[LEAPSECS] the abbreviation UTC

Clive D.W. Feather clive at davros.org
Thu Aug 18 08:59:41 EDT 2011

mike cook said:

> My argument is not that the lawmans watch is not to any particular

> accuracy , but that it might be showing some value ( time ) that has no

> legal existence. Lawyers like that stuff.

Judges don't. (Well, it might amuse them briefly, after which you'll get
thoroughly and sarcastically squelched.)

Time has a legal existence, both de facto and in various bits of
legislation. In your example there are three relevant timescales: UTC, GMT,
and the time shown by the watch. These differ from each other by some
value. The *only* thing the judge will care about is whether the difference
is significant to the case.

It is likely that the traffic warden's watch is within 4 minutes of UTC, so
it is within 5 minutes of GMT. If the restriction is "no parking between
0800 and 1830" and the ticket says "parked from 1122 to 1435", the judge
will be quite happy to convict on the basis that you must have been parked
there from 1127 to 1430 legal time. End of case. The *only* time it would
matter was if the ticket said "parked from 1827 to 1900", when the issue of
accuracy would be significant.

> A good example is with

> Parisian parking meters. It is written in law that anyone selling

> anything must accept legally accepted currency .

This may be a French thing; there's no such statement in UK law. (There's a
weaker requirement about paying debts in cash.)

> So you can have

> your parking offence canceled by writing Prefect of police to that effect.

Have you actually done this successfully yourself, or is this simply
something that a friend claims he was told someone else told him that they
know someone who did this?

Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: clive at davros.org | it will get its revenge.
Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer
Mobile: +44 7973 377646

More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list