Judge clears speeding top golfer on appeal
Discussion
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/home/ryder-cup-captai...
Yet another infallible belief of his shot down!
News and Star said:
Ryder Cup captain Colin Montogomerie wins Carlisle speeding appeal
Published at 12:55, Tuesday, 15 June 2010
Golfer Colin Montgomerie won his appeal against a speeding conviction after a court ruled that the evidence against him was unreliable.
But Judge Peter Hughes QC, who sat in judgement on the case with two magistrates at Carlisle Crown Court, said it would be wrong for people to conclude that there is one law for the rich and another for everybody else.
His comment came after several court hearings in which the golfer, advised by celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman, challenged the conviction.
Mr Montgomerie was convicted of driving his BMW at 37 mph in a 30 mph zone on the A69 at Corby Hill, near Carlisle, last November.
The three points added to his licence brought his total to 12, which in turn earned him a six month ban under the toting up procedure.
He was also fined £850 with costs of £4,000.
Giving the result of the appeal today, judge Hughes said: “We have reached this decision with a degree of reluctance. The maintenance of public confidence in the reliability of the evidence used to support allegations of speeding is of vital importance.
“Few have the financial resources to mount a challenge to the evidence. Any perception that there is one law for those with the ability to dispute the evidence and another for everybody else would be wrong.”
The judge went on to say that the prosecution in the case had failed to establish to the court’s satisfaction that the reading taken by the police speed gun was accurate.
Neither Montgomerie, Nick Freeman, nor the golfer’s QC Peter Lodden were in court to hear the judgement.
In an earlier hearing, Mr Lodden argued that proper checks were not carried out on the LTi 2020 speed gun, as required under guidelines.
He also suggested that the operators “erratic” movements of the equipment could have caused the speed gun to give an incorrect reading, making the car appear to travel faster.
The appeal included video footage of Mr Montgomerie’s car on the day.
Andrew Perrie, for the prosecution had refuted that Montgomerie’s excessive speed reading was caused by the handling of it by the speed camera technician, saying that he was experienced and competent.
The judge today said that the driver of a second car, whose vehicle was clocked as doing 35mph on the day when Mongomerie was stopped, should be told the outcome of today’s crown court appeal.
Judge Hughes added that copies of the judgement should also be sent to Cumbria Constabulary Chief Constable Craig Mackey. Every year, Mr Montgomerie, the European Ryder Cup captain, who lives in Perthshire, clocks up thousands of miles behind the wheel as he travels to golf tournaments and events.
So much for Steve Callaghan's assertion that the LTI is used correctly at all times by the highly trained operators!!Published at 12:55, Tuesday, 15 June 2010
Golfer Colin Montgomerie won his appeal against a speeding conviction after a court ruled that the evidence against him was unreliable.
But Judge Peter Hughes QC, who sat in judgement on the case with two magistrates at Carlisle Crown Court, said it would be wrong for people to conclude that there is one law for the rich and another for everybody else.
His comment came after several court hearings in which the golfer, advised by celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman, challenged the conviction.
Mr Montgomerie was convicted of driving his BMW at 37 mph in a 30 mph zone on the A69 at Corby Hill, near Carlisle, last November.
The three points added to his licence brought his total to 12, which in turn earned him a six month ban under the toting up procedure.
He was also fined £850 with costs of £4,000.
Giving the result of the appeal today, judge Hughes said: “We have reached this decision with a degree of reluctance. The maintenance of public confidence in the reliability of the evidence used to support allegations of speeding is of vital importance.
“Few have the financial resources to mount a challenge to the evidence. Any perception that there is one law for those with the ability to dispute the evidence and another for everybody else would be wrong.”
The judge went on to say that the prosecution in the case had failed to establish to the court’s satisfaction that the reading taken by the police speed gun was accurate.
Neither Montgomerie, Nick Freeman, nor the golfer’s QC Peter Lodden were in court to hear the judgement.
In an earlier hearing, Mr Lodden argued that proper checks were not carried out on the LTi 2020 speed gun, as required under guidelines.
He also suggested that the operators “erratic” movements of the equipment could have caused the speed gun to give an incorrect reading, making the car appear to travel faster.
The appeal included video footage of Mr Montgomerie’s car on the day.
Andrew Perrie, for the prosecution had refuted that Montgomerie’s excessive speed reading was caused by the handling of it by the speed camera technician, saying that he was experienced and competent.
The judge today said that the driver of a second car, whose vehicle was clocked as doing 35mph on the day when Mongomerie was stopped, should be told the outcome of today’s crown court appeal.
Judge Hughes added that copies of the judgement should also be sent to Cumbria Constabulary Chief Constable Craig Mackey. Every year, Mr Montgomerie, the European Ryder Cup captain, who lives in Perthshire, clocks up thousands of miles behind the wheel as he travels to golf tournaments and events.
Yet another infallible belief of his shot down!
I'm not sure what to make of: "Giving the result of the appeal today, judge Hughes said: 'We have reached this decision with a degree of reluctance. The maintenance of public confidence in the reliability of the evidence used to support allegations of speeding is of vital importance.
'Few have the financial resources to mount a challenge to the evidence. Any perception that there is one law for those with the ability to dispute the evidence and another for everybody else would be wrong.'"
Was the Judge saying that they were "reluctant" because it took money to successfully challenge the initial ruling, or because they didn't really want people to learn that the equipment could be used unreliably or be unreliable?
It isn't clear to me from the article, and both interpretations are worrying.
Streaky
'Few have the financial resources to mount a challenge to the evidence. Any perception that there is one law for those with the ability to dispute the evidence and another for everybody else would be wrong.'"
Was the Judge saying that they were "reluctant" because it took money to successfully challenge the initial ruling, or because they didn't really want people to learn that the equipment could be used unreliably or be unreliable?
It isn't clear to me from the article, and both interpretations are worrying.
Streaky
“Few have the financial resources to mount a challenge to the evidence. Any perception that there is one law for those with the ability to dispute the evidence and another for everybody else would be wrong.”
How does he make that deduction??? The first sentance proves it. If you don't have the financial resources, you don't take it on. So only if you have the financial resources can you dispute a ticket. QED. Rich people can buy their way out of trouble - been that way since the dawn of time, always will be. I should say improve their odds - I am not saying the system is totally bent, but if you can't afford the entry fee, you ain't going to have a chance to win the race.
I have had the unfortunate opportunity to experience the civil courts. Four years the case rattled on; in the end we succeeded in defending ourselves and justice was served, of sorts. But the judges conclusion was based on some points where he got it wrong - things to our benefit in fact. There were other points he got wrong the other way, to our disbenefit. He made the right conclusion, but partly for the wrong reasons. That is not what you expect, but that is the law - its not perfect, never can be. Judges are human too.
How does he make that deduction??? The first sentance proves it. If you don't have the financial resources, you don't take it on. So only if you have the financial resources can you dispute a ticket. QED. Rich people can buy their way out of trouble - been that way since the dawn of time, always will be. I should say improve their odds - I am not saying the system is totally bent, but if you can't afford the entry fee, you ain't going to have a chance to win the race.
I have had the unfortunate opportunity to experience the civil courts. Four years the case rattled on; in the end we succeeded in defending ourselves and justice was served, of sorts. But the judges conclusion was based on some points where he got it wrong - things to our benefit in fact. There were other points he got wrong the other way, to our disbenefit. He made the right conclusion, but partly for the wrong reasons. That is not what you expect, but that is the law - its not perfect, never can be. Judges are human too.
BBC radio report says that the operator was pinging at everything - including pedestrians.
He is only supposed to use the device to confirm his opinion of excess speed - on a pedestrian??
Also the judge seems to think that the equipment was not held steady!
This is basic operator error, not a fault of the device.
Judge was also critical, asking how the use of the equipment in this way raised speed awareness.
Go here http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/cumbria/hi/ and look for "listen Live" or "listen again" - the news is on the hour.
The most damning side to all this is that Steve Callaghan the former head of Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership, has always maintained that his highly trained operators used the equipment within the guidelines without making such basic errors - now it appears that the judge, having seen the evidence thinks otherwise!
How many other SCP civilian operators are getting away with waving the LTI around as if they were Dirty Harry and convicting safe drivers driving at or close to the limit?
He is only supposed to use the device to confirm his opinion of excess speed - on a pedestrian??
Also the judge seems to think that the equipment was not held steady!
This is basic operator error, not a fault of the device.
Judge was also critical, asking how the use of the equipment in this way raised speed awareness.
Go here http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/cumbria/hi/ and look for "listen Live" or "listen again" - the news is on the hour.
The most damning side to all this is that Steve Callaghan the former head of Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership, has always maintained that his highly trained operators used the equipment within the guidelines without making such basic errors - now it appears that the judge, having seen the evidence thinks otherwise!
How many other SCP civilian operators are getting away with waving the LTI around as if they were Dirty Harry and convicting safe drivers driving at or close to the limit?
EU_Foreigner said:
Indeed, that was the guideline for allowed speed, i.e. the first ticket should be at 36.
No, that was the threshold for prosecution.However, in Lancashire, they put you on a Speed Awareness course all the way up to 39, as that way, they get to keep the money for sending you on he course, instead of it going to the Treasury as a fine.
EU_Foreigner said:
10% + 2 being the threshold means that anything over the threshold would be prosecuted, therefore 36?
No...34 mph in a 30 is the maximum speed you can go without picking up a ticket, nudge it to 35 and you'll get a ticket....or an invite to a speed awareness course depending on the state of the collective spleen of the area you get nabbed in.All that depends on being caught of course
ETA...
Pepipoo still has the ACPO guideline table available
Edited by oldsoak on Wednesday 16th June 15:13
The BBC report said "A court heard Cumbria Police had instructed a civilian worker to target all motorists regardless of whether they were breaking the speed limit".
This was the basis of the appeal. At Carlisle Crown Court yesterday, a judge and two magistrates allowed Montgomerie's appeal because they "had serious reservations" about the way the speed camera was operated.
Judge Hughes questioned how this raised speed awareness and asked for his ruling remarks to be passed to Craig Mackey, the chief constable of Cumbria Constabulary.
Judge Peter Hughes QC criticised Mr Griffin after he clocked 390 cars in 73 minutes. He said: "He panned from one car to another in rapid succession."
When asked about the jogger he targeted, the officer replied: "Sometimes your mind goes numb."
The problem with SCP mobile enforcement is that for the operator it is very boring. It is difficult to keep the concentration up for hours on end and lax practices creep in. The operator cares not that his actions has a real effect on driver's lives and just pings away. As the enforcement threshold falls towards the speed limi it is ever more easy for the operators shoddy work to become even more relevant.
This was the basis of the appeal. At Carlisle Crown Court yesterday, a judge and two magistrates allowed Montgomerie's appeal because they "had serious reservations" about the way the speed camera was operated.
Judge Hughes questioned how this raised speed awareness and asked for his ruling remarks to be passed to Craig Mackey, the chief constable of Cumbria Constabulary.
Judge Peter Hughes QC criticised Mr Griffin after he clocked 390 cars in 73 minutes. He said: "He panned from one car to another in rapid succession."
When asked about the jogger he targeted, the officer replied: "Sometimes your mind goes numb."
The problem with SCP mobile enforcement is that for the operator it is very boring. It is difficult to keep the concentration up for hours on end and lax practices creep in. The operator cares not that his actions has a real effect on driver's lives and just pings away. As the enforcement threshold falls towards the speed limi it is ever more easy for the operators shoddy work to become even more relevant.
Edited by rewc on Wednesday 16th June 15:36
Mill Wheel said:
However, in Lancashire, they put you on a Speed Awareness course all the way up to 39, as that way, they get to keep the money for sending you on he course, instead of it going to the Treasury as a fine.
These filthy racketeers need to be purged from public service.Every last one.
Nick Freeman said:
"It is extremely unfortunate that the prosecution felt it necessary to waste tens of thousands of pounds in pursuing a prosecution when they were aware of these facts from an early stage."
It is understood other motorists who received automatic tickets from the operation could have their fines overturned.
I think the judge covered that when he stated:It is understood other motorists who received automatic tickets from the operation could have their fines overturned.
Judge Hughes said:
“We have reached this decision with a degree of reluctance. The maintenance of public confidence in the reliability of the evidence used to support allegations of speeding is of vital importance.
I would suggest that the outcome of this case has dented that confidence in many cases!EU_Foreigner said:
Just a bit yes. Basically, the conclusion is that you can not trust the equipment nor the people using it.
The manufacturers of the LTI have a former NASA scientist on their books, whose job it is to rubbish technical challenges to their equipment. If required, he is wheeled into court at huge expense, frightening many defendants from challenging their speeding tickets in case they become liable for costs against them. Now instead, Montgomerie's legal bill – thought to be in the region of £30,000 – will now be passed on to the taxpayer.From this case, it would appear that the device is only as good as the buffoon holding it! It has been shown time and time again that the device can give a hugely false reading if swept over the target vehicle during the reading - the Daily Mail famously showed a cyclist doing 60 mph, while a wall in a courthouse in the US was found to be travelling at 4 mph.
Those who defend it's use, claim that experienced operators never use the speed gun in this way, yet here they are in court having to accept the judges ruling that the evidence shows that an operator HAS misused the equipment, AND was directed to target road users outside of the specific guidelines to it's use!
Oh dear!!
oldsoak said:
EU_Foreigner said:
10% + 2 being the threshold means that anything over the threshold would be prosecuted, therefore 36?
No...34 mph in a 30 is the maximum speed you can go without picking up a ticket, nudge it to 35 and you'll get a ticket. ...Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff