Not all bad news in N Wales
Discussion
Thought people might be interested to hear of the recent experience of a colleague of mine. Zapped last year here in Brunstrom country by a scamera van, he received an NIP. As he had wife plus 2 American business colleagues he wrote to Police requesting the ‘video’ so he could ascertain who had actually been driving the car and therefore how should he plead. Next thing is a Summons so I suggested he wrote to the court setting out the circumstances and asking again for evidence. As he explained that in the absence of evidence he would plead not guilty, trial was adjourned.
He decided to represent himself, and while bench had adjourned to decide what to do in case of previous Criminal Damage sixth time offender, Clerk of Court asked him what he was there for. He explained situation and helpful CoC called CPS over – similarly helpful CPS found that the only letter in her file was the first letter with no counterpart reply. Magistrates returned and Clerk of Court advised colleague to explain situation. He did so and Clerk of court explained to both him and bench that video was not video but stills from video etc and CPS offered that they did not have this evidence. CPS fortunately did not request adjournment to produce the necessary and Magistrates dismissed the case on basis of lack of evidence.
Whereas clearly it could have gone the other way, it seems officialdom were happy to give benefit of the doubt in the usual carelessly prepared prosecution. And colleague, defending himself was seen as open and honest with his explanation.
A positive result – perhaps that those involved are starting to resent the abuse of the judicial process that the N Wales scamera partnerships’ managers are trying to push through especially when they can see how law abiding citizens could be treated compared with real scum whose antisocial and violent activities bring them rewards rather than punishment.
Hope others can realise that challenging this abuse in court does not necessarily result in worse treatment – reasonable doubt is still seen in some places justification for dismissal.
Thought people might be interested to hear of the recent experience of a colleague of mine. Zapped last year here in Brunstrom country by a scamera van, he received an NIP. As he had wife plus 2 American business colleagues he wrote to Police requesting the ‘video’ so he could ascertain who had actually been driving the car and therefore how should he plead. Next thing is a Summons so I suggested he wrote to the court setting out the circumstances and asking again for evidence. As he explained that in the absence of evidence he would plead not guilty, trial was adjourned.
He decided to represent himself, and while bench had adjourned to decide what to do in case of previous Criminal Damage sixth time offender, Clerk of Court asked him what he was there for. He explained situation and helpful CoC called CPS over – similarly helpful CPS found that the only letter in her file was the first letter with no counterpart reply. Magistrates returned and Clerk of Court advised colleague to explain situation. He did so and Clerk of court explained to both him and bench that video was not video but stills from video etc and CPS offered that they did not have this evidence. CPS fortunately did not request adjournment to produce the necessary and Magistrates dismissed the case on basis of lack of evidence.
Whereas clearly it could have gone the other way, it seems officialdom were happy to give benefit of the doubt in the usual carelessly prepared prosecution. And colleague, defending himself was seen as open and honest with his explanation.
A positive result – perhaps that those involved are starting to resent the abuse of the judicial process that the N Wales scamera partnerships’ managers are trying to push through especially when they can see how law abiding citizens could be treated compared with real scum whose antisocial and violent activities bring them rewards rather than punishment.
Hope others can realise that challenging this abuse in court does not necessarily result in worse treatment – reasonable doubt is still seen in some places justification for dismissal.
He decided to represent himself, and while bench had adjourned to decide what to do in case of previous Criminal Damage sixth time offender, Clerk of Court asked him what he was there for. He explained situation and helpful CoC called CPS over – similarly helpful CPS found that the only letter in her file was the first letter with no counterpart reply. Magistrates returned and Clerk of Court advised colleague to explain situation. He did so and Clerk of court explained to both him and bench that video was not video but stills from video etc and CPS offered that they did not have this evidence. CPS fortunately did not request adjournment to produce the necessary and Magistrates dismissed the case on basis of lack of evidence.
Whereas clearly it could have gone the other way, it seems officialdom were happy to give benefit of the doubt in the usual carelessly prepared prosecution. And colleague, defending himself was seen as open and honest with his explanation.
A positive result – perhaps that those involved are starting to resent the abuse of the judicial process that the N Wales scamera partnerships’ managers are trying to push through especially when they can see how law abiding citizens could be treated compared with real scum whose antisocial and violent activities bring them rewards rather than punishment.
Hope others can realise that challenging this abuse in court does not necessarily result in worse treatment – reasonable doubt is still seen in some places justification for dismissal.
Thought people might be interested to hear of the recent experience of a colleague of mine. Zapped last year here in Brunstrom country by a scamera van, he received an NIP. As he had wife plus 2 American business colleagues he wrote to Police requesting the ‘video’ so he could ascertain who had actually been driving the car and therefore how should he plead. Next thing is a Summons so I suggested he wrote to the court setting out the circumstances and asking again for evidence. As he explained that in the absence of evidence he would plead not guilty, trial was adjourned.
He decided to represent himself, and while bench had adjourned to decide what to do in case of previous Criminal Damage sixth time offender, Clerk of Court asked him what he was there for. He explained situation and helpful CoC called CPS over – similarly helpful CPS found that the only letter in her file was the first letter with no counterpart reply. Magistrates returned and Clerk of Court advised colleague to explain situation. He did so and Clerk of court explained to both him and bench that video was not video but stills from video etc and CPS offered that they did not have this evidence. CPS fortunately did not request adjournment to produce the necessary and Magistrates dismissed the case on basis of lack of evidence.
Whereas clearly it could have gone the other way, it seems officialdom were happy to give benefit of the doubt in the usual carelessly prepared prosecution. And colleague, defending himself was seen as open and honest with his explanation.
A positive result – perhaps that those involved are starting to resent the abuse of the judicial process that the N Wales scamera partnerships’ managers are trying to push through especially when they can see how law abiding citizens could be treated compared with real scum whose antisocial and violent activities bring them rewards rather than punishment.
Hope others can realise that challenging this abuse in court does not necessarily result in worse treatment – reasonable doubt is still seen in some places justification for dismissal.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff