FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

Are insinuating ZA is a lurker?

[myownalias]

I make no legal statements, it's my view of the situation, I'm not a reporter, I write from a personal perspective!

[What's Burning?]

I understand, my point is to differentiate between the legal aspect and the personal point of view that can often be misguided. We use laws for a reason. After all, you get enough of those personal perspectives together and you've got a mob rule.

[myownalias]

As Mercedes has only enquired about being allowed to participate and not launched a legal challenge, that suggests to me that legally they don't have a leg to stand on, a team with the financial resources of Mercedes would surely launch a legal challenge if it thought it had the slightest chance of winning the case?

[What's Burning?]

They're just waiting for the FiA to finish adding bells and whistles to the No longer YDT, before they draft the legal documentation.

[racechick]

I've rea somewhere that it's the ' Niki Lauda, anti Brawn' faction that don't want to push the issue, being more interested in PR. Thats not my view, just one Ive read ...but I must admit Im surprised Brawn and the legal team aren't on it like a ton of bricks!

[myownalias]

Hamilton gets monkey off his back with Hungarian GP victory

Lewis Hamilton took his first victory of his Mercedes AMG F1 career at the Hungaroring after a good start and some fortuitous luck ahead of Lotus’ Kimi Raikkonen and Red Bull’s Sebastian Vettel.

Continue Reading...

[darwin dali]

Hamilton gets monkey off his back with Hungarian GP victory

Lewis Hamilton took his first victory of his Mercedes AMG F1 career at the Hungaroring after a good start and some fortuitous luck ahead of Lotus’ Kimi Raikkonen and Red Bull’s Sebastian Vettel.

Continue Reading...

Was he spanking it all this time?

[myownalias]

Hamilton gets monkey off his back with Hungarian GP victory

Lewis Hamilton took his first victory of his Mercedes AMG F1 career at the Hungaroring after a good start and some fortuitous luck ahead of Lotus’ Kimi Raikkonen and Red Bull’s Sebastian Vettel.

Continue Reading...

Was he spanking it all this time?

Why do you think Lewis dedicated his victory to Nicole? since they split up, he had to spank it himself... unless RC was helping out!

[zurich_allan]

You get a ticket for speeding. You know you shouldn't be speeding but you did it anyway thinking you'd get away with. You get handed a fine for speeding that says you pay 100 dollars and you agree to pay that fine. Tomorrow a kid is injured by a speeding motorist, the community is up in arms and the town decides to raise the fine for speeding to 1000 dollar. You now have to pay the new fine. It doesn't make legal sense.

The penalty has been handed down and it was a YDT, but now with the current drivers and the testing of the new compound kevlar tires being tested for safety reasons, you're no longer running a YDT. You may have your own opinion as to why you feel Mercedes broke the rules and should be forced to pay the punishment, but that opinion does not have a legal foundation other than you think Mercedes got away lightly and should have paid a higher price.

If you can give me a legally justifiable argument as to why the speeder should now be forced to pay 1000 dollars versus the original 100 dollar fine, I'd love to hear it.

Retroactive law aka Ex post facto law which are unconstitutional in the US, but not, e.g., in the UK:
a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with lifelong imprisonment) retroactively. Such laws are also known by the Latin term in mitius.

I'm sure our resident legal expert ZA will have some input...

Don't know how I missed this discussion first time round, but yeah, DD has pretty much covered it. It's not quite true to say that these rules don't apply in the UK as such - criminal law (and indeed aspects of civil law) are slightly different in Scotland as compared to England and Wales. Indeed in Scotland we do recognise that there can be 'no punishement without law', which stems from Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This states:

"1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed."

The problem here is that in the convention there are two types of protected rights. The first is an absolute right, which cannot be breached under any circumstances. Sadly, Article 7 falls under the second category of rights, which are qualified rights, meaning that the State is legally able to breach these rights. This is generally the case as goes any decision on what does or does not fall under the criminal law of any State. As such, Article 7 goes on to say:

"2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations."

This is complicated further by some countries (including Scotland) retaining what is known as a 'declaratory power', which means that if a Judge at a superior court level (usually High Court or Supreme Court) has a case come before him with an unusual set of circumstances, and of which there is no real judicial precedent and no legislative provision, they are entitled to declare those new circumstances to be illegal under general principles of law and impose what they deem to be an appropriate disposal (punishment).This is a power that is rarely used as most acts of a criminal nature have by now been discovered or provided for by the time they get to a court, but it is still a legal and binding power held by many courts.

This type of power might seem to be at odds with the Convention rights noted, however most States have reserved powers in terms of their own criminal laws, and these cannot be interfered with by either the Court of Human Rights or the EU (although pressure can be applied by these organisations and other members to persuade the State(s) in question to change them or not continue with an intended course of action.

However to REALLY throw a spanner in the works (appropriate term for motorsport issues), the big problem here is that not all of this is applicable, nor is the original anecdote. This is due to the simple fact that the issue in question (the Mercedes issue, the offence carried out, and the punishment) is NOT a criminal issue, it's a civil one, and the rules although generally very similar, are not protected to anywhere near the same level as criminal issues. A criminal conviction has severe consequences on the 'fame or liberty' (criminal record or imprisonment) of an individual, but civil liability does not (in general). If civil liability can carry a 'criminal' disposal (usually imprisonment), then the same protected rights as those that apply to criminal convictions are applicable. Things such as breaches of interdict or injunctions fall into this category. However if the disposal for a civil offence is only a fine or some other restriction short of imprisonment then usually the rights are not protected to the same degree.

I could discuss more, but the crux of all of this is that the original anecdote is not appropriate due to major differences between criminal and civil law. Even if it were, although on the face of it a right has been breached a State or Court may be legally allowed to continue with that breach as long as they can justify it in the majority of cases.

[myownalias]

Sebastian Vettel claims flawless Spa Francorchamps Victory

Red Bull’s Sebastian Vettel claimed his fifth race win of the season at Spa in flawless fashion after taking the lead on the Kemmel Straight on the first lap, Ferrari’s Fernando Alonso and pole sitter, Mercedes’ Lewis Hamilton claimed the second and third step of the podium, respectively.

Continue Reading...

[myownalias]

My first F1 write-up of the year, enjoy, feel free to comment here or on my website...

Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix 2014

2014 heralds a brave new world for Formula 1 with it’s new 1.6L V6 Turbo with two forms of Energy Recovery System to boost the total power to 760BHP; also new 100KG total fuel usage and 100KG/H fuel flow limitation which confuses me somewhat as I will explain later in this write-up.

Continue Reading...

[sagi58]

Great read, MOA!! Not that it means all that much coming from someone who isn't very F1 savvy!!

Uhmmm... I have to say, it was hard to read the font, because of the background!
I ended up hilighting the text to read it! Sorry!

[myownalias]

I ended up hilighting the text to read it! Sorry!

What background are you seeing? there should be opaque white behind the text!

[sagi58]

Looks like the Union Jack in various shades of grey!