Reasonable doubt
Discussion
I was under the impression that if a prosecution was to have 'reasonable doubt' then the magistrates would find the defendant not guilty. I was also under the impression that 'reasonable doubt' was an element of doubt that your normal, average person would be convinced of.
A friend was given a PG1 (I think that's what it is, a prohibition order) as a tyre was shown to have a small extra groove worn into it due to it at some time in the past having fouled the bodywork. On examination of the car at the scene, it wasn't fouling and the groove was less than a millimetre deep.
This went to court for the tyre offence and in the meantime the car was taken to an MOT station for a fresh MOT to take to the police station to remove the prohibition. The tyres had not been changed however it was taken there on a trailer to avoid further potential offences en route. The MOT station passed the car, knowing that there was a PG1 on it for the tyre and issued a new MOT.
In court, the trafpol turned up, read out his long and distinguished CV and gave his evidence that the tyre was in his opinion illegal, hence the PG1. The owner then produced the MOT and said that a reasonable person would expect a car to only be issued with an MOT if it were, at the time of the MOT, fit for use on the roads.
Would this MOT be introducing 'reasonable doubt' and can you guess what the outcome was?
A friend was given a PG1 (I think that's what it is, a prohibition order) as a tyre was shown to have a small extra groove worn into it due to it at some time in the past having fouled the bodywork. On examination of the car at the scene, it wasn't fouling and the groove was less than a millimetre deep.
This went to court for the tyre offence and in the meantime the car was taken to an MOT station for a fresh MOT to take to the police station to remove the prohibition. The tyres had not been changed however it was taken there on a trailer to avoid further potential offences en route. The MOT station passed the car, knowing that there was a PG1 on it for the tyre and issued a new MOT.
In court, the trafpol turned up, read out his long and distinguished CV and gave his evidence that the tyre was in his opinion illegal, hence the PG1. The owner then produced the MOT and said that a reasonable person would expect a car to only be issued with an MOT if it were, at the time of the MOT, fit for use on the roads.
Would this MOT be introducing 'reasonable doubt' and can you guess what the outcome was?
Lemme see. If you bought a car which had just that second left an MOT station with a fresh MOT, would you consider it to be fit for the road, as a reasonable person? In other words, is an MOT test the definitive test for roadworthness at the time it is taken or do you get a trafpol to inspect your car every day before you drive it?
So an MOT certificate now guarantees legality and every garage is infallible? Like all the garages who your mate's mate knows which issues passes even though your car is decatted?
The reasonable person test applies to Magistrates' as they are just normal people using their judgment. They weighed up both sides and judged using the high burden of proof that the case was proven. If they got this burden wrong then appeal and let a judge with their expertise decide. I assume the brief shared the same concerns about burden of proof?
Regarding the rest. I really don't care. I manage not to get tickets / points / fines etc and drive fast in a fast car now and again. If I can do it anyone else can.
The reasonable person test applies to Magistrates' as they are just normal people using their judgment. They weighed up both sides and judged using the high burden of proof that the case was proven. If they got this burden wrong then appeal and let a judge with their expertise decide. I assume the brief shared the same concerns about burden of proof?
Regarding the rest. I really don't care. I manage not to get tickets / points / fines etc and drive fast in a fast car now and again. If I can do it anyone else can.
FishFace said:
So an MOT certificate now guarantees legality and every garage is infallible? Like all the garages who your mate's mate knows which issues passes even though your car is decatted?
Is that the opinion of a 'reasonable person' or a cynic?I think that 99.9% of people will take an MOT as an indication of roadworthyness.
Bibs_LEF said:
FishFace said:
So an MOT certificate now guarantees legality and every garage is infallible? Like all the garages who your mate's mate knows which issues passes even though your car is decatted?
Is that the opinion of a 'reasonable person' or a cynic?I think that 99.9% of people will take an MOT as an indication of roadworthyness.
Technically it's open to your friend to take the MOT garage to civil court, or make representations with VOSA if they were wrong. Of course that requires effort so it's much better / easier to pin it on the Police and / or Courts.
Take note an MOT:
A test certificate relates only to the condition of testable items at the time of the test and should not be regarded as:
1.evidence of their condition at any other time
2.evidence of the general mechanical condition of the vehicle
3.evidence that the vehicle fully complies with all aspects of the law on vehicle construction and use.
So whilst the officer maybe technicaly correct i view the attitude to be overly
enthusiastic.
A test certificate relates only to the condition of testable items at the time of the test and should not be regarded as:
1.evidence of their condition at any other time
2.evidence of the general mechanical condition of the vehicle
3.evidence that the vehicle fully complies with all aspects of the law on vehicle construction and use.
So whilst the officer maybe technicaly correct i view the attitude to be overly
enthusiastic.
FishFace said:
Bibs_LEF said:
That any offence is invalidated because the car has an MOT or recent MOT?
An offence regarding roadworthyness, yes. The tyres were checked as per the normal MOT test and found to be fit for purpose, not even an advisory. I'm suggesting that the officer is no more, perhaps less qualified than an MOT tester to determine roadworthyness and that the magistrates should look at the fact the car was deemed ok by an MOT station to be an element of 'reasonable doubt'.Bibs_LEF said:
Lemme see. If you bought a car which had just that second left an MOT station with a fresh MOT, would you consider it to be fit for the road, as a reasonable person? In other words, is an MOT test the definitive test for roadworthness at the time it is taken or do you get a trafpol to inspect your car every day before you drive it?
Reasonable doubt is to whether you were guilty of the offence or not. Not whether it was reasonable for you to know it was illegal.Whether the tyre was illegal or not is a matter of fact for the court to consider & an MOT is no guarantee that a vehicle is not committing a con & use offence.
SLCZ3 said:
Take note an MOT:
A test certificate relates only to the condition of testable items at the time of the test and should not be regarded as:
1.evidence of their condition at any other time
2.evidence of the general mechanical condition of the vehicle
3.evidence that the vehicle fully complies with all aspects of the law on vehicle construction and use.
So whilst the officer maybe technicaly correct i view the attitude to be overly
enthusiastic.
It passed the MOT 'after' the alleged offence, the tyres didn't improve in that time. In fact it covered no miles at all between the PG1 and the MOT test. A test certificate relates only to the condition of testable items at the time of the test and should not be regarded as:
1.evidence of their condition at any other time
2.evidence of the general mechanical condition of the vehicle
3.evidence that the vehicle fully complies with all aspects of the law on vehicle construction and use.
So whilst the officer maybe technicaly correct i view the attitude to be overly
enthusiastic.
vonhosen said:
Reasonable doubt is to whether you were guilty of the offence or not. Not whether it was reasonable for you to know it was illegal.
Whether the tyre was illegal or not is a matter of fact for the court to consider & an MOT is no guarantee that a vehicle is not committing a con & use offence.
But the point is, that no offence was committed apart from in the opinion of a police officer, and that opinion was challenged by a fresh MOT where they checked the tyres and passed them as suitable. I'm aware that ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it but...Whether the tyre was illegal or not is a matter of fact for the court to consider & an MOT is no guarantee that a vehicle is not committing a con & use offence.
From http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicl...
the govt said:
Wheels and tyres - condition, security, tyre size and type, and tread depth.
The condition of the tyres was deemed by a govt appointed 'car checker' as fine. The trafpol thought otherwise. The magistrates sided with the trafpol although in my reasonable opinion the MOT test deemed the tyres to be suitable. What I think, and my point is, is that the car would be seem by a reasonable person as suitable for use on the roads the second it passed that MOT.
Who is more qualified to determine roadworthness in the eyes of the public, the MOT tester and station or a trafpol? Who checks your car once a year and gives you a certificate?
FishFace said:
So the MOT tester sounds like he was wrong then.
Brilliant, are you a magistrate? He was shown the PG1 slip, he knew the car had a prohibition for tyres so may well have taken a little more care than usual when checking them! The car has since passed 2 more MOT tests, at different stations on the same tyres. Are all the testers wrong?
Bibs_LEF said:
vonhosen said:
Reasonable doubt is to whether you were guilty of the offence or not. Not whether it was reasonable for you to know it was illegal.
Whether the tyre was illegal or not is a matter of fact for the court to consider & an MOT is no guarantee that a vehicle is not committing a con & use offence.
But the point is, that no offence was committed apart from in the opinion of a police officer, and that opinion was challenged by a fresh MOT where they checked the tyres and passed them as suitable. I'm aware that ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it but...Whether the tyre was illegal or not is a matter of fact for the court to consider & an MOT is no guarantee that a vehicle is not committing a con & use offence.
From http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicl...
the govt said:
Wheels and tyres - condition, security, tyre size and type, and tread depth.
The condition of the tyres was deemed by a govt appointed 'car checker' as fine. The trafpol thought otherwise. The magistrates sided with the trafpol although in my reasonable opinion the MOT test deemed the tyres to be suitable. What I think, and my point is, is that the car would be seem by a reasonable person as suitable for use on the roads the second it passed that MOT.
Who is more qualified to determine roadworthness in the eyes of the public, the MOT tester and station or a trafpol? Who checks your car once a year and gives you a certificate?
Whether a reasonable person considers an MOT proof of a vehicle's condition is neither here nor there.
The question for the magistrate is are they satisfied but the tyre actually contravened the con & use regs ? An MOT is not a test that a vehicle complies with the con & use regs. It can pass an MOT & still commit con & use offences.
Bibs_LEF said:
FishFace said:
So an MOT certificate now guarantees legality and every garage is infallible? Like all the garages who your mate's mate knows which issues passes even though your car is decatted?
Is that the opinion of a 'reasonable person' or a cynic?I think that 99.9% of people will take an MOT as an indication of roadworthyness.
vonhosen said:
You are incorrectly applying the reasonable person test.
Whether a reasonable person considers an MOT proof of a vehicle's condition is neither here nor there.
The question for the magistrate is are they satisfied but the tyre actually contravened the con & use regs ? An MOT is not a test that a vehicle complies with the con & use regs. It can pass an MOT & still commit con & use offences.
In one post you've cleared that up entirely! I was misundertanding the 'reasonable person test' and thought it applied to the offence, not the judgement. Whether a reasonable person considers an MOT proof of a vehicle's condition is neither here nor there.
The question for the magistrate is are they satisfied but the tyre actually contravened the con & use regs ? An MOT is not a test that a vehicle complies with the con & use regs. It can pass an MOT & still commit con & use offences.
I thought that if a reasonable person would consider the car to be roadworthy, surely no offence had been committed. Ta
Bibs_LEF said:
In court, the trafpol turned up, read out his long and distinguished CV and gave his evidence that the tyre was in his opinion illegal, hence the PG1. The owner then produced the MOT and said that a reasonable person would expect a car to only be issued with an MOT if it were, at the time of the MOT, fit for use on the roads.
Would this MOT be introducing 'reasonable doubt' and can you guess what the outcome was?
The defence was, in law, incorrect and the magistrates had no option but to find for the prosecution. Had the challenge been that, for instance, the MoT inspector had much greater time to examine the tyre, was able to lift the vehicle, was asked specifically to examine the tyre, and was willing to come to the court to back this up, then there is the possibility of a challenge. But just bringing the MoT left their worships with no choice at all.Would this MOT be introducing 'reasonable doubt' and can you guess what the outcome was?
A better option would have been to take the tyre to a tyre specialist who could challenge on the details of the legislation. The law on tyres is a bit involved and is open to interpretation. Or misinterpretation, whichever option you feel you need.
A challenge with specialists going head to head is expensive for both parties and a report from such a specialist sent to the CPS is often enough to make them bottle.
Did the defendant have legal advice?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff