Quick question for the BIB's
Discussion
Hi all,
Hope you had a good christmas, quick question for you.
My brother got stopped by police car yesterday for speeding, now the thing is, he was in a line of traffic on a dual carriageway and never went any faster than 85, which was on a downhill run. The police car was always more then 3 cars behind. When he got stopped, the policeman who was alone in the car said that he was doing 95, when my brother asked how he knew what speed he was doing, he was told "i've got a calibrated speedo" and that was all the proof he could offer. On the ticket he was given it says "excess speed".
We've had a look on pepipoo and all we can find is a bit that says "without a speed measuring device, there needs to be two policeman, one to corroberate the other" is this correct, or can one policeman by himself stop you and just say "i followed you and you where speeding" or do they HAVE to offer some kind of proof of the offence?
Andrew
Hope you had a good christmas, quick question for you.
My brother got stopped by police car yesterday for speeding, now the thing is, he was in a line of traffic on a dual carriageway and never went any faster than 85, which was on a downhill run. The police car was always more then 3 cars behind. When he got stopped, the policeman who was alone in the car said that he was doing 95, when my brother asked how he knew what speed he was doing, he was told "i've got a calibrated speedo" and that was all the proof he could offer. On the ticket he was given it says "excess speed".
We've had a look on pepipoo and all we can find is a bit that says "without a speed measuring device, there needs to be two policeman, one to corroberate the other" is this correct, or can one policeman by himself stop you and just say "i followed you and you where speeding" or do they HAVE to offer some kind of proof of the offence?
Andrew
Police are experts in law in offences of drunkeness and speed.
This means they can give evidence of opinion as a pathologist can give evidence of opinion about someones death which the court will accept.
Some offences require corroboration in law.
Most sexual offences,
Conspiracy
Speeding
Are the others affected by this rule.
Speeding coroborration can be
1. 2 X officers estimating a speed and agreeing that it was in excess of a permitted limit without a mechanical device.
2. 1 Police Officer and a mechanical device.
Both methods have the required coroborration in law which the courts will accept as sworn statements of evidence.
If your brother admits he was exceeding the limit at 85mph ish on a speedometer that was 'uncorobborated' and maybe was not paying full attention until the critical time when he realised he was being followed and glanced at his speedo, he may well have been travelling at the speed mentioned by the officer.
The officer is right to proceed under the act in relation to coroborration. The only way to rebut this is to plead not guilty and take his chance in court about the expert evidence offered by the officer and that which may be offered by himself.
Pepipoo is useful to a point
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 30th December 14:00
This means they can give evidence of opinion as a pathologist can give evidence of opinion about someones death which the court will accept.
Some offences require corroboration in law.
Most sexual offences,
Conspiracy
Speeding
Are the others affected by this rule.
Speeding coroborration can be
1. 2 X officers estimating a speed and agreeing that it was in excess of a permitted limit without a mechanical device.
2. 1 Police Officer and a mechanical device.
Both methods have the required coroborration in law which the courts will accept as sworn statements of evidence.
If your brother admits he was exceeding the limit at 85mph ish on a speedometer that was 'uncorobborated' and maybe was not paying full attention until the critical time when he realised he was being followed and glanced at his speedo, he may well have been travelling at the speed mentioned by the officer.
The officer is right to proceed under the act in relation to coroborration. The only way to rebut this is to plead not guilty and take his chance in court about the expert evidence offered by the officer and that which may be offered by himself.
Pepipoo is useful to a point
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 30th December 14:00
Thanks for your help guys.
He wasn't going that fast, because he was in the car with our mum, his other half, her sister and her mum, so if he was going that fast, he wouldn't have any ears left!
But the main issue is, that it seems the only proof of speeding is the policemans word, because he had no speed gun or VASCAR or anything, it was purely he was driving along in a line of traffic, and said he was doing 95mph.
I told him to fight it, cos at worst he will get the points and fine, but he might get nothing.
Andrew
>> Edited by r5bmb on Thursday 30th December 14:12
He wasn't going that fast, because he was in the car with our mum, his other half, her sister and her mum, so if he was going that fast, he wouldn't have any ears left!
But the main issue is, that it seems the only proof of speeding is the policemans word, because he had no speed gun or VASCAR or anything, it was purely he was driving along in a line of traffic, and said he was doing 95mph.
I told him to fight it, cos at worst he will get the points and fine, but he might get nothing.
Andrew
>> Edited by r5bmb on Thursday 30th December 14:12
[quote=r5bmb]
I told him to fight it, cos at worst he will get the points and fine, but he might get nothing.
Andrew
[quote]
Absolutely...he might get a couple more points and will definately have court costs to pay...but then again might be found guilty or CPS decide there's no case to answer...
The BiB get paid to attend at court...especially if on a day off....Kerching...£££££....so they'll be happy too....
I told him to fight it, cos at worst he will get the points and fine, but he might get nothing.
Andrew
[quote]
Absolutely...he might get a couple more points and will definately have court costs to pay...but then again might be found guilty or CPS decide there's no case to answer...
The BiB get paid to attend at court...especially if on a day off....Kerching...£££££....so they'll be happy too....
gone said:
Police are experts in law in offences of drunkeness and speed.
This means they can give evidence of opinion as a pathologist can give evidence of opinion about someones death which the court will accept.
Some offences require corroboration in law.
Most sexual offences,
Conspiracy
Speeding
Are the others affected by this rule.
Speeding coroborration can be
1. 2 X officers estimating a speed and agreeing that it was in excess of a permitted limit without a mechanical device.
2. 1 Police Officer and a mechanical device.
Both methods have the required coroborration in law which the courts will accept as sworn statements of evidence.
If your brother admits he was exceeding the limit at 85mph ish on a speedometer that was 'uncorobborated' and maybe was not paying full attention until the critical time when he realised he was being followed and glanced at his speedo, he may well have been travelling at the speed mentioned by the officer.
The officer is right to proceed under the act in relation to coroborration. The only way to rebut this is to plead not guilty and take his chance in court about the expert evidence offered by the officer and that which may be offered by himself.
Pepipoo is useful to a point
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 30th December 14:00
Tosh, tosh, utter tosh, and even more utter tosh.
You are a traffic cop; in the court that makes you a person of skill or remit that the prosecution can call on to testify. To infer that the level of your skill is in any way equitable to a forensic scientist is arrogance in the extreme, and your remarks demonstrate just how limited your legal knowledge is, in the same way that you clearly had difficulty grasping the concepts of aerodynamics as it relates to vehicle safety.
The practice of using one officers statement and so called corroboration goes on in English courts; that does not make it acceptable.
The magistrates accept it because they have the same tunnel vision as you are displaying now.
Without some sort of material evidence the officer can say what he likes; there is no proof, therefore there is no corroboration.
If he had a video camera and a tape showing a VASCAR check, this is correct and indisputable corroboration, anything short of that is unacceptable and falls under the realms of reasonable doubt.
See this thread:-
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=141324&f=10&h=0
Andrew, tell your brother to plead not guilty and fight it all the way and remember the most important principle in law; the onus of proof is on the Crown, NOT the accused. DON'T admit anything.
Let this copper prove you were doing that speed, how on earth is he going to do that, what is he going to show the court, his speedo??
By the way Andrew, so you realise how ridiculously silly this is, the "expert evidence" that Gone talks of is the copper saying, "I looked at my speedo, and he was doing X MPH"
My God, how do they manage to train these guys so highly, it must take months to become that kind of an expert!!
IOLAIRE said:
Andrew, tell your brother to plead not guilty and fight it all the way and remember the most important principle in law; the onus of proof is on the Crown, NOT the accused. DON'T admit anything.
Oh no, not again.
Highly questionable advice. Are you going to help him prepare his case? It seems to me you have a massive problem with corroboration and police witnesses, doubtlessly brought on by a bad experience in court or elsewhere.
The fact is, the court will believe a police witness most of the time; so any not guilty plea has to be backed up with fireproof evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Otherwise, you can kiss your rosey red arse goodbye.
DeMolay said:
Andrew, tell your brother to plead not guilty and fight it all the way and remember the most important principle in law; the onus of proof is on the Crown, NOT the accused. DON'T admit anything.
Oh no, not again.
Highly questionable advice. Are you going to help him prepare his case? It seems to me you have a massive problem with corroboration and police witnesses, doubtlessly brought on by a bad experience in court or elsewhere.
The fact is, the court will believe a police witness most of the time; so any not guilty plea has to be backed up with fireproof evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Otherwise, you can kiss your rosey red arse goodbye.
No DeMolay,
you are the one with the problem.
I have no problems whatever when I go into court; so if you want to give different advice that you think would be a better defence, let's hear it.
If not, go and pester someone else, I'm really not interested.
Incidentally this case is even worse, not even VASCAR this time; a calibrated speedometer, y'know like in the 1930s.
Corroboration?? What a joke!!
The driver also has two other witnesses in the car that will swear he wasn't doing anything like that speed.
You seem to be popping up regularly with your insulting rhetoric and it's making me deeply suspicious as to what your motives are; strange indeed.
your brother should go 'not guilty',ask for speedo calibration certs and also the signed vehicle checksheet for the car that stopped him,this is supposed to be signed before the car leaves the nick to say the vehicle has been visually checked and is roadworthy and iirc if it isnt done then the ticket is not worth the paper its printed on.....its suprising how many cops genuinely forget to do this.
tell him to take as many witnesses to court with him as possible,if he had passengers then thats great as they can corroberate the story that he was in a line of cars and was singled-out.
in the past ive always checked any cop car that pulls me up for defects (its your right) as this has got me off once or twice in the past....for example: a defective headlamp bulb = incorrect headlamp beam pattern = mot failure = officers driving an unroadworthy vehicle that shouldnt have been allowed to leave the station = ticket null and void.
i'll tell you about an incident that happened to me in selsey a few years ago.
i got pulled for 'excessive speed' at 2am on a clear road and whilst i was stopped the cops started going to town on my van,checking everything...so i walked around their vehicle and noticed that the o/s/f sidelight was innoperative,when asked about the defect the passenger stated that the pug saloon they were driving was fitted with a parking light,unfortunatly both the rear lights were working and this pointed to the fact that it wasnt on the parking light.the cop turned on his ignition and both headlamps lit up and he said "there,they both work!" and gave me a smug grin,with this MY passenger said "can you turn the headlights down to just the sidelights please?" the cop did and the light went out again "i knew it!" said my passenger "i know for a FACT that this vehicle doesnt have a parking light curcuit" the cop said "are you calling me a liar?,are you trying to get your mate in more trouble?".....my passenger replied "i actually work for perrys peugeot in hillhead and im a qualified mot examiner,your vehicle was never fitted with a parking light curcuit,it has got a defective sidelight though and as this is an mot failure it is therefore unroadworthy".
both cops said this wouldnt stop the ticket but we went to chichester nick at 8am that morning and complained to the c.superintendant who looked into the incident and found that the officers had returned to the nick after leaving us,booked another car out and put that one in for repair....the ticket was torn up by the c.super and i was told i would not hear anything more about it......which i didnt.
>> Edited by cortinaman on Friday 31st December 02:41
tell him to take as many witnesses to court with him as possible,if he had passengers then thats great as they can corroberate the story that he was in a line of cars and was singled-out.
in the past ive always checked any cop car that pulls me up for defects (its your right) as this has got me off once or twice in the past....for example: a defective headlamp bulb = incorrect headlamp beam pattern = mot failure = officers driving an unroadworthy vehicle that shouldnt have been allowed to leave the station = ticket null and void.
i'll tell you about an incident that happened to me in selsey a few years ago.
i got pulled for 'excessive speed' at 2am on a clear road and whilst i was stopped the cops started going to town on my van,checking everything...so i walked around their vehicle and noticed that the o/s/f sidelight was innoperative,when asked about the defect the passenger stated that the pug saloon they were driving was fitted with a parking light,unfortunatly both the rear lights were working and this pointed to the fact that it wasnt on the parking light.the cop turned on his ignition and both headlamps lit up and he said "there,they both work!" and gave me a smug grin,with this MY passenger said "can you turn the headlights down to just the sidelights please?" the cop did and the light went out again "i knew it!" said my passenger "i know for a FACT that this vehicle doesnt have a parking light curcuit" the cop said "are you calling me a liar?,are you trying to get your mate in more trouble?".....my passenger replied "i actually work for perrys peugeot in hillhead and im a qualified mot examiner,your vehicle was never fitted with a parking light curcuit,it has got a defective sidelight though and as this is an mot failure it is therefore unroadworthy".
both cops said this wouldnt stop the ticket but we went to chichester nick at 8am that morning and complained to the c.superintendant who looked into the incident and found that the officers had returned to the nick after leaving us,booked another car out and put that one in for repair....the ticket was torn up by the c.super and i was told i would not hear anything more about it......which i didnt.
>> Edited by cortinaman on Friday 31st December 02:41
IOLAIRE said:
Incidentally this case is even worse, not even VASCAR this time; a calibrated speedometer, y'know like in the 1930s.
A calibrated speedometer IS corroboration. Like it or not the court WILL find this persuasive. Going to court with a bundle of your mates to testify MAY be enough, but they will hardly be impartial - and the CPS chappie will know this and try and play on it.
IOLAIRE said:
Corroboration?? What a joke!!
Why? A calibrated speedometer is an accurate device. Mine's isn't calibrated and I use it all the time to guage my speed. Thus far it has served me pretty well.
IOLAIRE said:
You seem to be popping up regularly with your insulting rhetoric and it's making me deeply suspicious as to what your motives are; strange indeed.
I couldn't care less what you think. The fact of the matter is that the advice you dole out sometimes borders on farcical; and don't be paranoid as I'm not working for the other side. Quite the contrary in fact.
When I help people prepare their cases, I stick to what the facts are and NOT some notion of pleading not guilty because you don't like the current police/CPS cosy set up. Corroboration, whether you like it or not, from a calibrated speedometer is usually enough to convict; unless the defendant can show the police evidence unreliable.
I don't know why IOLAIRE you must be so bombastic in your reply to DeMolay but if you really read his post on the reality of the situation he virtually states the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
You seem to have great difficulty is accepting what the RTA and High Courts state about corroboration regarding the offence of speeding as outlined by Gone and demand, at law, items that are not covered. OK, I accept you don't like it so - go and change the law instead of attacking the practioners.
As FiF has previously stated what more proof do you need on the accuracy, in its simplest form, of a speedo if evidence is given that a vehicle is driven at an indicated speed of 60 mph over a measured mile and the time taken is 1 minute. This indicates to me that the speedo is OK, the stopwatch is OK and the measured mile OK. Any variation indicates a fault and sorry I do not believe that it is Police Force policy to prosecute on flawed evidence.
Yes, you mention perjury by the prosecuting witnesses but any alleged system you can come up with
will similarly suffer. Please bear in mind it also operates from the other side in that many Defence submissions have been framed by Aesop and more prevelant than by the Prosecution.
And yes the onus on the Prosecution is to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt and not on the balance of probability as under civil law. Quiet acceptable to cast doubt but on legitimate doubts not figments of imagination. As I have said before despite your opinions of them, Magistrates are no fools and have heard it all before. One point I do conceed is that they no longer know the Police witnesses through FPN's, GP's etc. My day we took the box and gave evidence in all cases so we were known for telling the truth. No longer possible regrettably as Officers came to know not only Court procedures but also the bombs likely to be lobbed by Defence so enabling them to be diffused by a bit of evidence in their original statements.
Of interest could you please advise that Scottish Courts allow defence of others to be undertaken by Motor Engineers instead of Solicitors. The former you stated you were and no mention of a later degree. I note that you state you are in and out of Court defending. Not, being a man of calibre, I would suspect as a result of offences committed by your goodself.
Finally,don't reply with a diatribe for you cannot con me as I have been conned by experts. Chill man its NYE so go out and get blathered as you listen to J .Shand on the fiddle with my wishes for a prosperous 2005.
DVD
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
You seem to have great difficulty is accepting what the RTA and High Courts state about corroboration regarding the offence of speeding as outlined by Gone and demand, at law, items that are not covered. OK, I accept you don't like it so - go and change the law instead of attacking the practioners.
As FiF has previously stated what more proof do you need on the accuracy, in its simplest form, of a speedo if evidence is given that a vehicle is driven at an indicated speed of 60 mph over a measured mile and the time taken is 1 minute. This indicates to me that the speedo is OK, the stopwatch is OK and the measured mile OK. Any variation indicates a fault and sorry I do not believe that it is Police Force policy to prosecute on flawed evidence.
Yes, you mention perjury by the prosecuting witnesses but any alleged system you can come up with
will similarly suffer. Please bear in mind it also operates from the other side in that many Defence submissions have been framed by Aesop and more prevelant than by the Prosecution.
And yes the onus on the Prosecution is to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt and not on the balance of probability as under civil law. Quiet acceptable to cast doubt but on legitimate doubts not figments of imagination. As I have said before despite your opinions of them, Magistrates are no fools and have heard it all before. One point I do conceed is that they no longer know the Police witnesses through FPN's, GP's etc. My day we took the box and gave evidence in all cases so we were known for telling the truth. No longer possible regrettably as Officers came to know not only Court procedures but also the bombs likely to be lobbed by Defence so enabling them to be diffused by a bit of evidence in their original statements.
Of interest could you please advise that Scottish Courts allow defence of others to be undertaken by Motor Engineers instead of Solicitors. The former you stated you were and no mention of a later degree. I note that you state you are in and out of Court defending. Not, being a man of calibre, I would suspect as a result of offences committed by your goodself.
Finally,don't reply with a diatribe for you cannot con me as I have been conned by experts. Chill man its NYE so go out and get blathered as you listen to J .Shand on the fiddle with my wishes for a prosperous 2005.
DVD
to your legal knowledge ......honestly, but "Magistrates are no fools" De Molay with "Oh No not again" just took the very words out of my mouth.
I'm really not going to get involved here as this argument has been round the houses so many times we have all got dizzy and there are worn tracks across the lawn.
However I will post a comment on shoodie's thread which points out a few observations regarding the accuracy of the input contained within the advice being given there. I had refrained from commenting as it is supposed to be the season of good will.
Yes it is true the prosecution have to prove their case and it's a matter for the mags to weigh up the odds and decide accordingly.
Of course when the prosecution are faced with a Not Guilty plea, and part of the defence case rests on the inaccuracy of the evidence, either from genuine error or wilful manipulation, it has been repeatedly inferred on this forum that a prosecution which stands up and fights to the death is material evidence of a corrupt system. Tosh!
DVD is spot on, don't like the law, don't kill the message bearer but get law changed in a constitutional manner.
Nevertheless I do have much sympathy that this seems a mountain of a task when faced with an administration which, in response to any concerted pressure from an unfavoured angle, simply puts hands over ears and sings "LaLaLaLaLa."
Maybe that song was one of Jimmy Shand's.
Best wishes for 2005 everyone.
FiF
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Friday 31st December 18:06
I'm really not going to get involved here as this argument has been round the houses so many times we have all got dizzy and there are worn tracks across the lawn.
However I will post a comment on shoodie's thread which points out a few observations regarding the accuracy of the input contained within the advice being given there. I had refrained from commenting as it is supposed to be the season of good will.
Yes it is true the prosecution have to prove their case and it's a matter for the mags to weigh up the odds and decide accordingly.
Of course when the prosecution are faced with a Not Guilty plea, and part of the defence case rests on the inaccuracy of the evidence, either from genuine error or wilful manipulation, it has been repeatedly inferred on this forum that a prosecution which stands up and fights to the death is material evidence of a corrupt system. Tosh!
DVD is spot on, don't like the law, don't kill the message bearer but get law changed in a constitutional manner.
Nevertheless I do have much sympathy that this seems a mountain of a task when faced with an administration which, in response to any concerted pressure from an unfavoured angle, simply puts hands over ears and sings "LaLaLaLaLa."
Maybe that song was one of Jimmy Shand's.
Best wishes for 2005 everyone.
FiF
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Friday 31st December 18:06
IOLAIRE said:
Tosh, tosh, utter tosh, and even more utter tosh.
Wrong! IOLAIRE said:
You are a traffic cop;
Wrong again. I used to be but not any more 
IOLAIRE said:
in the court that makes you a person of skill or remit that the prosecution can call on to testify. To infer that the level of your skill is in any way equitable to a forensic scientist is arrogance in the extreme, and your remarks demonstrate just how limited your legal knowledge is,
Just showing your complete ignorance again IOLAIRE?
I am only posting the law as it stands. I do not make it, nor necessarily agree with some of it. You however, are just spouting your dreams of Nirvanah as already pointed out
IOLAIRE said:
in the same way that you clearly had difficulty grasping the concepts of aerodynamics as it relates to vehicle safety.
No I don't but I think you may well do in your land of Milk and Honey
IOlAIRE said:
The practice of using one officers statement and so called corroboration goes on in English courts; that does not make it acceptable.
Apparently to those that matter i.e. the Law Lords, it does. Barrack room physisists are not ususally called upon to make judgements on such matters. Until they are IOLAIRE, you will have to accept the status quo
IOLAIRE said:
The magistrates accept it because they have the same tunnel vision as you are displaying now.
They accept it because it is within the framework of the law that they are there to sit in judgement over.
Whatever system would be employed in your search for perfection against prosecution of motorists with IOLAIRE views will never be good enough
Until that is nobody is prosecuted Unfortunately, views like yours are the reason that 'the Police' and 'the system' is in the complete mess that it is. Are you ever happy with anything? I very much doubt it
! IOLAIRE said:
Without some sort of material evidence the officer can say what he likes; there is no proof, therefore there is no corroboration.
Officers give evidence on oath. If they are found to be giving false evidence, they run the risk of a perjury charge.
Why would an officer put him/herself on offer for a tinpot everyday speeding offence of which there are many thousands committed and available for detection and prosecution, especially when it is against someone they have never met before?
You need to start living in the real world IOLAIRE and think about what really happens instead of your complete paranoia about conspiracy in the system
! IOLAIRE said:
If he had a video camera and a tape showing a VASCAR check, this is correct and indisputable corroboration,
Is it indeed
? IOLAIRE said:
anything short of that is unacceptable and falls under the realms of reasonable doubt.
Is anything ever so cear cut that someone/anyone can decide that it is incontroversably true
? IOAIRE said:
Andrew, tell your brother to plead not guilty and fight it all the way and remember the most important principle in law; the onus of proof is on the Crown, NOT the accused. DON'T admit anything.
Great advice
Are you sponsoring his advocacy in this forthcoming trial? I doubt it Maybe you could act for him? That would be an almost certain route for conviction I feel 
IOLAIRE said:
Let this copper prove you were doing that speed, how on earth is he going to do that, what is he going to show the court, his speedo??
I am sure that he/she will be more than happy to do so, especially as ND states if he/she is called on a rest day to explain as we very often are these days
IOLAIRE said:
By the way Andrew, so you realise how ridiculously silly this is, the "expert evidence" that Gone talks of is the copper saying, "I looked at my speedo, and he was doing X MPH"
"Thats the way to do it" says Mr Punch. That is the law IOLAIRE/Andrew. You have to decide whether you think your word will be accepted over that of 'the expert'. I wish you luck in your quest for justice. Oh, by the way, you were speeding weren't you Andrew?
Still. You could always ask for a 'Newton Trial' at your hearing. I expect IOLAIRE will explain 'Newton hearing' to you as I have a very poor grasp of the law unlike him/her and heres the clue IOLAIRE. It is not the Newton that sat under a tree and discovered laws relating to physics and moving bodies or even aerodynamics
. IOLAIRE said:
My God, how do they manage to train these guys so highly, it must take months to become that kind of an expert!!
No it doesn't.
It takes about 30 seconds. When you say the 'oath of alliegence' in front of the Magistrate to H.E.R. on your first day at the training centre, you become an expert in both speeding and drunkeness
IOLAIRE said:
Tosh, tosh, utter tosh, and even more utter tosh.
You are a traffic cop; in the court that makes you a person of skill or remit that the prosecution can call on to testify.
P.S. IOLAIRE.
You don't even need to be a traffic cop
You can be straight out of the box without even having worn a uniform on your first day, that is all it takes. Still, you knew that of course didn't you?
>> Edited by gone on Sunday 2nd January 11:52
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff