RE: Laser meters are inaccurate: BBC
Discussion
Mr Whippy said:
Soon there will be no innocent until proven guilty, it'll be guilty until you (impossibly) prove yourself innocent!
Dave
this WILL happen whenever we sign up for an EU Contitution, its the way things work in the rest of Europe and its called Napoleonic Law, or to be more accurate Corpus Juris, this is why in Spain Greece etc you are assumed Guilty till you prove your innocence like those British plane spotters in Greece for example, they bung you in Jail till you can prove your innocence!!
mind you its very close to being like that here now is it not! under our glorious Dictator Herr Blair
camper
apache said:
justinp1 said:
I am thinking of an appeal on here? What do you think?
I think a spot of "sponsorship" might be in order is what I think.
agreed justin, now when are you gonna wax em?
on a serious note, this is far, far more relevant to Pistonheads and the people who post here than anything else I can think of. It may not be as worthy but you can count me in
Same here. Come on, get something started and see how much support we can canvas. Opportunities like this don't come along often.
I've not read the whole thread so, in case it's not been mentioned, a word about Prof John Brignell who featured in the Inside Out programme....
His website is well worth a visit.....enormous amount of interesting stuff in the monthly Number of the Month archives.
Very funny guy, too....
www.numberwatch.co.uk
His website is well worth a visit.....enormous amount of interesting stuff in the monthly Number of the Month archives.
Very funny guy, too....
www.numberwatch.co.uk
camper said:
Soon there will be no innocent until proven guilty, it'll be guilty until you (impossibly) prove yourself innocent!
Dave
this WILL happen whenever we sign up for an EU Contitution, its the way things work in the rest of Europe and its called Napoleonic Law, or to be more accurate Corpus Juris, this is why in Spain Greece etc you are assumed Guilty till you prove your innocence like those British plane spotters in Greece for example, they bung you in Jail till you can prove your innocence!!
mind you its very close to being like that here now is it not! under our glorious Dictator Herr Blair
camper
Not quite true Camper:
The 'Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union' (December 2000) has the following article:
Article 48
Presumption of innocence and right of defence
1. Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
2. Respect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed.
So, we should have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.........
kevinday said:
Mr Whippy said:
Soon there will be no innocent until proven guilty, it'll be guilty until you (impossibly) prove yourself innocent!
Dave
this WILL happen whenever we sign up for an EU Contitution, its the way things work in the rest of Europe and its called Napoleonic Law, or to be more accurate Corpus Juris, this is why in Spain Greece etc you are assumed Guilty till you prove your innocence like those British plane spotters in Greece for example, they bung you in Jail till you can prove your innocence!!
mind you its very close to being like that here now is it not! under our glorious Dictator Herr Blair
camper
Not quite true Camper:
The 'Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union' (December 2000) has the following article:
Article 48
Presumption of innocence and right of defence
1. Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
2. Respect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed.
So, we should have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.........
Indeed, there is an historic legal axiom which says: "...it is the business of the Crown to prove the case, not for the defence to prove innocence..."
I believe cases cannot now be proven beyond reasonble doubt.
james_j said:
Indeed, there is an historic legal axiom which says: "...it is the business of the Crown to prove the case, not for the defence to prove innocence..."
I believe cases cannot now be proven beyond reasonble doubt.
I completely agree with the first point, and also agree that the second *should* be the case.
However in practice the situation is this: The Crown can prove the case simply because:
1) The Laser speed devices have been Type Approved
2) The PC has been trained to use the device.
3) The devices are professionally calibrated each year (up to 100m on a flat stationary object using a tripod, but thats another rant...)
In court we have found it impossible to disprove either of these points as in effect they are both true.
This is the reason why these cases are almost always given guilty verdicts. All arguments including:
the devices not being tested as they should,
the device not being used as it should,
the ACPO guidelines not being followed,
the PC not operating the device correctly,
and slip error,
are in court overtaken by the above facts 1) 2) and 3)
In my case all of the above inaccuracies were present, but have lost and lost at appeal.
The only way that one of these cases could be won would be if there was a chance of showing that slip error could be a factor, such as if the device was hand held and was used at a large distance so that any slippage would be magnified.
In addition to this you will need to hire a solicitor to represent you, and use an expert witness such as Dr Mike Clark. The approximate cost of this is around £1000.
There is still no guarantee that the Magistrates would still not decide to 'tow the party line' and throw your case out.
The point is this, even though the ability to be proven not guilty is there, it is only there for people who can afford to get £1000 of ready cash to fund the case, and risk losing it.
Is this really justice for all?
If everyone replies to a notice of intended prossicution
requests the photos
ignores the fixed penalty notice
ignores the reminder
waits for the summons
and then looks at the evidence before deciding wether or not to fold they willl sink under thier own pile of paper.
If at this stage IF YOU GET A SUMMONS then you will pay for a nominal speed £60 + 35 costs but none of that money goes to new cameras...
police have done all that work and got no money!
17000 did not pay the fixed penalty notice in my county last year. I have not seen 17000 going through the courts.
If you pay up it is harder to get a refund.
If you fight a ticket, it does get time consuming, cost a few pennies, but it is great fun. What ever you do do not commit a bigger crime than the one you are fighting to try and get off.
At the end of the hearing today we gave the CPS a free copy of inside out for them to view.
PS. I have paid one, fought one, won one.
>> Edited by tony13579 on Wednesday 14th September 20:25
requests the photos
ignores the fixed penalty notice
ignores the reminder
waits for the summons
and then looks at the evidence before deciding wether or not to fold they willl sink under thier own pile of paper.
If at this stage IF YOU GET A SUMMONS then you will pay for a nominal speed £60 + 35 costs but none of that money goes to new cameras...
police have done all that work and got no money!
17000 did not pay the fixed penalty notice in my county last year. I have not seen 17000 going through the courts.
If you pay up it is harder to get a refund.
If you fight a ticket, it does get time consuming, cost a few pennies, but it is great fun. What ever you do do not commit a bigger crime than the one you are fighting to try and get off.
At the end of the hearing today we gave the CPS a free copy of inside out for them to view.
PS. I have paid one, fought one, won one.
>> Edited by tony13579 on Wednesday 14th September 20:25
tony13579 said:
If everyone replies to a notice of intended prossicution
requests the photos
ignores the fixed penalty notice
ignores the reminder
waits for the summons
and then looks at the evidence before deciding wether or not to fold they willl sink under thier own pile of paper.
If at this stage IF YOU GET A SUMMONS then you will pay for a nominal speed £60 + 35 costs but none of that money goes to new cameras...
police have done all that work and got no money!
17000 did not pay the fixed penalty notice in my county last year. I have not seen 17000 going through the courts.
If you pay up it is harder to get a refund.
If you fight a ticket, it does get time consuming, cost a few pennies, but it is great fun. What ever you do do not commit a bigger crime than the one you are fighting to try and get off.
At the end of the hearing today we gave the CPS a free copy of inside out for them to view.
PS. I have paid one, fought one, won one.
>> Edited by tony13579 on Wednesday 14th September 20:25
Any chance of some elaboration? Can this process be combined with the PACE thing from Pepipoo, and the asking for the approval of the mobile operator thing above, to make sure the officer or operator was trained etc to make the excess speed thing.
Can this be used for mobile cams only?
Would be good to write a full order of things to do kinda FAQ including all possible things to ask for and waste time, but without getting in trouble worse than you are.
£35 costs seem worthwhile either way ontop of the £60 if it ain't going to them money grabbing liars called "partnerships"
Cheers
Dave
I think it could go something like this:
You get an NiP and reply saying you don't know who was driving, but that it could have been one of two people, don't name them at this time, just ask for the photos and any other information to enable you to comply with S172.
You get the photos (or maybe you don't) and, assuming they don't clearly identify the driver, you write back, not filling in the NiP, but in letter form, naming the two possible drivers, with all their details, and stating that both will be prepared to pay the £60 and take 3 points as an offence has clearly been committed according to the camera evidence.
They will write back saying that you must name just one person and threatening you with a prosecution for not naming, making the point that the penalty could be much higher, so you write back asking which one they would like to be named, as you aren't sure, but either you or the other is prepared to be named.
They will, probably, send you a standard letter saying you must name the driver, so you then use the PACE letter and name yourself, but adding that your previous correspondence still stands and that although unsure, you are naming yourself as a result of the duress they have applied, contrary to Section 6 of the ECHR and the threat of higher penalties if someone is not named. State that you intend to go to court, if summoned and plead not guilty and that you require them to provide the name, rank and number of the Police Officer who formed the initial opinion of excess speed and the full video if it's a scam-van which got the speed reading.
You will then get a fixed penalty offer which you ignore. This will be followed up by a summons, but if the period is more than 6 months from the offence, it is out-of-time (that's a bit of a simplification, maybe).
Do nothing except be prepared to attend court, but if you do not receive all the prosecution evidence at least 7 days before the hearing, it is not admissable evidence, so take a solicitor with you and fight it out.
If you do get the prosecution evidence, you can still insist that the PACE requirement for a formal caution has not been complied with and that your information under S.172 can't be used as evidence against you.
At that point you must make the judgement call as to whether you have the 'balls' to go all the way into court, bearing in mind that the CPS may drop it all at the last moment as they have in many cases. You can, if you wish, still just go into the court, plead guilty and state any mitigating circumstances. Unless you were driving stupidly it will probably be £60 + £35 costs + 3 points. However, the scam pratnership gets none of it.
I'm sure Dwight will be along in a minute to explain the flaws in this, but that's my view at present.
You get an NiP and reply saying you don't know who was driving, but that it could have been one of two people, don't name them at this time, just ask for the photos and any other information to enable you to comply with S172.
You get the photos (or maybe you don't) and, assuming they don't clearly identify the driver, you write back, not filling in the NiP, but in letter form, naming the two possible drivers, with all their details, and stating that both will be prepared to pay the £60 and take 3 points as an offence has clearly been committed according to the camera evidence.
They will write back saying that you must name just one person and threatening you with a prosecution for not naming, making the point that the penalty could be much higher, so you write back asking which one they would like to be named, as you aren't sure, but either you or the other is prepared to be named.
They will, probably, send you a standard letter saying you must name the driver, so you then use the PACE letter and name yourself, but adding that your previous correspondence still stands and that although unsure, you are naming yourself as a result of the duress they have applied, contrary to Section 6 of the ECHR and the threat of higher penalties if someone is not named. State that you intend to go to court, if summoned and plead not guilty and that you require them to provide the name, rank and number of the Police Officer who formed the initial opinion of excess speed and the full video if it's a scam-van which got the speed reading.
You will then get a fixed penalty offer which you ignore. This will be followed up by a summons, but if the period is more than 6 months from the offence, it is out-of-time (that's a bit of a simplification, maybe).
Do nothing except be prepared to attend court, but if you do not receive all the prosecution evidence at least 7 days before the hearing, it is not admissable evidence, so take a solicitor with you and fight it out.
If you do get the prosecution evidence, you can still insist that the PACE requirement for a formal caution has not been complied with and that your information under S.172 can't be used as evidence against you.
At that point you must make the judgement call as to whether you have the 'balls' to go all the way into court, bearing in mind that the CPS may drop it all at the last moment as they have in many cases. You can, if you wish, still just go into the court, plead guilty and state any mitigating circumstances. Unless you were driving stupidly it will probably be £60 + £35 costs + 3 points. However, the scam pratnership gets none of it.
I'm sure Dwight will be along in a minute to explain the flaws in this, but that's my view at present.
Hi,
This is all good information, but would not be applicable if you were zapped and pulled over. Another couple of points:
The opinion of excess speed had a loophole around it which basically says that it is not needed if the scamera is automated.
Even if it is held by a PC at the time the opinion of excess speed in court is treated in the same way as an ACPO guideline, ie not worth the paper it is printed on.
In my case the PC claimed in court that he could form such an opinion at up to half a mile (ahem...) as he did with me. In cross examination he admitted that at that distance he had no idea about any relative times or distances involved to make an assumption of speed.
The official line is 'After 15 years of doing this you just get a hunch'
This is obviously perfectly acceptable by the court. The principal seems to be that the longer you have been a policeman the less actual evidence you need and the better you are in convicting criminals without evidence. Maybe after 20 or 25 years of service you can catch and convict theives by just a hunch over a dodgy look, and after 30 years you can convict on a hunch on skin colour alone....?
Its probably a good idea to expand here, as I assumed the same. However the six months start from the date that the CPS decide there is enough evidence to continue. I believe they have a period which runs into years to actually make the decision.
The other little thing is, if you refuse the fixed penalty and tell the court you are going to plead not guilty in court then the offer of 3 points and £60 is instantly recinded.
You have to fill out a means form, where you have to state how much you earn before you arrive at court. The magistrates use this to determine the fine. Similarly, the magistrates can decide on a points fine of up to 6 points if they feel it right to do so.
My £60 and 3 points ended up as £200 and 6 points. I appealed againt this and it was later reduced to 4, but the appeal cost a grand so 'horses for courses'!
There is a lot of information regarding defending yourself from speeding claims. From my experience, although there is a lot of information around a specialist solicitor has by far the best chance of defending you and exploiting and evidential problems. Although I have learnt a lot from my days in court and through defending myself most of the time, in hindsight, and with a good specialist solicitor I know the case that I lost would have been won.
This is all good information, but would not be applicable if you were zapped and pulled over. Another couple of points:
Cooperman said:
... rank and number of the Police Officer who formed the initial opinion of excess speed and the full video if it's a scam-van which got the speed reading.
The opinion of excess speed had a loophole around it which basically says that it is not needed if the scamera is automated.
Even if it is held by a PC at the time the opinion of excess speed in court is treated in the same way as an ACPO guideline, ie not worth the paper it is printed on.
In my case the PC claimed in court that he could form such an opinion at up to half a mile (ahem...) as he did with me. In cross examination he admitted that at that distance he had no idea about any relative times or distances involved to make an assumption of speed.
The official line is 'After 15 years of doing this you just get a hunch'
This is obviously perfectly acceptable by the court. The principal seems to be that the longer you have been a policeman the less actual evidence you need and the better you are in convicting criminals without evidence. Maybe after 20 or 25 years of service you can catch and convict theives by just a hunch over a dodgy look, and after 30 years you can convict on a hunch on skin colour alone....?
Cooperman said:
You will then get a fixed penalty offer which you ignore. This will be followed up by a summons, but if the period is more than 6 months from the offence, it is out-of-time (that's a bit of a simplification, maybe).
Its probably a good idea to expand here, as I assumed the same. However the six months start from the date that the CPS decide there is enough evidence to continue. I believe they have a period which runs into years to actually make the decision.
The other little thing is, if you refuse the fixed penalty and tell the court you are going to plead not guilty in court then the offer of 3 points and £60 is instantly recinded.
You have to fill out a means form, where you have to state how much you earn before you arrive at court. The magistrates use this to determine the fine. Similarly, the magistrates can decide on a points fine of up to 6 points if they feel it right to do so.
My £60 and 3 points ended up as £200 and 6 points. I appealed againt this and it was later reduced to 4, but the appeal cost a grand so 'horses for courses'!
There is a lot of information regarding defending yourself from speeding claims. From my experience, although there is a lot of information around a specialist solicitor has by far the best chance of defending you and exploiting and evidential problems. Although I have learnt a lot from my days in court and through defending myself most of the time, in hindsight, and with a good specialist solicitor I know the case that I lost would have been won.
The idea was, I believe, to swamp them in their own paperwork in the hope that they make errors (and they do!), but to leave yourself the option of going to court and pleading guilty.
I am not sure about the legal requirement to fill in any form detailing your personal finances. This, I thought, was needed if you intended pleading guilty and asking for time to pay.
Anyway, I'm an OAP (or will be very soon!) so I would plead age and turn up because my upbringing requires me to apologise to the court in person.
Then if I got 6 points I would immediately get an Irish accommodation address and an Irish licence (that's very easy) to avoid further risks of disqualification. Oh, I know all the arguments about points on a non-existant UK licence, but the way it's going we'll all have a licence full soon.
With the numbers involved those driving whilst disqualified will grow huge. Then the prisons can be emptied of villains to make room for the DWD's and the OAP's who can't or won't pay their full council tax bills. Funny old World!
I am not sure about the legal requirement to fill in any form detailing your personal finances. This, I thought, was needed if you intended pleading guilty and asking for time to pay.
Anyway, I'm an OAP (or will be very soon!) so I would plead age and turn up because my upbringing requires me to apologise to the court in person.
Then if I got 6 points I would immediately get an Irish accommodation address and an Irish licence (that's very easy) to avoid further risks of disqualification. Oh, I know all the arguments about points on a non-existant UK licence, but the way it's going we'll all have a licence full soon.
With the numbers involved those driving whilst disqualified will grow huge. Then the prisons can be emptied of villains to make room for the DWD's and the OAP's who can't or won't pay their full council tax bills. Funny old World!
Quick question then. Let's assume a Magistrate did actually decide that slip error made the evidence unreliable, and threw the case out.
What then? What is the impact of this?
Does this become case law that can be referenced in the defence of other similar cases?
What about motorists already convicted - could those convictions be overturned?
If yes, then I wonder whether any magistrate would have the balls to open the potential flood gate in this manner. And surely the CPS would appeal against the magistrate's decision?
What then? What is the impact of this?
Does this become case law that can be referenced in the defence of other similar cases?
What about motorists already convicted - could those convictions be overturned?
If yes, then I wonder whether any magistrate would have the balls to open the potential flood gate in this manner. And surely the CPS would appeal against the magistrate's decision?
justinp1 said:
You will then get a fixed penalty offer which you ignore. This will be followed up by a summons, but if the period is more than 6 months from the offence, it is out-of-time (that's a bit of a simplification, maybe).
Its probably a good idea to expand here, as I assumed the same. However the six months start from the date that the CPS decide there is enough evidence to continue. I believe they have a period which runs into years to actually make the decision.
The 6 month period starts from the date of the offence. An information for a speeding offence must be laid with the courts within this 6 month timeframe. Once laid, the case can be heard pretty much whenever but it is extremely unlikely for this to be any longer than 3 years.
For a failing to furnish (S172) summons, its 28 days from the date of the NIP plus the 6 months until 'timeout'.
Cooperman said:
I am not sure about the legal requirement to fill in any form detailing your personal finances. This, I thought, was needed if you intended pleading guilty and asking for time to pay.
That and also so that they know how much they can hit you for.
A solictor 'advised' me to make sure I only put my income (not joint) but to put all the household expenses as my responsibility, to keep it down but they didn't check anything anyway.
Cooperman said:
The idea was, I believe, to swamp them in their own paperwork in the hope that they make errors (and they do!), but to leave yourself the option of going to court and pleading guilty.
I am not sure about the legal requirement to fill in any form detailing your personal finances. This, I thought, was needed if you intended pleading guilty and asking for time to pay.
Anyway, I'm an OAP (or will be very soon!) so I would plead age and turn up because my upbringing requires me to apologise to the court in person.
Then if I got 6 points I would immediately get an Irish accommodation address and an Irish licence (that's very easy) to avoid further risks of disqualification. Oh, I know all the arguments about points on a non-existant UK licence, but the way it's going we'll all have a licence full soon.
With the numbers involved those driving whilst disqualified will grow huge. Then the prisons can be emptied of villains to make room for the DWD's and the OAP's who can't or won't pay their full council tax bills. Funny old World!
I agree! With regards to the means form on both occasions where I have gone to magistrates court and pleaded not guilty I was required to complete a means form BEFORE entering the court. This of course I immediately contested, as why should a perfectly innocent member of the public have to give details information of their personal finances before trial!?
I was told, and shown the section on the form that it is an offence not to do so, which may mean a £x,000 fine. To add insult to injury if you are self imployed you must provide documentary evidence to support any figures. Thus you would have to get an accountants letter to verify what you say, or get an accountant to check your books before writing a letter. All of this at cost to you whilst you are a perfectly innocent party...
I understand that the system must be watertight to be able to convict and get money out of general scrotes, theives, burglars etc but for the person who is merely being accused of being a criminal (they say your car went too fast 6 months ago...!?) it is completely unfair.
An example of the rediculous situation is this:
An argument that laser speedmeters are only ever tested up to 100m on a stationary object whilst on a tripod meaning that they are not capable for evidential purposes for use at 1/2 a mile away on a fast object handheld, despite being completely logical is always thrown out.
The 'honest' way of constructing a defence simply does not work.
Solicitors have a much better chance of defending their 'criminal' by attacking the overworked and complex system and the way it has been applied finding loopholes which has no relevance whatsoever with proving that you were speeding or otherwise.
I feel the above situation is very sad.
_dobbo_ said:
Quick question then. Let's assume a Magistrate did actually decide that slip error made the evidence unreliable, and threw the case out.
What then? What is the impact of this?
Does this become case law that can be referenced in the defence of other similar cases?
What about motorists already convicted - could those convictions be overturned?
If yes, then I wonder whether any magistrate would have the balls to open the potential flood gate in this manner. And surely the CPS would appeal against the magistrate's decision?
As you say, the magistrates probably wouldnt have the 'balls' unless they were hit by a good lawyer and an expert witness.
This could be reference in future, but it would be a decision made on the same 'level' as themselves. Often such test cases are from higher courts such as the High Court or divisional court.
There is a big argument that *if* a laser case was tried and defended at the High Court by calling an expert witness the Judge may make the statement that using such devices at large distances was unsafe.
This would mean that similar cases could be defended at a much lower court, make reference to the High Court case and expert evidence. The Clerk should advise the magistrates to respect the higher case.
If this happened a few times it would force the police to review how they were used. This would probably mean limiting the distance that they are used at and mean that tripods are compulsory.
My case was lost at Magistrates Court and Crown Court. My hope is to get enough money together to lodge an appeal and get an expert witness. However the cost implication is that I have already spent about £1500 on the case already, and I dont have £2500 more...
To answer your question, I *think* a case could only be overturned if you pleaded not guilty. After all, if you have already admitted that you are guilty, evidence is not needed.
>> Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 15th September 15:08
_dobbo_ said:
Quick question then. Let's assume a Magistrate did actually decide that slip error made the evidence unreliable, and threw the case out.
What then? What is the impact of this?
Does this become case law that can be referenced in the defence of other similar cases?
Your answer is NO. A Magistrate's Court decision is not binding on any other court. Decisions at a higher court (High Court, Court of Appeal and House of Lords) are binding on equal and lower courts, decisions at Crown Court and Magistrate's Court are non-binding on any other court.
I think it needs to be a crown court rather than magistraites court to become case law (not 100% sure)
Q Any chance of some elaboration? Can this process be combined with the PACE thing from Pepipoo, and the asking for the approval of the mobile operator thing above, to make sure the officer or operator was trained etc to make the excess speed thing.
A. all these arguments are possible but need a lot more effort and skill level (but are great fun)
Q.Can this be used for mobile cams only?
A.Any case that a red light/fixed or mobile speed camera where a ficed penalty is issued, prosicution taken to court rather than fixed penalty will clog up the system and stop the police getting the money
Q would be good to write a full order of things to do kinda FAQ including all possible things to ask for and waste time, but without getting in trouble worse than you are.
A.Best visit PePiPoo for that. every case is different. just goung to court and pleading guilty is somthing everyone can do with limited risk.
fighting a full video evidence case may cost £1-3000 just to pay thier expert
£35 costs seem worthwhile either way ontop of the £60 if it ain't going to them money grabbing liars called "partnerships"
my point exactly + you get the chance that no summons will arrive.
If you see the bully across the road you don't throw your lunch money to him. If he crosses the road to meet you that is then a different game
also concider giving Paul Smith a donation on <a href="www.safespeed.org.uk">www.safespeed.org.uk</a> as he is making great inroads into roadsafety and proving speed cameras cause accidents
>> Edited by tony13579 on Thursday 15th September 19:33
>> Edited by tony13579 on Thursday 15th September 19:35
Q Any chance of some elaboration? Can this process be combined with the PACE thing from Pepipoo, and the asking for the approval of the mobile operator thing above, to make sure the officer or operator was trained etc to make the excess speed thing.
A. all these arguments are possible but need a lot more effort and skill level (but are great fun)
Q.Can this be used for mobile cams only?
A.Any case that a red light/fixed or mobile speed camera where a ficed penalty is issued, prosicution taken to court rather than fixed penalty will clog up the system and stop the police getting the money
Q would be good to write a full order of things to do kinda FAQ including all possible things to ask for and waste time, but without getting in trouble worse than you are.
A.Best visit PePiPoo for that. every case is different. just goung to court and pleading guilty is somthing everyone can do with limited risk.
fighting a full video evidence case may cost £1-3000 just to pay thier expert
£35 costs seem worthwhile either way ontop of the £60 if it ain't going to them money grabbing liars called "partnerships"
my point exactly + you get the chance that no summons will arrive.
If you see the bully across the road you don't throw your lunch money to him. If he crosses the road to meet you that is then a different game
also concider giving Paul Smith a donation on <a href="www.safespeed.org.uk">www.safespeed.org.uk</a> as he is making great inroads into roadsafety and proving speed cameras cause accidents
>> Edited by tony13579 on Thursday 15th September 19:33
>> Edited by tony13579 on Thursday 15th September 19:35
kevinday said:
Your answer is NO. A Magistrate's Court decision is not binding on any other court. Decisions at a higher court (High Court, Court of Appeal and House of Lords) are
binding on equal and lower courts, decisions at Crown Court and Magistrate's Court are non-binding on any other court.
Thanks Kevin - I remember from A-Level law way back in the day that higher courts are binding on lower courts but not the other way round - I just didn't know where this stopped and how it impacted magistrates - now I do!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff