Reasonable doubt
Discussion
When describing beyond reasonable doubt to a jury, a judge made what I thought was quite a good description.
It was along the lines of 'imagine a very important household decision. If you are certain that you know which way you want to go, that is beyond resonable doubt. If you are unsure and have to stop and think about it, then you have reasonable doubt and in this case, would have to find not guilty.
It was along the lines of 'imagine a very important household decision. If you are certain that you know which way you want to go, that is beyond resonable doubt. If you are unsure and have to stop and think about it, then you have reasonable doubt and in this case, would have to find not guilty.
wakeywakey said:
If you are advised by a BiB that your vehicle has a defect then there are several options however this thread seems to be concentrated on 2, in summary:
1. Take the advice of the BiB and spend a few £10's on a new tyre; sorted
2. Get a little arsey and take the vehicle for an MOT to try and fight the decision of the BiB and risk a legal gamble on the MOT overturning the BiB opinion
Now what is reasonable?
The magistrates, who are generally reasonable and bound by law in their decisions, are the persons charged by our sciety on deciding what is reasonable. I would say they have more than likely decied that to take the course of action at 2. above is not what is considered reasonable.
After all, the BiB was, in his opinion, protecting the public, including the vehicle owner, from a safety standpoint.
While there may be occasions where police opinion is wrong, as is everyones from time-to-time, I would say to set yourself up by behaving smart and trying to get an MOT certificate to overturn a BiB ticketed defect is not reasonable; take thsi option and frankly it serves you right, the plice could do without spending time in court with smart-arses like this.
There is no 'get arsey' involved, my friend was reported for consideration for prosecution for the offence of 'tyre offence' and was summons to court. If you believed that the tyre was fine and this was, in your opinion, corroborated by a govt appointed 'car checker' would you take the fine and points and roll over or go to court to attempt to prove your innocence?1. Take the advice of the BiB and spend a few £10's on a new tyre; sorted
2. Get a little arsey and take the vehicle for an MOT to try and fight the decision of the BiB and risk a legal gamble on the MOT overturning the BiB opinion
Now what is reasonable?
The magistrates, who are generally reasonable and bound by law in their decisions, are the persons charged by our sciety on deciding what is reasonable. I would say they have more than likely decied that to take the course of action at 2. above is not what is considered reasonable.
After all, the BiB was, in his opinion, protecting the public, including the vehicle owner, from a safety standpoint.
While there may be occasions where police opinion is wrong, as is everyones from time-to-time, I would say to set yourself up by behaving smart and trying to get an MOT certificate to overturn a BiB ticketed defect is not reasonable; take thsi option and frankly it serves you right, the plice could do without spending time in court with smart-arses like this.
It's 'innocent until proven guilty', no 'guilty as they said so'.
wakeywakey said:
fluffnik said:
JustinP1 said:
At the end of the day the magistrates have to uphold the rule of law, and only on the evidence they see.
Perhaps justice would be better served if they had a more inquisitorial role?wakeywakey said:
In thsi case the defendant decided to oppose the law enforcement agency and the magistrates not surprisingly decided to side with the law and common sense.
She, and at least one MoT tester disagreed with one PC's opinionwakeywakey said:
A reasonable person presented with this story would be highly likely to side with the law and be wound up by the beligerant behaviour of the motorist.
I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe and I speak as someone who replaces their ~£200/corner tyres as matched pairs if I damage one....and frankly if you think she was belligerent in insisting on her day in court I don't think I want you in the police.
FishFace said:
None of us where there of course. You don't know for sure what decision you would have made presented with the case.
We know that the defendant presented the court with an MoT which removed the prohibition on the tyre in question being used on the road.This alone makes me entertain some reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion.
It does not prove the tyre safe just as the PC's opinion did not prove the contrary, it does not have to.
[judge_judy]
Not Guilty!
[/judge_judy]
wakeywakey said:
TheGriffalo said:
...I am a reasonable man...
In Your Humble Opinion only, I do not disagree with you at all.You would be accompanied by 2 other reasonable persons who may of course have an entirely different opinion and sense of reasonableness when presented with the same information; as we are here in fact.
TheGriffalo said:
... and if presented with the facts as they are here I would have sufficient reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty...
You may find it reasonable, I do not.The offence for which the person standing trial is the important part of this post.( Which unfortunately the OP has not stated or known )
The MOT test is to provide the government minimum standard of condition for which a vehicle should be used on a road. This provides that it is not especially dangerous.
The MOT does not cover every aspect of road vehicles construction and use regulations. If it did I doubt you would see your car for a week.
The Person who inspects the vehicle for an MOT test is complying with the MOT aspects of vehicle condition. This means that they can pass a tyre as not dangerous and that it complies with other certain aspects of road traffic law such as it has more that 1.6mm of tread depth.
But the test does not ensure that the tyre fully complies with construction and use regulations.
The Police officer who prohibits the vehicle does so as it appears to them that it could involve a danger of injury should they continue except under certain conditions, And until it has been checked and authorised to be used. Which is what has happened here.
This does not however revoke any offence for which the officer has reported the driver for.
The fact that the MOT tester has approved the tyre as not being dangerous would certainly hold substantial weight in a case of dangerous condition.
But not necessarily have any relevance for an offence which is not covered by the aspects of an MOT test.
The MOT test is to provide the government minimum standard of condition for which a vehicle should be used on a road. This provides that it is not especially dangerous.
The MOT does not cover every aspect of road vehicles construction and use regulations. If it did I doubt you would see your car for a week.
The Person who inspects the vehicle for an MOT test is complying with the MOT aspects of vehicle condition. This means that they can pass a tyre as not dangerous and that it complies with other certain aspects of road traffic law such as it has more that 1.6mm of tread depth.
But the test does not ensure that the tyre fully complies with construction and use regulations.
The Police officer who prohibits the vehicle does so as it appears to them that it could involve a danger of injury should they continue except under certain conditions, And until it has been checked and authorised to be used. Which is what has happened here.
This does not however revoke any offence for which the officer has reported the driver for.
The fact that the MOT tester has approved the tyre as not being dangerous would certainly hold substantial weight in a case of dangerous condition.
But not necessarily have any relevance for an offence which is not covered by the aspects of an MOT test.
fluffnik said:
She, and at least one MoT tester disagreed with one PC's opinion
I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe
You are wrong on both counts. If you go back to the original post you will find it says:I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe
"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."
Which is, of course, wrong in law. She did not suggest to the court that it produced reasonable doubt with regards to the officer's opinion, but that it was reasonable for her to believe that a car which has passed the MoT is fit for use.
Further, she did not say she disagreed with the officer, she was depending on the opinion of someone whom she did not produce in court as a witness.
I'm all for challenging expert opinion, but that is not what this woman did. If she had brought the tyre to the court and then challenged the officer she might have stood a chance but the use of an MoT certificate as proof of compliance with Con & Use is bad in law. The magistrates were quite correct in their findings.
Bibs_LEF said:
It's 'innocent until proven guilty'
since when? I don't recall that written in law anywhere!I wish your friend had argued the case in Court as much as you have done here! She might have done better
My work colleague got a new tyre for £33 (not a remould) the other day. My wife has paid £50 for an MOT today. Your friend COULD have changed the tyre the the PC deemed a breach of the regs. She decided not to.
The case sounds harsh, but a magistrate has applied the law here and not being there, we can't comment on it other than saying on the face of it, the magistrate was right.
Derek Smith said:
fluffnik said:
She, and at least one MoT tester disagreed with one PC's opinion
I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe
You are wrong on both counts. If you go back to the original post you will find it says:I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe
"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."
Which is, of course, wrong in law. She did not suggest to the court that it produced reasonable doubt with regards to the officer's opinion, but that it was reasonable for her to believe that a car which has passed the MoT is fit for use.
Further, she did not say she disagreed with the officer, she was depending on the opinion of someone whom she did not produce in court as a witness.
I'm all for challenging expert opinion, but that is not what this woman did. If she had brought the tyre to the court and then challenged the officer she might have stood a chance but the use of an MoT certificate as proof of compliance with Con & Use is bad in law. The magistrates were quite correct in their findings.
Surely magistrates use common sense, and in this case there must have been doubt about who was correct.
http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_410.htm
s2art said:
Derek Smith said:
fluffnik said:
She, and at least one MoT tester disagreed with one PC's opinion
I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe
You are wrong on both counts. If you go back to the original post you will find it says:I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe
"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."
Which is, of course, wrong in law. She did not suggest to the court that it produced reasonable doubt with regards to the officer's opinion, but that it was reasonable for her to believe that a car which has passed the MoT is fit for use.
Further, she did not say she disagreed with the officer, she was depending on the opinion of someone whom she did not produce in court as a witness.
I'm all for challenging expert opinion, but that is not what this woman did. If she had brought the tyre to the court and then challenged the officer she might have stood a chance but the use of an MoT certificate as proof of compliance with Con & Use is bad in law. The magistrates were quite correct in their findings.
Surely magistrates use common sense, and in this case there must have been doubt about who was correct.
http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_410.htm
Magistrates *do* use common sense - unless the law says otherwise...
JustinP1 said:
s2art said:
Derek Smith said:
fluffnik said:
She, and at least one MoT tester disagreed with one PC's opinion
I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe
You are wrong on both counts. If you go back to the original post you will find it says:I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe
"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."
Which is, of course, wrong in law. She did not suggest to the court that it produced reasonable doubt with regards to the officer's opinion, but that it was reasonable for her to believe that a car which has passed the MoT is fit for use.
Further, she did not say she disagreed with the officer, she was depending on the opinion of someone whom she did not produce in court as a witness.
I'm all for challenging expert opinion, but that is not what this woman did. If she had brought the tyre to the court and then challenged the officer she might have stood a chance but the use of an MoT certificate as proof of compliance with Con & Use is bad in law. The magistrates were quite correct in their findings.
Surely magistrates use common sense, and in this case there must have been doubt about who was correct.
http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_410.htm
Magistrates *do* use common sense - unless the law says otherwise...
s2art said:
JustinP1 said:
s2art said:
Derek Smith said:
fluffnik said:
She, and at least one MoT tester disagreed with one PC's opinion
I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe
You are wrong on both counts. If you go back to the original post you will find it says:I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe
"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."
Which is, of course, wrong in law. She did not suggest to the court that it produced reasonable doubt with regards to the officer's opinion, but that it was reasonable for her to believe that a car which has passed the MoT is fit for use.
Further, she did not say she disagreed with the officer, she was depending on the opinion of someone whom she did not produce in court as a witness.
I'm all for challenging expert opinion, but that is not what this woman did. If she had brought the tyre to the court and then challenged the officer she might have stood a chance but the use of an MoT certificate as proof of compliance with Con & Use is bad in law. The magistrates were quite correct in their findings.
Surely magistrates use common sense, and in this case there must have been doubt about who was correct.
http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_410.htm
Magistrates *do* use common sense - unless the law says otherwise...
The magistrates took the word of the police officer who was there against the MOT tester who wasn't there. Thats reasonably standard practice if there is a case where only the witnesses for one side turns up. Is it fair to take on board a statement of a third party in court as evidence but not let the other side cross examine them? The answer is of course not.
It may be the case that an MOT by itself may be sufficient to prove their innocence. However, they would need a very compelling and watertight argument, most likely supported by case law for this to happen.
As far as I can see in this case, this did not happen, and therefore the magistrates had to act on rule of law.
JustinP1 said:
s2art said:
JustinP1 said:
s2art said:
Derek Smith said:
fluffnik said:
She, and at least one MoT tester disagreed with one PC's opinion
I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe
You are wrong on both counts. If you go back to the original post you will find it says:I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe
"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."
Which is, of course, wrong in law. She did not suggest to the court that it produced reasonable doubt with regards to the officer's opinion, but that it was reasonable for her to believe that a car which has passed the MoT is fit for use.
Further, she did not say she disagreed with the officer, she was depending on the opinion of someone whom she did not produce in court as a witness.
I'm all for challenging expert opinion, but that is not what this woman did. If she had brought the tyre to the court and then challenged the officer she might have stood a chance but the use of an MoT certificate as proof of compliance with Con & Use is bad in law. The magistrates were quite correct in their findings.
Surely magistrates use common sense, and in this case there must have been doubt about who was correct.
http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_410.htm
Magistrates *do* use common sense - unless the law says otherwise...
The magistrates took the word of the police officer who was there against the MOT tester who wasn't there. Thats reasonably standard practice if there is a case where only the witnesses for one side turns up. Is it fair to take on board a statement of a third party in court as evidence but not let the other side cross examine them? The answer is of course not.
It may be the case that an MOT by itself may be sufficient to prove their innocence. However, they would need a very compelling and watertight argument, most likely supported by case law for this to happen.
As far as I can see in this case, this did not happen, and therefore the magistrates had to act on rule of law.
Basically I am saying that the word of the officer isnt worth much, because he isnt an expert, its just an opinion. That in itself is reason to doubt.
s2art said:
JustinP1 said:
s2art said:
JustinP1 said:
s2art said:
Derek Smith said:
fluffnik said:
She, and at least one MoT tester disagreed with one PC's opinion
I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe
You are wrong on both counts. If you go back to the original post you will find it says:I'd say she'd raised a reasonable doubt regarding the PC's opinion that her tyre was unsafe
"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."
Which is, of course, wrong in law. She did not suggest to the court that it produced reasonable doubt with regards to the officer's opinion, but that it was reasonable for her to believe that a car which has passed the MoT is fit for use.
Further, she did not say she disagreed with the officer, she was depending on the opinion of someone whom she did not produce in court as a witness.
I'm all for challenging expert opinion, but that is not what this woman did. If she had brought the tyre to the court and then challenged the officer she might have stood a chance but the use of an MoT certificate as proof of compliance with Con & Use is bad in law. The magistrates were quite correct in their findings.
Surely magistrates use common sense, and in this case there must have been doubt about who was correct.
http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_410.htm
Magistrates *do* use common sense - unless the law says otherwise...
The magistrates took the word of the police officer who was there against the MOT tester who wasn't there. Thats reasonably standard practice if there is a case where only the witnesses for one side turns up. Is it fair to take on board a statement of a third party in court as evidence but not let the other side cross examine them? The answer is of course not.
It may be the case that an MOT by itself may be sufficient to prove their innocence. However, they would need a very compelling and watertight argument, most likely supported by case law for this to happen.
As far as I can see in this case, this did not happen, and therefore the magistrates had to act on rule of law.
Basically I am saying that the word of the officer isnt worth much, because he isnt an expert, its just an opinion. That in itself is reason to doubt.
herewego said:
Maybe the C&U regs say something like "there must be no visible damage to the sidewall" in which case a groove cut into the sidewall is a fail. You don't need to be an expert to see that.
Then its ludicrous that the MoT should fail to cover such an obvious defect.What do we pay the Department of Transport for? ...and why?
OK
This thread has progressed for 5 pages without anyone quoting what the relevant sections of C&U say ( on which the police officer is supposed to have relied ) against the relevant sections of the testers manual on which the OP's friend attempted to rely.
Starting with the testers manual
C. Condition of Tyres
1. Examine each tyre for
a. cuts
b. lumps, bulges, tears, exposure of the ply or cord, or tread separation
Note: On radial ply tyres, care should be taken to distinguish between normal undulations in the carcass, resulting from manufacturing, and lumps or bulges caused by structural deterioration
c. a recut tread
d. incorrect seating in the wheel rim
e. valve condition and alignment
f. correct fitting
g. under-inflation
Note: Under-inflation of a tyre is not in itself a reason for rejection. However,
a brake test might be inadvisable, because of possible damage, or
a headlight test might be affected, if the under-inflation is affecting alignment
Clearly the MOT tester, given this guidance, will find absolutely nothing wrong with the tyre as described by the OP.
OK what does C&U say
Condition and maintenance of tyres
- (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) to (4), a wheeled motor vehicle or trailer a wheel of which is fitted with a pneumatic tyre shall not be used on a road, if -
(a) the tyre is unsuitable having regard to the use to which the motor vehicle or trailer is being put or to the types of tyres fitted to its other wheels;
(b) the tyre is not so inflated as to make it fit for the use to which the motor vehicle or trailer is being put;
(c) the tyre has a cut in excess of 25 mm or 10% of the section width of the tyre, whichever is the greater, measured in any direction on the outside of the tyre and deep enough to reach the ply or cord;
(d) the tyre has any lump, bulge or tear caused by separation or partial failure of its structure; (e) the tyre has any of the ply or cord exposed;
(f) the base of any groove which showed in the original tread pattern of the tyre is not clearly visible;
(g) either -
(i) the grooves of the tread pattern of the tyre do not have a depth of at least 1 mm throughout a continuous band measuring at least three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and round the entire outer circumference of the tyre; or
(ii) if the grooves of the original tread pattern of the tyre did not extend beyond three-quarters of the breadth of the tread, any groove which showed in the original tread pattern does not have a depth of at least 1mm; or
(h) the tyre is not maintained in such condition as to be fit for the use to which the vehicle or trailer is being put or has a defect which might in any way cause damage to the surface of the road or damage to persons on or in the vehicle or to other persons using the road.
The condition of the tyre as decribed by the OP ( 1mm depth - no mention of exposure of ply or cord ) clearly does not contravene C&U. No reasonable person with any technical knowledge of tyres would consider that an offence had been committed and it might be concluded provided that the OP has not withheld anything from the description posted that the Police office acted out of ignorance. And the whole of what purports to be a Criminal Justice Systems, once a flawed report is made steamrollers itself to a conviction. At least as far as motoring offences are concerned.
As JustinP1 so eloquently states, the mistake the OP's friend made was in relying on a MoT when an expert report was needed certifying the tyre was fit for purpose by the MOT tester who probably was infinitely better qualified to do so than the reporting PC.
This thread has progressed for 5 pages without anyone quoting what the relevant sections of C&U say ( on which the police officer is supposed to have relied ) against the relevant sections of the testers manual on which the OP's friend attempted to rely.
Starting with the testers manual
C. Condition of Tyres
1. Examine each tyre for
a. cuts
b. lumps, bulges, tears, exposure of the ply or cord, or tread separation
Note: On radial ply tyres, care should be taken to distinguish between normal undulations in the carcass, resulting from manufacturing, and lumps or bulges caused by structural deterioration
c. a recut tread
d. incorrect seating in the wheel rim
e. valve condition and alignment
f. correct fitting
g. under-inflation
Note: Under-inflation of a tyre is not in itself a reason for rejection. However,
a brake test might be inadvisable, because of possible damage, or
a headlight test might be affected, if the under-inflation is affecting alignment
Clearly the MOT tester, given this guidance, will find absolutely nothing wrong with the tyre as described by the OP.
OK what does C&U say
Condition and maintenance of tyres
- (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) to (4), a wheeled motor vehicle or trailer a wheel of which is fitted with a pneumatic tyre shall not be used on a road, if -
(a) the tyre is unsuitable having regard to the use to which the motor vehicle or trailer is being put or to the types of tyres fitted to its other wheels;
(b) the tyre is not so inflated as to make it fit for the use to which the motor vehicle or trailer is being put;
(c) the tyre has a cut in excess of 25 mm or 10% of the section width of the tyre, whichever is the greater, measured in any direction on the outside of the tyre and deep enough to reach the ply or cord;
(d) the tyre has any lump, bulge or tear caused by separation or partial failure of its structure; (e) the tyre has any of the ply or cord exposed;
(f) the base of any groove which showed in the original tread pattern of the tyre is not clearly visible;
(g) either -
(i) the grooves of the tread pattern of the tyre do not have a depth of at least 1 mm throughout a continuous band measuring at least three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and round the entire outer circumference of the tyre; or
(ii) if the grooves of the original tread pattern of the tyre did not extend beyond three-quarters of the breadth of the tread, any groove which showed in the original tread pattern does not have a depth of at least 1mm; or
(h) the tyre is not maintained in such condition as to be fit for the use to which the vehicle or trailer is being put or has a defect which might in any way cause damage to the surface of the road or damage to persons on or in the vehicle or to other persons using the road.
The condition of the tyre as decribed by the OP ( 1mm depth - no mention of exposure of ply or cord ) clearly does not contravene C&U. No reasonable person with any technical knowledge of tyres would consider that an offence had been committed and it might be concluded provided that the OP has not withheld anything from the description posted that the Police office acted out of ignorance. And the whole of what purports to be a Criminal Justice Systems, once a flawed report is made steamrollers itself to a conviction. At least as far as motoring offences are concerned.
As JustinP1 so eloquently states, the mistake the OP's friend made was in relying on a MoT when an expert report was needed certifying the tyre was fit for purpose by the MOT tester who probably was infinitely better qualified to do so than the reporting PC.
s2art said:
I still dont get this. The MOT certificate is as good as, if not better than, the uninformed opinion of a Police officer; he is not an expert in tyre damage. The only objection to this would be the tyre wasnt proven to be actually on the vehicle when the MOT test was performed.
Basically I am saying that the word of the officer isnt worth much, because he isnt an expert, its just an opinion. That in itself is reason to doubt.
Prohibition notices are only normally issued by authorised vehicle examiners. So it is not simply a case of the "uninformed opinion" of a police officer. The police officer issuing the notice has additional training and expertise to allow them to competently and correctly make judgements on what contravenes the C&U regs.Basically I am saying that the word of the officer isnt worth much, because he isnt an expert, its just an opinion. That in itself is reason to doubt.
At the end of the day it is the officer that will have to stand up in court and under oath explain why they took the course of action they did and produce evidence to back this up. In this case it appears they were correct.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff