Reasonable doubt

[Bibs_LEF]

Derek Smith said:

Did the defendant have legal advice?

The defendant was a single mother and couldn't afford legal advice nor the services of a tyre specialist I'm afraid.

[herewego]

Why was the car taken to the MOT station by trailer instead of just changing the wheel?

[Derek Smith]

Bibs_LEF said:

Derek Smith said:

Did the defendant have legal advice?

The defendant was a single mother and couldn't afford legal advice nor the services of a tyre specialist I'm afraid.

Then I'm afraid she doesn't have a hope. Theft, robbery, murder etc and she would have had the benefit of a court appointed brief.

What was the penalty? If it was harsh then there's every chance of an appeal against sentence. The claim would be that if an MoT tester is fooled by such subtle technicalities, then an ordinary member of the public, who has had to fork out a considerable percentage of her income for the low-loader and MoT test . . .

But, I suppose, that would need legal advice.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

An MOT isn't a defence in itself to anything other than a charge of no MOT.
The question is did the tyre comply with both the con & use regulations & the Road Traffic Act (which aren't necessarily the same as the MOT test). It was alleged that it didn't comply with the Regs/Act, with evidence supplied from the trafpol. That evidence obviously wasn't successfully countered in court to produce reasonable doubt. Hoping that just producing a MOT will be sufficient to cast doubt on whether it complied with the Regs/Act is folly.

[Bibs_LEF]

herewego said:

Why was the car taken to the MOT station by trailer instead of just changing the wheel?

To see if the tyre was legal or not, according to the MOT test station. It was a borrowed trailer, not a hired low loader.

The penalty was 3 points and a fine, couple of hundred quid iirc.

[Bibs_LEF]

vonhosen said:

It was alleged that it didn't comply with the Regs/Act, with evidence supplied from the trafpol. That evidence obviously wasn't successfully countered in court to produce reasonable doubt. Hoping that just producing a MOT will be sufficient to cast doubt on whether it complied with the Regs/Act is folly.

It was hoped that the MOT would be enough, perhaps she should have taken the option of speaking to a tyre specialist although I doubt if that would have been within budget.

[vonhosen]

Bibs_LEF said:

herewego said:

Why was the car taken to the MOT station by trailer instead of just changing the wheel?

To see if the tyre was legal or not, according to the MOT test station. It was a borrowed trailer, not a hired low loader.

The penalty was 3 points and a fine, couple of hundred quid iirc.

The MOT will test it in accordance with the MOT testing criteria, not the Construction & Use Regs/Road Traffic Act. It's not alleged that it would fail an MOT, it was alleged that it didn't comply with the Regs/Act.

[odyssey2200]

So we have a conflict of opinion

Plod (presumably trained to know the requirements)sees tyre and says illegal.
MOT tester (definately trained to represent VOSA and carry out tests to the required standard) sees the same tyre and says Legal.


IMHO a reasonable magistrate (who should be trained) having been presented with 2 equally credible pieces of conflicting evidence should not have found the OP guilty.

[vonhosen]

odyssey2200 said:

So we have a conflict of opinion

Plod (presumably trained to know the requirements)sees tyre and says illegal.
MOT tester (definately trained to represent VOSA and carry out tests to the required standard) sees the same tyre and says Legal.


IMHO a reasonable magistrate (who should be trained) having been presented with 2 equally credible pieces of conflicting evidence should not have found the OP guilty.

The MOT tester isn't testing against the Con & Use Regs/Road Traffic Act. They only look at it in respect of the MOT requirements. She wasn't in court for MOT requirements.

[odyssey2200]

vonhosen said:

odyssey2200 said:

So we have a conflict of opinion

Plod (presumably trained to know the requirements)sees tyre and says illegal.
MOT tester (definately trained to represent VOSA and carry out tests to the required standard) sees the same tyre and says Legal.


IMHO a reasonable magistrate (who should be trained) having been presented with 2 equally credible pieces of conflicting evidence should not have found the OP guilty.

The MOT tester isn't testing against the Con & Use Regs/Road Traffic Act. They only look at it in respect of the MOT requirements. She wasn't in court for MOT requirements.

So you are seriously saying that you can leave an MOT station having had you car including its tyres given a clean bill of health aand Plod could take you to court for a tyre defect?

Von you have really gone too far this time.

An MOT inspects the tryres condition for wear and damage to VOSA standards.

Perhaps the BiB have the unique ability to make their own rules up as they see fit?

[Derek Smith]

odyssey2200 said:

IMHO a reasonable magistrate (who should be trained) having been presented with 2 equally credible pieces of conflicting evidence should not have found the OP guilty.

But, of course, the magistrates were not asked to judge on conflict of evidence. The woman suggested that it was reasonable on her behalf to believe the MoT. The law is quite specific: it is down to individual responsibility. If she had suggested that it brought the officer’s opinion into doubt then that would have been different. The problem is, of course, that the magistrates have been trained so knew what was correct in law.

[vonhosen]

odyssey2200 said:

vonhosen said:

odyssey2200 said:

So we have a conflict of opinion

Plod (presumably trained to know the requirements)sees tyre and says illegal.
MOT tester (definately trained to represent VOSA and carry out tests to the required standard) sees the same tyre and says Legal.


IMHO a reasonable magistrate (who should be trained) having been presented with 2 equally credible pieces of conflicting evidence should not have found the OP guilty.

The MOT tester isn't testing against the Con & Use Regs/Road Traffic Act. They only look at it in respect of the MOT requirements. She wasn't in court for MOT requirements.

So you are seriously saying that you can leave an MOT station having had you car including its tyres given a clean bill of health aand Plod could take you to court for a tyre defect?

Von you have really gone too far this time.

An MOT inspects the tryres condition for wear and damage to VOSA standards.

Perhaps the BiB have the unique ability to make their own rules up as they see fit?

Of course you can drive a vehicle straight out of the MOT testing station with a pass & be committing a Traffic offence with it in the condition it passed the MOT, because they aren't the same test.

The Police don't give any consideration to the requirements or standards of a MOT test. They look at the tyre in respect of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations & the Road Traffic Act. The officer alleged that it didn't meet the requirements of them (no mention of the MOT). If you wish to defend the allegation you have to address that specific allegation. Turning up & saying "I have had it MOT'd with that tyre & it passed" does not address the specific allegation. You need to show why the condition alleged does not breach the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regs or the Road Traffic Act as alleged.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 8th March 19:26

[herewego]

Bibs_LEF said:

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?

Did she take this new MOT to the police station and get this "prohibition" removed? Did she tell the police it still had the same tyre on it?

[thinfourth2]

vonhosen said:

Of course you can drive a vehicle straight out of the MOT testing station with a pass & be committing a Traffic offence with it in the condition it passed the MOT, because they aren't the same test.

The Police don't give any consideration to the requirements or standards of a MOT test. They look at the tyre in respect of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations & the Road Traffic Act. The officer alleged that it didn't meet the requirements of them (no mention of the MOT). If you wish to defend the allegation you have to address that specific allegation. Turning up & saying "I have had it MOT'd with that tyre & it passed" does not address the specific allegation. You need to show why the condition alleged does not breach the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regs or the Road Traffic Act as alleged.

So you are saying that the traffic cops have an entirely different set of rules with regards to car condition then the MOT testers

Either you are talking bks

or

An MOT is an entirely worthless test

But considering the only people that can remove a PG1 are MOT testers then i think i know which option i would be going for

[herewego]

It looks to me that what has happened is that the MOT tester has not seen the damage to the tyre and has therefore passed the car. I don't think the specific damage has been highlighted to the tester. MOT testers are not infallible.
However a groove of less than 1mm doesn't sound like anything to be concerned about. Maybe construction and Use Regs specify zero damage?

[Bibs_LEF]

herewego said:

Did she take this new MOT to the police station and get this "prohibition" removed? Did she tell the police it still had the same tyre on it?

Yes and no, what's the relevance?

[Bibs_LEF]

herewego said:

It looks to me that what has happened is that the MOT tester has not seen the damage to the tyre and has therefore passed the car. I don't think the specific damage has been highlighted to the tester. MOT testers are not infallible.

The MOT tester was aware of the prohibition as stated.

[vonhosen]

thinfourth2 said:

vonhosen said:

Of course you can drive a vehicle straight out of the MOT testing station with a pass & be committing a Traffic offence with it in the condition it passed the MOT, because they aren't the same test.

The Police don't give any consideration to the requirements or standards of a MOT test. They look at the tyre in respect of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations & the Road Traffic Act. The officer alleged that it didn't meet the requirements of them (no mention of the MOT). If you wish to defend the allegation you have to address that specific allegation. Turning up & saying "I have had it MOT'd with that tyre & it passed" does not address the specific allegation. You need to show why the condition alleged does not breach the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regs or the Road Traffic Act as alleged.

So you are saying that the traffic cops have an entirely different set of rules with regards to car condition then the MOT testers

Either you are talking bks

or

An MOT is an entirely worthless test

But considering the only people that can remove a PG1 are MOT testers then i think i know which option i would be going for

Look at the guidelines for what a MOT tester has to check in relation to tyres & then read the Road Vehicle (Con & Use) Regs to see the full details of the legal requirements in relation to tyres.

Yes you can pass a MOT & be committing an offence as soon as you drive onto the road. For instance the MOT has no requirement to check the condition of the spare tyre, but in law the spare tyre is subject to the same regulations under the Con & Use Regs as any other.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 8th March 20:06

[Bibs_LEF]

Derek Smith said:

The problem is, of course, that the magistrates have been trained so knew what was correct in law.

I didn't think that a magistrate was trained, hence their use of the Clerk of the Court.

Edited by Bibs_LEF on Saturday 8th March 20:04

[grumbledoak]

Bibs_LEF said:

I didn't think that a magistrate was trained, hence their use of the Clerk of the Court.

Quite right. A 'Clerk of The Court' that I know has recounted occasions of the Magistrate referring to the "Hind wheels" of a car.

Trained, they aren't. Get a lawyer!