Speeding driver ordered to pay £11,000!!

[Pete317]

What's the bet that he wasn't warned beforehand what it was going to cost him.

[tapereel]

MitchT said:

How did hiring an airfield and an Audi R8 help the prosecution? What were they trying to prove? Not enough information.

Easy

Police say your car was measured at 101mph
Driver says my car won't get to 101mph in that distance
Prosecution hire car and track to test to see if same model car will reach that speed in that distance and find it does...easily
Driver still insists he didn't drive at that speed
Magistrates see evidence the car will go that speed and don't belive driver's cock-and-bull story
Costs of proving driver is talking rubbish are levied against driver because the state isn't going to pay

What seems to be the problem with that?

I reckon his defence costs may well match his prosecution costs. Was he adequately advised?

[anonymous-user]

Dave Pickup? Sounds like a PHer to me...

[flemke]

tapereel said:

MitchT said:

How did hiring an airfield and an Audi R8 help the prosecution? What were they trying to prove? Not enough information.

Easy

Police say your car was measured at 101mph
Driver says my car won't get to 101mph in that distance
Prosecution hire car and track to test to see if same model car will reach that speed in that distance and find it does...easily
Driver still insists he didn't drive at that speed
Magistrates see evidence the car will go that speed and don't belive driver's cock-and-bull story
Costs of proving driver is talking rubbish are levied against driver because the state isn't going to pay

What seems to be the problem with that?

I reckon his defence costs may well match his prosecution costs. Was he adequately advised?

This was a ludicrous waste of resources.

The problem with what the CPS did was that the issue should not have been whether the driver was doing 98 or 101, it should have been whether he was doing more than 70! You don't need to hire an R8 and an airstrip in order to evidence that the speed measurement device was accurate within a margin of 58%.

Numerous times people have questioned the accuracy of various speed measurement devices that were used to catch them, and I cannot recall a single other occasion when the court required the CPS to perform such a specific, OTT test in order to prove the accuracy of the device. The law is written to require the operator to have performed a general calibration test on the device prior to using it, but not a calibration test on every possible vehicle whose speed might be measured!

The court would have had enough evidence to convict without the CPS resorting to this pathetic dick-measuring contest.

[Pete317]

flemke said:

This was a ludicrous waste of resources.

The problem with what the CPS did was that the issue should not have been whether the driver was doing 98 or 101, it should have been whether he was doing more than 70! You don't need to hire an R8 and an airstrip in order to evidence that the speed measurement device was accurate within a margin of 58%.

Numerous times people have questioned the accuracy of various speed measurement devices that were used to catch them, and I cannot recall a single other occasion when the court required the CPS to perform such a specific, OTT test in order to prove the accuracy of the device. The law is written to require the operator to have performed a general calibration test on the device prior to using it, but not a calibration test on every possible vehicle whose speed might be measured!

The court would have had enough evidence to convict without the CPS resorting to this pathetic dick-measuring contest.

They went completely above and beyond in order to 'teach him a lesson' for daring to challenge them.

They only get away with such bullying tactics because they can.

[PorkInsider]

tapereel said:

MitchT said:

How did hiring an airfield and an Audi R8 help the prosecution? What were they trying to prove? Not enough information.

Easy

Police say your car was measured at 101mph
Driver says my car won't get to 101mph in that distance
Prosecution hire car and track to test to see if same model car will reach that speed in that distance and find it does...easily

Sounds plausible.

Except that's not what the defence was, according to the article, is it.

[R8VXF]

Pete317 said:

They went completely above and beyond in order to 'teach him a lesson' for daring to challenge them.

They only get away with such bullying tactics because they can.

Erm, why do people keep on missing the salient point that he claimed it must have been a different car and not his recorded doing the reported speed? I think they had to go away and prove that under the same circumstances that the cop car recorded his car and not another car. That is my understanding of the situation. Not just some cops bullying an honest motorist. I don't imagine that they would have done this test just to prove speed calibration alone. In court he said he was only doing 70, when he is reported to have asked the cops if they could call it 98. All these facts point towards a tosser who got what was coming to him imo.

[flemke]

R8VXF said:

Pete317 said:

They went completely above and beyond in order to 'teach him a lesson' for daring to challenge them.

They only get away with such bullying tactics because they can.

Erm, why do people keep on missing the salient point that he claimed it must have been a different car and not his recorded doing the reported speed? I think they had to go away and prove that under the same circumstances that the cop car recorded his car and not another car. That is my understanding of the situation. Not just some cops bullying an honest motorist. I don't imagine that they would have done this test just to prove speed calibration alone. In court he said he was only doing 70, when he is reported to have asked the cops if they could call it 98. All these facts point towards a tosser who got what was coming to him imo.

I think it is agreed by all that the guy was an a55hole - there appears to be no shortage of such people in this country.

All the time we hear how the Police and justice system have inadequate resources. Indeed on this forum there is a lengthy thread predicting "the end of policing as we know it" owing to insufficient resources.

In that context of scarce resources, the question is, Does it make any sense for the Police and CPS to have made such a palaver over a guy who got caught at 101 mph - there are probably people caught at that speed every day - and who chose to challenge it?

Is it really likely that a magistrate would have believed the driver rather than the professional Trafpol who had formed a judgment of the speed and then independently verified it with a calibrated device?

[Devil2575]

flemke said:

R8VXF said:

Pete317 said:

They went completely above and beyond in order to 'teach him a lesson' for daring to challenge them.

They only get away with such bullying tactics because they can.

Erm, why do people keep on missing the salient point that he claimed it must have been a different car and not his recorded doing the reported speed? I think they had to go away and prove that under the same circumstances that the cop car recorded his car and not another car. That is my understanding of the situation. Not just some cops bullying an honest motorist. I don't imagine that they would have done this test just to prove speed calibration alone. In court he said he was only doing 70, when he is reported to have asked the cops if they could call it 98. All these facts point towards a tosser who got what was coming to him imo.

I think it is agreed by all that the guy was an a55hole - there appears to be no shortage of such people in this country.

All the time we hear how the Police and justice system have inadequate resources. Indeed on this forum there is a lengthy thread predicting "the end of policing as we know it" owing to insufficient resources.

In that context of scarce resources, the question is, Does it make any sense for the Police and CPS to have made such a palaver over a guy who got caught at 101 mph - there are probably people caught at that speed every day - and who chose to challenge it?

Is it really likely that a magistrate would have believed the driver rather than the professional Trafpol who had formed a judgment of the speed and then independently verified it with a calibrated device?

The issue is that as no one here was actually present at the time of the speeding incident or in court we don't actualy know exactly what was done and what was said let alone why.

As such all of these comments about Police bullying and stating what they should have done are pretty meaningless.

The bloke was caught speeding and rather than just hold is hands up he tried to be a smart arse and it cost him £11k. They whys and the wherefores are not know to us so any comments are simply speculation.

[silentbrown]

flemke said:

Is it really likely that a magistrate would have believed the driver rather than the professional Trafpol who had formed a judgment of the speed and then independently verified it with a calibrated device?

No, but... from the WalesOnline article:

"A defence expert also questioned the accuracy of the in-car police speed camera."

If the defence want an expert witness to attempt to baffle the bench with bullsh*t, it seems perfectly reasonable for the prosecution to do the same. and if he'd won, who'd be paying for HIS expert witness?

[stuart313]

silentbrown said:

flemke said:

Is it really likely that a magistrate would have believed the driver rather than the professional Trafpol who had formed a judgment of the speed and then independently verified it with a calibrated device?

No, but... from the WalesOnline article:

"A defence expert also questioned the accuracy of the in-car police speed camera."

If the defence want an expert witness to attempt to baffle the bench with bullsh*t, it seems perfectly reasonable for the prosecution to do the same. and if he'd won, who'd be paying for HIS expert witness?

Certainly not the courts or the police, that was kyboshed a while ago, lose if you lose and lose if you win - justice at its finest.

I wonder how often the police throw 10K at a shoplifter who denies it.

[flemke]

silentbrown said:

flemke said:

Is it really likely that a magistrate would have believed the driver rather than the professional Trafpol who had formed a judgment of the speed and then independently verified it with a calibrated device?

No, but... from the WalesOnline article:

"A defence expert also questioned the accuracy of the in-car police speed camera."

If the defence want an expert witness to attempt to baffle the bench with bullsh*t, it seems perfectly reasonable for the prosecution to do the same. and if he'd won, who'd be paying for HIS expert witness?

The Trafpol appears to have testified that the driver's initial response was, "Can we call it 98?" Assuming that he indeed said that, it beggars belief that the magistrate would have swallowed the argument that the in-car speed camera was inaccurate by 58%. We are not talking about a small or even substantial margin of error here; the in-car camera would have had to be massively wrong.

So, with regard to whether the driver said that, on numerous occasions here on SP&L we have had posters who work as professionals in the justice system ask the rhetorical question: "Other things being equal, whose sworn testimony do you think the court is going to believe - that of the accused or that of a police officer?"

[Sheepshanks]

flemke said:

Is it really likely that a magistrate would have believed the driver rather than the professional Trafpol who had formed a judgment of the speed and then independently verified it with a calibrated device?

Maybe in Liverpool, but definitely not in North Wales.

[Pete317]

R8VXF said:

Pete317 said:

They went completely above and beyond in order to 'teach him a lesson' for daring to challenge them.

They only get away with such bullying tactics because they can.

Erm, why do people keep on missing the salient point that he claimed it must have been a different car and not his recorded doing the reported speed? I think they had to go away and prove that under the same circumstances that the cop car recorded his car and not another car. That is my understanding of the situation. Not just some cops bullying an honest motorist. I don't imagine that they would have done this test just to prove speed calibration alone. In court he said he was only doing 70, when he is reported to have asked the cops if they could call it 98. All these facts point towards a tosser who got what was coming to him imo.

OK, so the guy's a dick.
But if we charged every dick £11K simply for being a dick then the rest of us could probably retire.
Trouble is, it takes an even bigger dick to do so.

[R8VXF]

Pete317 said:

R8VXF said:

Pete317 said:

They went completely above and beyond in order to 'teach him a lesson' for daring to challenge them.

They only get away with such bullying tactics because they can.

Erm, why do people keep on missing the salient point that he claimed it must have been a different car and not his recorded doing the reported speed? I think they had to go away and prove that under the same circumstances that the cop car recorded his car and not another car. That is my understanding of the situation. Not just some cops bullying an honest motorist. I don't imagine that they would have done this test just to prove speed calibration alone. In court he said he was only doing 70, when he is reported to have asked the cops if they could call it 98. All these facts point towards a tosser who got what was coming to him imo.

OK, so the guy's a dick.
But if we charged every dick £11K simply for being a dick then the rest of us could probably retire.
Trouble is, it takes an even bigger dick to do so.

He was being a dick in front of the Magistrates, and lying to them. He deserves it.

[HantsRat]

Pete317 said:

OK, so the guy's a dick.
But if we charged every dick £11K simply for being a dick then the rest of us could probably retire.
Trouble is, it takes an even bigger dick to do so.

Would you have rather paid the 11k yourself as a tax payer? I thought not.

[flemke]

HantsRat said:

Pete317 said:

OK, so the guy's a dick.
But if we charged every dick £11K simply for being a dick then the rest of us could probably retire.
Trouble is, it takes an even bigger dick to do so.

Would you have rather paid the 11k yourself as a tax payer? I thought not.

I don't think anyone has said that the driver, having pleaded "Not guilty", should not have had to pay for the expenditure required to prove that he was guilty.

Regardless of who paid for it, why was it necessary to burn £11k in the first place?

In light of the scarce resources of the Police/justice system, were the person-hours spent on this amusement justified? Did the officials truly have nothing better to do with themselves?

I believe that there is an offence of "Wasting Police Time". This instance seems a perfect example of that.

[R8VXF]

flemke said:

HantsRat said:

Pete317 said:

OK, so the guy's a dick.
But if we charged every dick £11K simply for being a dick then the rest of us could probably retire.
Trouble is, it takes an even bigger dick to do so.

Would you have rather paid the 11k yourself as a tax payer? I thought not.

I don't think anyone has said that the driver, having pleaded "Not guilty", should not have had to pay for the expenditure required to prove that he was guilty.

Regardless of who paid for it, why was it necessary to burn £11k in the first place?

In light of the scarce resources of the Police/justice system, were the person-hours spent on this amusement justified? Did the officials truly have nothing better to do with themselves?

I believe that there is an offence of "Wasting Police Time". This instance seems a perfect example of that.

Independent expert witnesses doing most of the work, maybe one cop on the day of the test, not much time wasted by the police IMO. The police were probably told to go away and prove that the defence expert witnesses were wrong, so had to do something. That is just how I read it.

[Sheepshanks]

flemke said:

Regardless of who paid for it, why was it necessary to burn £11k in the first place?

In light of the scarce resources of the Police/justice system, were the person-hours spent on this amusement justified? Did the officials truly have nothing better to do with themselves?

It's a deterrent to other people who may seek to challenge.

The Police and prosecuting authorities have threatened in the past that if you take them on over alleged speeding and lose then your costs will be heavy.

[Pete317]

R8VXF said:

He was being a dick in front of the Magistrates, and lying to them. He deserves it.

That's your opinion, with which I'm free to disagree