Judge Rules: Gatso Importer No Longer "Independent Expert"
Discussion
Motorcyclenews.com said:
"The boss of the firm that makes laser speed detectors used in vans has been told by a Crown Court judge he cannot be used as an independent expert.
For too long Frank Garratt, MD of Tele-Traffic UK, has helped convict people by telling courts the product he makes a lot of money from works just fine.
Judge Morrell at Northampton Crown Court reportedly told Garratt he totally rejected him as an independent witness.
This was because of the financial interest he derives from the LTI20.20 lasers used in speed camera vans.
A claim of £823 costs for Garratt was booted out at the hearing, on November 3.
Judge Morrell also reportedly ruled that where someone decides to challenge a speeding fixed penalty and is subsequently convicted by a court, it is “wrong in principal” for the court to impose a large fine.
It’s an important case which should make it more difficult for the speed camera authorities to bully riders out of challenging £60 fixed penalties with threats of £1000 fines if they go to court.
It also throws a spanner in the works for the Association of Chief Police Officer’s plans to employ a special new legal team to help prosecute speed camera cases at the expense of anyone who dares to challenge them."
And the BIG questions are:
As this was in a Crown Court, does this set a precedent which can be followed in all future cases.....?
And what will be the implications of his ruling around issue of courts imposing increased fines?
Discuss.......
I *think* it has to be in a Divisional court or above to set a legal precedent.
However, if nothing else this will seriously discourage the CPS in using Mr Garatt again!
Of course there is nothing stopping a potential defendant getting a copy of the ruling and objecting to his use in a future case. If a legally trained judge has already made a decision, then it is unlikely that non-legally trained magistrates would want/need to even consider offering a different decision.
It does bring up the fact that if they dont use Mr Garatt, then who *do* they use? Another employee of Teletraffic maybe? If it were my case and it were another employee of Teletraffic I would be also referencing the case, whereby I would argue that if Mr Garatt is biased, then using someone who is on his payroll is just using him by proxy.
Its a very interesting case though and if like Peter in the 'LTI2020 strikes again, at me!', I would not have many fears on taking the case all the way to court. Without an expert witness on the payroll the CPS will without a doubt lose each case where the defendant challenges the technology with an expert witness.
However, if nothing else this will seriously discourage the CPS in using Mr Garatt again!
Of course there is nothing stopping a potential defendant getting a copy of the ruling and objecting to his use in a future case. If a legally trained judge has already made a decision, then it is unlikely that non-legally trained magistrates would want/need to even consider offering a different decision.
It does bring up the fact that if they dont use Mr Garatt, then who *do* they use? Another employee of Teletraffic maybe? If it were my case and it were another employee of Teletraffic I would be also referencing the case, whereby I would argue that if Mr Garatt is biased, then using someone who is on his payroll is just using him by proxy.
Its a very interesting case though and if like Peter in the 'LTI2020 strikes again, at me!', I would not have many fears on taking the case all the way to court. Without an expert witness on the payroll the CPS will without a doubt lose each case where the defendant challenges the technology with an expert witness.
Peter Ward said:
What's the process for getting details of the complete statement and being able to reference it? I like both the comments on Mr Garrett and the principle of the fine 
Hi Peter, I thought you may end up here!
I think a good start would be to contact the court for a copy. I know it is possible to obtain copies as this is what happens when I have seen case law and precedents used in my case.
Peter Ward said:
What's the process for getting details of the complete statement and being able to reference it? I like both the comments on Mr Garrett and the principle of the fine
Get the name of the defendant. Then it is R v Defendant 2006 (BUT the judgment may not be transcribed yet, and as above, it may be an idea to phone the court concerned and ask for a copy as soon as possible.).
justinp1 said:
Peter Ward said:
What's the process for getting details of the complete statement and being able to reference it? I like both the comments on Mr Garrett and the principle of the fine
Hi Peter, I thought you may end up here!
I think a good start would be to contact the court for a copy. I know it is possible to obtain copies as this is what happens when I have seen case law and precedents used in my case.
Don't forget to post it here if you get it
Boosted.
Appeal of Gregory Maroney Barnett
Judgment of His Honour Judge Morrell at Northampton Crown Court
Friday 3 November 2006
This appellant appeals against a conviction of the Northampton Magistrates Court on 22 August 2005 for driving on the A6 bypass at 60mph in a 50mph area. This appeal has had a chequered history and it is a matter of regret that it has not been disposed of long ago.
Mr Burton tells me that the delay is the reason for abandonment.
The Appellant was offered a fixed penalty of £60 but he decided to contest the case in the Magistrates Court where he represented himself with an unhappy and unsatisfactory result. He says he was not given the opportunity properly to present his case.
It is wrong in principle where a person has declined the offer of a fixed penalty and is subsequently convicted by the Court, to impose a large fine. There is a fundamental injustice in that. The imposition of a fine is a deterrent, but it should possibly not exceed the original penalty.
The Appellant is still appealing against the fine and costs imposed by the Magistrates. I am satisfied that the fine should be reduced to £60 and the costs (of £364) should be reduced by £35 to £329, giving a total of fine and costs of £389. To this must be added the Prosecuting Counsel's fees amounting to £210, giving a grand total of £599. I allow the Appellant three months to pay.
I totally reject the claim of the so-called expert who asks for £723 for his report plus £100 for a 2-hour conference. He cannot be considered an independent expert when the machine he markets, made in the United States, is under attack. It is not just whether his view is under attack, but he derives a substrantial financial interest from his activities with the device.
I express my disappointment at not being able to try this case.
Judgment of His Honour Judge Morrell at Northampton Crown Court
Friday 3 November 2006
This appellant appeals against a conviction of the Northampton Magistrates Court on 22 August 2005 for driving on the A6 bypass at 60mph in a 50mph area. This appeal has had a chequered history and it is a matter of regret that it has not been disposed of long ago.
Mr Burton tells me that the delay is the reason for abandonment.
The Appellant was offered a fixed penalty of £60 but he decided to contest the case in the Magistrates Court where he represented himself with an unhappy and unsatisfactory result. He says he was not given the opportunity properly to present his case.
It is wrong in principle where a person has declined the offer of a fixed penalty and is subsequently convicted by the Court, to impose a large fine. There is a fundamental injustice in that. The imposition of a fine is a deterrent, but it should possibly not exceed the original penalty.
The Appellant is still appealing against the fine and costs imposed by the Magistrates. I am satisfied that the fine should be reduced to £60 and the costs (of £364) should be reduced by £35 to £329, giving a total of fine and costs of £389. To this must be added the Prosecuting Counsel's fees amounting to £210, giving a grand total of £599. I allow the Appellant three months to pay.
I totally reject the claim of the so-called expert who asks for £723 for his report plus £100 for a 2-hour conference. He cannot be considered an independent expert when the machine he markets, made in the United States, is under attack. It is not just whether his view is under attack, but he derives a substrantial financial interest from his activities with the device.
I express my disappointment at not being able to try this case.
NugentS said:
Appeal of Gregory Maroney Barnett
"I express my disappointment at not being able to try this case."
"I express my disappointment at not being able to try this case."
I express my disappointment too that the learned Judge Morrell was not able to try this case. Had he been presiding I think the expert witness, and indeed those that called him in evidence, would have been sent packing from the Court with a rather large and embarrassing flee in their collective ears.
rodney59 said:
Why was this a Crown Court ? I've missed something here.
Because the defendant appealed against his earlier conviction in the magistrates court and also claimed that he was not allowed to present his self defended case correctly.
Reading between the lines it appears that the appeal has been subject to much delay and the appellant abandoned his appeal citing the delays as reason.
Adding two and two and getting five one wonders if abuse of process has occurred and the Crown has applied undue pressure regarding the very large costs that would be claimed if the appeal had gone to full hearing.
The judgement just refers to the claim for costs by the Crown. I agree that it is a pity that this Judge was not allowed to hear the case.
Flat in Fifth said:
rodney59 said:
Why was this a Crown Court ? I've missed something here.
Because the defendant appealed against his earlier conviction in the magistrates court and also claimed that he was not allowed to present his self defended case correctly.
Reading between the lines it appears that the appeal has been subject to much delay and the appellant abandoned his appeal citing the delays as reason.
Adding two and two and getting five one wonders if abuse of process has occurred and the Crown has applied undue pressure regarding the very large costs that would be claimed if the appeal had gone to full hearing.
The judgement just refers to the claim for costs by the Crown. I agree that it is a pity that this Judge was not allowed to hear the case.
I agree this may be the case.
Thinking about the situation of the appellant, as i have been there too, to appeal against conviction the CPS would no doubt have used the services of Mr Garatt again. So as well as being already liable for the fine which is unstated, but probably about £200, the court costs of £364 plus the Mr Garrat fee of £829 - a grand total of about £1400 he was probably warned by the CPS that they would use Mr Garatt again, but this time get him to come to court at a cost of £1000 or more if threatened, and the CPS court costs would be an additional £300. After he pays a barrister £700 to dispute the case he is looking down the wrong end of a total bill of £3500+ if he loses. Thus possibly, he may have changed his appeal later on from an appeal against conviction to an appeal against sentence and costs.
Of course, at that point he was not to know that he would get a very rare Judge who would be willing to take each case as it stands with an unbiased view and common sense.
Although this case is useful in that the costs were not awarded to Teletraffic due to their unbiased nature, a much better scenario would have been if at appeal against conviction that the evidence that Mr Garrat put forward was thrown out due to obvious bias. As this Judgement is a judgement agaisnt sentence not the conviction I am now not so sure about the legal precedent, and how useful it may be in legal terms.
NugentS said:
Appeal of Gregory Maroney Barnett
Judgment of His Honour Judge Morrell at Northampton Crown Court
Friday 3 November 2006
It is wrong in principle where a person has declined the offer of a fixed penalty and is subsequently convicted by the Court, to impose a large fine. There is a fundamental injustice in that. The imposition of a fine is a deterrent, but it should possibly not exceed the original penalty.
Judgment of His Honour Judge Morrell at Northampton Crown Court
Friday 3 November 2006
It is wrong in principle where a person has declined the offer of a fixed penalty and is subsequently convicted by the Court, to impose a large fine. There is a fundamental injustice in that. The imposition of a fine is a deterrent, but it should possibly not exceed the original penalty.
This man truly deserves the title of His Honour; he has a complete understanding of justice and has no problem stating his principles in open court.
God, do we need more like that!
justinp1 said:
Of course, at that point he was not to know that he would get a very rare Judge who would be willing to take each case as it stands with an unbiased view and common sense.
At this point I have to admit that my tinfoil hat is firmly lodged in place.
We will never know, but I wouldn't bet against the chance that if he had decided to carry on with the appeal then it would not have been before this judge.
Adjusts tin foil hat.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff