCovered End
edited August 2013 in Other Football and Sports
We know high earning footballers are often pampered to the extreme these days but Shaun Wright-Phillips has escaped a prison sentence after it was revealed that he doesn’t even open his own post. His agent does! The QPR winger was facing jail for driving while disqualified but after explaining to magistrates that he was unaware he was banned he was let off because of “special reasons”. Despite being sent a host of reminders, SWP missed his court summons for going 79mph in a 50mph zone in Esher, Surrey and after failing to appear in December, the court banned him in his absence.
«1

Comments

  • iainmentiainment
    Does that mean if I outsource my mail I don't have to pay any bills that come in by post?
  • AbsurdistanAbsurdistan
    Unbelievable..........................
  • Cardinal SinCardinal Sin
    This is what an expensive lawyer can do for you.
  • BedsaddickBedsaddick
    Total Bullshit . How on earth can a court accept that poxy excuse ???
  • Norfolk_AddickNorfolk_Addick
    The courts are shit. They need a massive overhaul.
  • Leroy AmbroseLeroy Ambrose
    It's not the courts - it's the whole system. I'm willing to volunteer myself as an independent adjudicator. Clearly for cases such as this, where there is some legal loophole, my adjudication would take about four seconds - and that includes banging the gavel and signing my name. The Court of Leroy declares your previous judgement null and void, and finds you guilty of being a pisstaking rich c***. You are hereby fined 50% of your earnings for the next month, and made to donate it to a local hospital of your choice.
  • pilchardpilchard
    Amen to that Leroy.
  • LuckyRedsLuckyReds
    Forgive me if I'm mistaken; but now this has been ruled - doesn't this set a precedent for future cases? Obviously this is working upon the assumption that this wont be overruled at a later date, but who is going to finance that? I can't see the CPS thinking it's a worthy cause.

    Theoretically speaking then, if someone can now demonstrate that they were unaware of the contents of their mail, does that now mean that they can't be found liable for any consequences arising from the lack of action taken regarding the subject matter of the mail?

    I'm quite surprised this doesn't land his agent in hot water though; given the status of mail (and, presumably court/legal documents) I would've thought this would pass some form of culpability on to the agent for not ensuring the documents found SWP.

    His agent has, in essence, intercepted (albeit with permission) SWP's post - but not ensured it's found it's rightful owner. Surely there is some form of legal obligation to ensure that legal paperwork is passed on to the correct recipient?

    Utterly ridiculous though.
  • LargeAddickLargeAddick
    beyond belief. Would be interesting to see what the outcome would have been if you or I had tried that one on.
  • uie2uie2
    Hes better than shaun! Bwp is better at opening his own post an shaun ;-)
  • Sponsored links:


  • TelMc32TelMc32
    Shouldn't his agent be done for contempt, or something similar? As well as SWP getting the sentence he should have got. I wasn't aware that ignorance was a defence!! Would like to see any of us try it and get away with it.
  • guinnessaddickguinnessaddick
    edited August 2013
    His agent should be banned from driving then. I know that sounds stupid, but no more than whats has happened.
    I take it that SWP ban starts again.
  • AddicktedAddickted
    Leroy Ambrose said:

    and that includes banging the gavel

    Make up your mid LA. Only Auctioneers bang gavels. :-)

  • Kap10Kap10
    What happened to "Ignorance is no defence in the eys of the law"?
  • cafcfancafcfan
    There's magistrates for you.
    I always thought ignorance was no defence! (Although this was mitigation rather than defence.)
  • se9addickse9addick
    LuckyReds said:

    Forgive me if I'm mistaken; but now this has been ruled - doesn't this set a precedent for future cases? Obviously this is working upon the assumption that this wont be overruled at a later date, but who is going to finance that? I can't see the CPS thinking it's a worthy cause.

    Theoretically speaking then, if someone can now demonstrate that they were unaware of the contents of their mail, does that now mean that they can't be found liable for any consequences arising from the lack of action taken regarding the subject matter of the mail?

    I'm quite surprised this doesn't land his agent in hot water though; given the status of mail (and, presumably court/legal documents) I would've thought this would pass some form of culpability on to the agent for not ensuring the documents found SWP.

    His agent has, in essence, intercepted (albeit with permission) SWP's post - but not ensured it's found it's rightful owner. Surely there is some form of legal obligation to ensure that legal paperwork is passed on to the correct recipient?

    Utterly ridiculous though.

    Decisions of the lower courts don't create precedents.
  • cafcfancafcfan
    LuckyReds said:



    Theoretically speaking then, if someone can now demonstrate that they were unaware of the contents of their mail, does that now mean that they can't be found liable for any consequences arising from the lack of action taken regarding the subject matter of the mail?

    No. There's a piece of legislation - Section 7 of The Interpretation Act 1978 which says:

    "Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

    I'd suggest the magistrate(s) in this case (remember it would have been SW-P who provided his agent's address as the contact point) were likely ignorant of this piece of legislation and neither the Clerk of The Court nor, of course, SW-P's brief (who, being a motoring specialist, would have been only too aware of it) bothered to bring it to the Mag's attention.
  • I-SAW-POUSO-PLAYI-SAW-POUSO-PLAY
    Love him to come to us on loan
  • I-SAW-POUSO-PLAYI-SAW-POUSO-PLAY
    But he'd probably miss the game
  • chazzachazza
    I've heard it all now. Absolute bollocks.
  • Sponsored links:


  • guinnessaddickguinnessaddick
    cafcfan said:

    LuckyReds said:



    Theoretically speaking then, if someone can now demonstrate that they were unaware of the contents of their mail, does that now mean that they can't be found liable for any consequences arising from the lack of action taken regarding the subject matter of the mail?

    I'd suggest the magistrate(s) in this case (remember it would have been SW-P who provided his agent's address as the contact point) were likely ignorant of this piece of legislation and neither the Clerk of The Court nor, of course, SW-P's brief (who, being a motoring specialist, would have been only too aware of it) bothered to bring it to the Mag's attention.
    Shouldn't the letter be sent to the address on the driving licence?
  • RizzoRizzo
    I-SAW-POUSO-PLAY said:

    Love him to come to us on loan

    SCP wrote to him and asked if he fancied it. The bastard never even replied!
  • Covered EndCovered End
    So, I'm not opening any of my post in future. The wife can open mine & I'll open her post.
    I'm just dreamimg of all the new opportunities that have opened up :-)
  • cafcfancafcfan
    guinnessaddick said:

    cafcfan said:

    LuckyReds said:



    Theoretically speaking then, if someone can now demonstrate that they were unaware of the contents of their mail, does that now mean that they can't be found liable for any consequences arising from the lack of action taken regarding the subject matter of the mail?

    I'd suggest the magistrate(s) in this case (remember it would have been SW-P who provided his agent's address as the contact point) were likely ignorant of this piece of legislation and neither the Clerk of The Court nor, of course, SW-P's brief (who, being a motoring specialist, would have been only too aware of it) bothered to bring it to the Mag's attention.
    Shouldn't the letter be sent to the address on the driving licence?
    Possibly not. The original offence was speeding (presumably caught by a scamera). The NIP would have been sent to the address of the registered keeper of the Bentley. At that time, the actual driver of the car would have been unknown.



  • MortimericianMortimerician
    If SWP got banged up he would be wearing a dress within a day. Correct decision.
  • Cardinal SinCardinal Sin
    cafcfan said:

    guinnessaddick said:

    cafcfan said:

    LuckyReds said:



    Theoretically speaking then, if someone can now demonstrate that they were unaware of the contents of their mail, does that now mean that they can't be found liable for any consequences arising from the lack of action taken regarding the subject matter of the mail?

    I'd suggest the magistrate(s) in this case (remember it would have been SW-P who provided his agent's address as the contact point) were likely ignorant of this piece of legislation and neither the Clerk of The Court nor, of course, SW-P's brief (who, being a motoring specialist, would have been only too aware of it) bothered to bring it to the Mag's attention.
    Shouldn't the letter be sent to the address on the driving licence?
    Possibly not. The original offence was speeding (presumably caught by a scamera). The NIP would have been sent to the address of the registered keeper of the Bentley. At that time, the actual driver of the car would have been unknown.



    He may have his post referred to his agent by Royal Mail. That would, at least, provide some evidence for his claim although we don't know that for sure....still think it's an expensive loophole lawyer. Not to worry, he'll be banned next time around.
  • RedArmySE7RedArmySE7
    It's a rich mans world.
  • ViewfinderViewfinder
    Let's not forget there was another dodgy decision from the bench on a driving offence just the other day - Ray 'hic!' Wilkinsh, your worship.
  • guinnessaddickguinnessaddick
    cafcfan said:

    guinnessaddick said:

    cafcfan said:

    LuckyReds said:



    Theoretically speaking then, if someone can now demonstrate that they were unaware of the contents of their mail, does that now mean that they can't be found liable for any consequences arising from the lack of action taken regarding the subject matter of the mail?

    I'd suggest the magistrate(s) in this case (remember it would have been SW-P who provided his agent's address as the contact point) were likely ignorant of this piece of legislation and neither the Clerk of The Court nor, of course, SW-P's brief (who, being a motoring specialist, would have been only too aware of it) bothered to bring it to the Mag's attention.
    Shouldn't the letter be sent to the address on the driving licence?
    Possibly not. The original offence was speeding (presumably caught by a scamera). The NIP would have been sent to the address of the registered keeper of the Bentley. At that time, the actual driver of the car would have been unknown.



    A number of reminders went out, including one to the star’s home in Surrey. But he never saw any of them, the court heard.

    Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/shaun-wright-phillips-avoids-jail-driving-2138396#ixzz2bUDharGy
    Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook


    So one letter was sent to his home. Guilty m'lord.
  • MattDMattD
    From now on I dont open my own post either.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!