Speeding driver ordered to pay £11,000!!
Discussion
agtlaw said:
Devil2575 said:
Legal aid is not available to a lot of people. That isn't a driving issue, it's a general problem with access to justice.
Legal aid isn't available for speeding. The general rule is that the offence must be imprisonable. The applicant's means are irrelevant if the offence doesn't qualify for legal aid.I imagine the defence said that the laser gun was not tested specifically on an R8 thus how do they know it works with an R8 - (the same thing could be argued against any type of car). Thus the prosecution could not say it would work 100% with an R8 unless they tested it on an R8 so they did and it did. Thye can now say they have proved it works on an R8 if x model year.
If it will work on say a Caterham 7 or a fiesta who know - but is it worth challenging?
If it will work on say a Caterham 7 or a fiesta who know - but is it worth challenging?
agtlaw said:
They might want to take a look at R v Northallerton Magistrates' Court, ex parte Dove (1999) and R. v Bow Street Magistrates ' Court ex parte Mitchell (2000) - grossly excessive costs disallowed after judicial review in the High Court.
IVIC v DPP [2006] EWHC 1570 (Admin) says otherwise and is particulalry relevant to hopeless technical cases in road traffic matters.it is even more relevant as the same firm of defence solicitors were involved in Ivic and the R8 driver's defence. They should have therefore advised their client wisely having experienced a similar situation before. Perhaps they did.
as is usual it is not what is included in your submission that is of importance but what seems to be left out that is more significant
the thrust of the technical defence was "I can't say what went wrong but something might have...". it should be well known that the crown can respond to a technical defence and that is likely when there is a need to overturn what may look persuasive but is not just or supported by evidence.
maybe the court papers could be examined so you can see the nature of the technical defence. the defence omitted any evidence in claiming that the rear of a R8 formed a difficult target that would cause either a higher speed than the vehicle speed or indeed cause the defendant's car to become a 'stealth car'. when that sort of defence is submitted why shouldn't the crown seek evidence to illustrate that defence as "hopeless" and Ivic is thus applied in seeking costs.
superlightr said:
I imagine the defence said that the laser gun was not tested specifically on an R8 thus how do they know it works with an R8 - (the same thing could be argued against any type of car). Thus the prosecution could not say it would work 100% with an R8 unless they tested it on an R8 so they did and it did. Thye can now say they have proved it works on an R8 if x model year.
If it will work on say a Caterham 7 or a fiesta who know - but is it worth challenging?
your question illustrates the view a bench of magistrates may have taken and, no offence intended to you or the magistrates, the question comes from ignorance of the mechanism in the speed measurement. If it will work on say a Caterham 7 or a fiesta who know - but is it worth challenging?
there is no reason that the shape of a road vehicle fitted with a compliant regsitration plate and lights will cause any difficulty for a laser speedmeter.
the issues to be dealt with when an apparent authority on the matter is used to say there is a difficulty when the science says otherwise are persuasion and justice. the apparent authority, whether acting in ignorance or otherwise, will be persuasive if not countered. the defendant often falls for being persuaded that the crown is unlikely to respond to a complex defence, that is sometimes the case, but the defendant should be informed that there is a risk that the crown may well respond and when it does things may not go to the defence plan. the tests were probably done to give the required persuasion to overturn the apparent, but incorrect techical defence, the reasons were in the interests of justice. the costs are justly awarded agains the person who has caused them...see IVIC v DPP
edited to add: an expert in the matter would have said that the shape of the R8 made no difference...neither would a Caterham 7 or a Fiesta
Edited by tapereel on Saturday 16th May 16:31
tapereel said:
IVIC v DPP [2006] EWHC 1570 (Admin) says otherwise and is particulalry relevant to hopeless technical cases in road traffic matters.
it is even more relevant as the same firm of defence solicitors were involved in Ivic and the R8 driver's defence. They should have therefore advised their client wisely having experienced a similar situation before. Perhaps they did.
as is usual it is not what is included in your submission that is of importance but what seems to be left out that is more significant
the thrust of the technical defence was "I can't say what went wrong but something might have...". it should be well known that the crown can respond to a technical defence and that is likely when there is a need to overturn what may look persuasive but is not just or supported by evidence.
maybe the court papers could be examined so you can see the nature of the technical defence. the defence omitted any evidence in claiming that the rear of a R8 formed a difficult target that would cause either a higher speed than the vehicle speed or indeed cause the defendant's car to become a 'stealth car'. when that sort of defence is submitted why shouldn't the crown seek evidence to illustrate that defence as "hopeless" and Ivic is thus applied in seeking costs.
Plainly you know a bit about the case in the OP. The press report indicated that the defence advanced was that the wrong car was targeted - report made it sound more like a factual defence than a technical challenge. Unsupported speculation isn't a defence, I agree with that. it is even more relevant as the same firm of defence solicitors were involved in Ivic and the R8 driver's defence. They should have therefore advised their client wisely having experienced a similar situation before. Perhaps they did.
as is usual it is not what is included in your submission that is of importance but what seems to be left out that is more significant
the thrust of the technical defence was "I can't say what went wrong but something might have...". it should be well known that the crown can respond to a technical defence and that is likely when there is a need to overturn what may look persuasive but is not just or supported by evidence.
maybe the court papers could be examined so you can see the nature of the technical defence. the defence omitted any evidence in claiming that the rear of a R8 formed a difficult target that would cause either a higher speed than the vehicle speed or indeed cause the defendant's car to become a 'stealth car'. when that sort of defence is submitted why shouldn't the crown seek evidence to illustrate that defence as "hopeless" and Ivic is thus applied in seeking costs.
agtlaw said:
tapereel said:
IVIC v DPP [2006] EWHC 1570 (Admin) says otherwise and is particulalry relevant to hopeless technical cases in road traffic matters.
it is even more relevant as the same firm of defence solicitors were involved in Ivic and the R8 driver's defence. They should have therefore advised their client wisely having experienced a similar situation before. Perhaps they did.
as is usual it is not what is included in your submission that is of importance but what seems to be left out that is more significant
the thrust of the technical defence was "I can't say what went wrong but something might have...". it should be well known that the crown can respond to a technical defence and that is likely when there is a need to overturn what may look persuasive but is not just or supported by evidence.
maybe the court papers could be examined so you can see the nature of the technical defence. the defence omitted any evidence in claiming that the rear of a R8 formed a difficult target that would cause either a higher speed than the vehicle speed or indeed cause the defendant's car to become a 'stealth car'. when that sort of defence is submitted why shouldn't the crown seek evidence to illustrate that defence as "hopeless" and Ivic is thus applied in seeking costs.
Plainly you know a bit about the case in the OP. The press report indicated that the defence advanced was that the wrong car was targeted - report made it sound more like a factual defence than a technical challenge. Unsupported speculation isn't a defence, I agree with that. it is even more relevant as the same firm of defence solicitors were involved in Ivic and the R8 driver's defence. They should have therefore advised their client wisely having experienced a similar situation before. Perhaps they did.
as is usual it is not what is included in your submission that is of importance but what seems to be left out that is more significant
the thrust of the technical defence was "I can't say what went wrong but something might have...". it should be well known that the crown can respond to a technical defence and that is likely when there is a need to overturn what may look persuasive but is not just or supported by evidence.
maybe the court papers could be examined so you can see the nature of the technical defence. the defence omitted any evidence in claiming that the rear of a R8 formed a difficult target that would cause either a higher speed than the vehicle speed or indeed cause the defendant's car to become a 'stealth car'. when that sort of defence is submitted why shouldn't the crown seek evidence to illustrate that defence as "hopeless" and Ivic is thus applied in seeking costs.
Would you please address the following?
It is, one presumes, the obligation of whatever authority approves the use of a given speed detection device to assure itself that the device will function properly with any vehicle whose speed it might measure. One would not expect that to require testing of every individual registrable vehicle type, but rather that the world of engineering knows enough to devise general tests that have reliable universal application. Failing that, in order to be approved, a device would have to be tested on every possible vehicle type.
In short, either the device is applicable to every vehicle which it is used to measure or it is not applicable, and that fact will be resolved to the satisfaction of the approving authority or the device will not be approved.
This being the case, why the need ex post facto for the CPS to prove that the device worked on R8s? Why could they have not relied on the protocol by which the device was approved by the authority in the first place? ISTM that, if they feared that they could not rely on that protocol, it must raise the question of whether the device's type approval can be valid. On the other hand, if the type approval was valid, there was no need for the ex post facto R8 test.
agtlaw said:
tapereel said:
IVIC v DPP [2006] EWHC 1570 (Admin) says otherwise and is particulalry relevant to hopeless technical cases in road traffic matters.
it is even more relevant as the same firm of defence solicitors were involved in Ivic and the R8 driver's defence. They should have therefore advised their client wisely having experienced a similar situation before. Perhaps they did.
as is usual it is not what is included in your submission that is of importance but what seems to be left out that is more significant
the thrust of the technical defence was "I can't say what went wrong but something might have...". it should be well known that the crown can respond to a technical defence and that is likely when there is a need to overturn what may look persuasive but is not just or supported by evidence.
maybe the court papers could be examined so you can see the nature of the technical defence. the defence omitted any evidence in claiming that the rear of a R8 formed a difficult target that would cause either a higher speed than the vehicle speed or indeed cause the defendant's car to become a 'stealth car'. when that sort of defence is submitted why shouldn't the crown seek evidence to illustrate that defence as "hopeless" and Ivic is thus applied in seeking costs.
Plainly you know a bit about the case in the OP. The press report indicated that the defence advanced was that the wrong car was targeted - report made it sound more like a factual defence than a technical challenge. Unsupported speculation isn't a defence, I agree with that. it is even more relevant as the same firm of defence solicitors were involved in Ivic and the R8 driver's defence. They should have therefore advised their client wisely having experienced a similar situation before. Perhaps they did.
as is usual it is not what is included in your submission that is of importance but what seems to be left out that is more significant
the thrust of the technical defence was "I can't say what went wrong but something might have...". it should be well known that the crown can respond to a technical defence and that is likely when there is a need to overturn what may look persuasive but is not just or supported by evidence.
maybe the court papers could be examined so you can see the nature of the technical defence. the defence omitted any evidence in claiming that the rear of a R8 formed a difficult target that would cause either a higher speed than the vehicle speed or indeed cause the defendant's car to become a 'stealth car'. when that sort of defence is submitted why shouldn't the crown seek evidence to illustrate that defence as "hopeless" and Ivic is thus applied in seeking costs.
flemke said:
agtlaw said:
tapereel said:
IVIC v DPP [2006] EWHC 1570 (Admin) says otherwise and is particulalry relevant to hopeless technical cases in road traffic matters.
it is even more relevant as the same firm of defence solicitors were involved in Ivic and the R8 driver's defence. They should have therefore advised their client wisely having experienced a similar situation before. Perhaps they did.
as is usual it is not what is included in your submission that is of importance but what seems to be left out that is more significant
the thrust of the technical defence was "I can't say what went wrong but something might have...". it should be well known that the crown can respond to a technical defence and that is likely when there is a need to overturn what may look persuasive but is not just or supported by evidence.
maybe the court papers could be examined so you can see the nature of the technical defence. the defence omitted any evidence in claiming that the rear of a R8 formed a difficult target that would cause either a higher speed than the vehicle speed or indeed cause the defendant's car to become a 'stealth car'. when that sort of defence is submitted why shouldn't the crown seek evidence to illustrate that defence as "hopeless" and Ivic is thus applied in seeking costs.
Plainly you know a bit about the case in the OP. The press report indicated that the defence advanced was that the wrong car was targeted - report made it sound more like a factual defence than a technical challenge. Unsupported speculation isn't a defence, I agree with that. it is even more relevant as the same firm of defence solicitors were involved in Ivic and the R8 driver's defence. They should have therefore advised their client wisely having experienced a similar situation before. Perhaps they did.
as is usual it is not what is included in your submission that is of importance but what seems to be left out that is more significant
the thrust of the technical defence was "I can't say what went wrong but something might have...". it should be well known that the crown can respond to a technical defence and that is likely when there is a need to overturn what may look persuasive but is not just or supported by evidence.
maybe the court papers could be examined so you can see the nature of the technical defence. the defence omitted any evidence in claiming that the rear of a R8 formed a difficult target that would cause either a higher speed than the vehicle speed or indeed cause the defendant's car to become a 'stealth car'. when that sort of defence is submitted why shouldn't the crown seek evidence to illustrate that defence as "hopeless" and Ivic is thus applied in seeking costs.
Would you please address the following?
It is, one presumes, the obligation of whatever authority approves the use of a given speed detection device to assure itself that the device will function properly with any vehicle whose speed it might measure. One would not expect that to require testing of every individual registrable vehicle type, but rather that the world of engineering knows enough to devise general tests that have reliable universal application. Failing that, in order to be approved, a device would have to be tested on every possible vehicle type.
In short, either the device is applicable to every vehicle which it is used to measure or it is not applicable, and that fact will be resolved to the satisfaction of the approving authority or the device will not be approved.
This being the case, why the need ex post facto for the CPS to prove that the device worked on R8s? Why could they have not relied on the protocol by which the device was approved by the authority in the first place? ISTM that, if they feared that they could not rely on that protocol, it must raise the question of whether the device's type approval can be valid. On the other hand, if the type approval was valid, there was no need for the ex post facto R8 test.
there are some hired guns who will forward a flawed opinion from ignorance or opinion that is deliberately incomplete omitting full detail. it is that which attracts a response as in the case at the OP.
some vehicles are more difficult to target than others however I have yet to see one that adds speed to the true speed of the target. vehicles that are difficult to target mean that they need to be closer to the gun to acquire a speed, they don't chnge the speed.
tapereel said:
flemke said:
agtlaw said:
tapereel said:
IVIC v DPP [2006] EWHC 1570 (Admin) says otherwise and is particulalry relevant to hopeless technical cases in road traffic matters.
it is even more relevant as the same firm of defence solicitors were involved in Ivic and the R8 driver's defence. They should have therefore advised their client wisely having experienced a similar situation before. Perhaps they did.
as is usual it is not what is included in your submission that is of importance but what seems to be left out that is more significant
the thrust of the technical defence was "I can't say what went wrong but something might have...". it should be well known that the crown can respond to a technical defence and that is likely when there is a need to overturn what may look persuasive but is not just or supported by evidence.
maybe the court papers could be examined so you can see the nature of the technical defence. the defence omitted any evidence in claiming that the rear of a R8 formed a difficult target that would cause either a higher speed than the vehicle speed or indeed cause the defendant's car to become a 'stealth car'. when that sort of defence is submitted why shouldn't the crown seek evidence to illustrate that defence as "hopeless" and Ivic is thus applied in seeking costs.
Plainly you know a bit about the case in the OP. The press report indicated that the defence advanced was that the wrong car was targeted - report made it sound more like a factual defence than a technical challenge. Unsupported speculation isn't a defence, I agree with that. it is even more relevant as the same firm of defence solicitors were involved in Ivic and the R8 driver's defence. They should have therefore advised their client wisely having experienced a similar situation before. Perhaps they did.
as is usual it is not what is included in your submission that is of importance but what seems to be left out that is more significant
the thrust of the technical defence was "I can't say what went wrong but something might have...". it should be well known that the crown can respond to a technical defence and that is likely when there is a need to overturn what may look persuasive but is not just or supported by evidence.
maybe the court papers could be examined so you can see the nature of the technical defence. the defence omitted any evidence in claiming that the rear of a R8 formed a difficult target that would cause either a higher speed than the vehicle speed or indeed cause the defendant's car to become a 'stealth car'. when that sort of defence is submitted why shouldn't the crown seek evidence to illustrate that defence as "hopeless" and Ivic is thus applied in seeking costs.
Would you please address the following?
It is, one presumes, the obligation of whatever authority approves the use of a given speed detection device to assure itself that the device will function properly with any vehicle whose speed it might measure. One would not expect that to require testing of every individual registrable vehicle type, but rather that the world of engineering knows enough to devise general tests that have reliable universal application. Failing that, in order to be approved, a device would have to be tested on every possible vehicle type.
In short, either the device is applicable to every vehicle which it is used to measure or it is not applicable, and that fact will be resolved to the satisfaction of the approving authority or the device will not be approved.
This being the case, why the need ex post facto for the CPS to prove that the device worked on R8s? Why could they have not relied on the protocol by which the device was approved by the authority in the first place? ISTM that, if they feared that they could not rely on that protocol, it must raise the question of whether the device's type approval can be valid. On the other hand, if the type approval was valid, there was no need for the ex post facto R8 test.
there are some hired guns who will forward a flawed opinion from ignorance or opinion that is deliberately incomplete omitting full detail. it is that which attracts a response as in the case at the OP.
some vehicles are more difficult to target than others however I have yet to see one that adds speed to the true speed of the target. vehicles that are difficult to target mean that they need to be closer to the gun to acquire a speed, they don't chnge the speed.
Instead, it appears that you may not have comprehended my question. Whether you did does not particularly matter, in that I specifically asked it of another PHer, not you. Thank you for offering your comments nonetheless.
Perhaps however you could address a different question which I direct specifically to you.
A few years ago, the authorities created an organisation the express mission of which was to make it as difficult as possible for people to appeal against allegations of driving offences. The language used to announce the creation of this organisation was coarse and threatening - quite unbecoming a democracy that presumes it is civilised. IIRC, they boasted that they would make appeals difficult and expensive.
Like the rest of us, the Police and their civilian agents do sometimes get it wrong. Some prosecutions fail because they should never have begun.
Would you please share with us your thoughts on the fairness of a system in which legal aid is not available for defence against an NIP?
Is it right that, unlike well-off drivers, the many drivers with limited resources should be forced to just bend over and take it?
flemke said:
I rather believe that I did comprehend what you wrote. Everybody knows that expert witnesses will be brought to testify only when their testimony can be shaped in such a way to support the arguments of their employer. This applies to the prosecution as well as to the defence.
Instead, it appears that you may not have comprehended my question. Whether you did does not particularly matter, in that I specifically asked it of another PHer, not you. Thank you for offering your comments nonetheless.
Perhaps however you could address a different question which I direct specifically to you.
A few years ago, the authorities created an organisation the express mission of which was to make it as difficult as possible for people to appeal against allegations of driving offences. The language used to announce the creation of this organisation was coarse and threatening - quite unbecoming a democracy that presumes it is civilised. IIRC, they boasted that they would make appeals difficult and expensive.
Like the rest of us, the Police and their civilian agents do sometimes get it wrong. Some prosecutions fail because they should never have begun.
Would you please share with us your thoughts on the fairness of a system in which legal aid is not available for defence against an NIP?
Is it right that, unlike well-off drivers, the many drivers with limited resources should be forced to just bend over and take it?
everyone is entitled to a defence. if you have one then forward it, if it is valid then it is just that it should succeed.Instead, it appears that you may not have comprehended my question. Whether you did does not particularly matter, in that I specifically asked it of another PHer, not you. Thank you for offering your comments nonetheless.
Perhaps however you could address a different question which I direct specifically to you.
A few years ago, the authorities created an organisation the express mission of which was to make it as difficult as possible for people to appeal against allegations of driving offences. The language used to announce the creation of this organisation was coarse and threatening - quite unbecoming a democracy that presumes it is civilised. IIRC, they boasted that they would make appeals difficult and expensive.
Like the rest of us, the Police and their civilian agents do sometimes get it wrong. Some prosecutions fail because they should never have begun.
Would you please share with us your thoughts on the fairness of a system in which legal aid is not available for defence against an NIP?
Is it right that, unlike well-off drivers, the many drivers with limited resources should be forced to just bend over and take it?
I think I would put your last question differently; is it right that well-off drivers should be able to pay for a hired gun to forward a cock-and-bull story and have the prosecution fail unjustly? Is it right that the crown should fold because a response is too difficult or expensive to make? Is it right to expect public money to be spent when the well-off and their cock-and-bull are found out?
I would not like someone to be convicted with a faulty reading, equally I would not like to see someone acquitted because of a faulty claim the reading was wrong or because the crown deems it too hard to answer the faulty claim.
I have no comment to make on the fairness or the policy of the legal system but have highlighted the way in which I consider the fairness that is perhaps a contrast to yours. Fairness for all would be my vote and most certainly not more fairness for the well-off than those less well-off...maybe because I am not that well-off and do not drive an R8.
tapereel said:
flemke said:
I rather believe that I did comprehend what you wrote. Everybody knows that expert witnesses will be brought to testify only when their testimony can be shaped in such a way to support the arguments of their employer. This applies to the prosecution as well as to the defence.
Instead, it appears that you may not have comprehended my question. Whether you did does not particularly matter, in that I specifically asked it of another PHer, not you. Thank you for offering your comments nonetheless.
Perhaps however you could address a different question which I direct specifically to you.
A few years ago, the authorities created an organisation the express mission of which was to make it as difficult as possible for people to appeal against allegations of driving offences. The language used to announce the creation of this organisation was coarse and threatening - quite unbecoming a democracy that presumes it is civilised. IIRC, they boasted that they would make appeals difficult and expensive.
Like the rest of us, the Police and their civilian agents do sometimes get it wrong. Some prosecutions fail because they should never have begun.
Would you please share with us your thoughts on the fairness of a system in which legal aid is not available for defence against an NIP?
Is it right that, unlike well-off drivers, the many drivers with limited resources should be forced to just bend over and take it?
everyone is entitled to a defence. if you have one then forward it, if it is valid then it is just that it should succeed.Instead, it appears that you may not have comprehended my question. Whether you did does not particularly matter, in that I specifically asked it of another PHer, not you. Thank you for offering your comments nonetheless.
Perhaps however you could address a different question which I direct specifically to you.
A few years ago, the authorities created an organisation the express mission of which was to make it as difficult as possible for people to appeal against allegations of driving offences. The language used to announce the creation of this organisation was coarse and threatening - quite unbecoming a democracy that presumes it is civilised. IIRC, they boasted that they would make appeals difficult and expensive.
Like the rest of us, the Police and their civilian agents do sometimes get it wrong. Some prosecutions fail because they should never have begun.
Would you please share with us your thoughts on the fairness of a system in which legal aid is not available for defence against an NIP?
Is it right that, unlike well-off drivers, the many drivers with limited resources should be forced to just bend over and take it?
I think I would put your last question differently; is it right that well-off drivers should be able to pay for a hired gun to forward a cock-and-bull story and have the prosecution fail unjustly? Is it right that the crown should fold because a response is too difficult or expensive to make? Is it right to expect public money to be spent when the well-off and their cock-and-bull are found out?
I would not like someone to be convicted with a faulty reading, equally I would not like to see someone acquitted because of a faulty claim the reading was wrong or because the crown deems it too hard to answer the faulty claim.
I have no comment to make on the fairness or the policy of the legal system but have highlighted the way in which I consider the fairness that is perhaps a contrast to yours. Fairness for all would be my vote and most certainly not more fairness for the well-off than those less well-off...maybe because I am not that well-off and do not drive an R8.
In my personal case, which I explained a couple of pages ago, the Traffic Police absolutely were wrong (I would say that additionally their actions fell below the required standard, but that is another question). If however I had not been able to afford the multiple thousands required to invest in a defence, I would have had no choice - I would have been screwed. I am certain that many other people had over time been caught in the same misconceived speed trap as I was and as a result they got fines, licence points and perhaps bans, and raised insurance premiums - none of which they would have deserved.
So, yeah, it may be unfair if and when a guilty driver gets off because he was able to afford a better brief than what the CPS could offer, but that is unfairness of an abstract sort which harms us all an unnoticeably small amount
In contrast, it is tangibly and specifically unfair when a person is innocent but nonetheless is punished, and that is unfairness of a much worse kind.
flemke said:
So, yeah, it may be unfair if and when a guilty driver gets off because he was able to afford a better brief than what the CPS could offer, but that is unfairness of an abstract sort which harms us all an unnoticeably small amount
I would suggest 99% of the population would disagree with you...R8VXF said:
flemke said:
So, yeah, it may be unfair if and when a guilty driver gets off because he was able to afford a better brief than what the CPS could offer, but that is unfairness of an abstract sort which harms us all an unnoticeably small amount
I would suggest 99% of the population would disagree with you...
I would like that 99% to articulate the harm that they themselves suffered when a person guilty of a speeding offence "got away with it" (not to mention when they themselves would have got away with speeding at some point in their driving lives), and explain how that harm was greater than the harm suffered by a person who was innocent but found guilty.
H
I think I would put your last question differently; is it right that well-off drivers should be able to pay for a hired gun to forward a cock-and-bull story and have the prosecution fail unjustly? Is it right that the crown should fold because a response is too difficult or expensive to make? Is it right to expect public money to be spent when the well-off and their cock-and-bull are found out?
I would not like someone to be convicted with a faulty reading, equally I would not like to see someone acquitted because of a faulty claim the reading was wrong or because the crown deems it too hard to answer the faulty claim.
I have no comment to make on the fairness or the policy of the legal system but have highlighted the way in which I consider the fairness that is perhaps a contrast to yours. Fairness for all would be my vote and most certainly not more fairness for the well-off than those less well-off...maybe because I am not that well-off and do not drive an R8.A fundamental tenet of our justice system is the presumption of innocence. In effecting that, we accept that, in order absolutely to minimise the number of innocent people who would be erroneously convicted, we must reluctantly allow enough scope for the guilty sometimes to slip through the net.
In my personal case, which I explained a couple of pages ago, the Traffic Police absolutely were wrong (I would say that additionally their actions fell below the required standard, but that is another question). If however I had not been able to afford the multiple thousands required to invest in a defence, I would have had no choice - I would have been screwed. I am certain that many other people had over time been caught in the same misconceived speed trap as I was and as a result they got fines, licence points and perhaps bans, and raised insurance premiums - none of which they would have deserved.
So, yeah, it may be unfair if and when a guilty driver gets off because he was able to afford a better brief than what the CPS could offer, but that is unfairness of an abstract sort which harms us all an unnoticeably small amount
In contrast, it is tangibly and specifically unfair when a person is innocent but nonetheless is punished, and that is unfairness of a much worse kind.You can see very clearly that I said if you have a valid defence put if forward. You did and you seem to have been rightly acquitted.
The problem is that a technical defence like those forwarded in the OP case are not valid. I saw someone defend himself in a laser case on Friday claiming the speed was wrong because the image was wobbling. It wouldn't affect the speed. Even though the lay person seems to think that it is the case that the speed cannot be right in those circumstances, does it make it right that an acquittal follows? It can't can't be right that an acquittal comes from unreasonable doubt or ignorance...even worse from an expert who is paid to say it is reasonable.
If a defence is reasonable, use it, if not then disappointment may follow when you give an unreasonable defence a go.
flemke said:
tapereel said:
flemke said:
I rather believe that I did comprehend what you wrote. Everybody knows that expert witnesses will be brought to testify only when their testimony can be shaped in such a way to support the arguments of their employer. This applies to the prosecution as well as to the defence.
Instead, it appears that you may not have comprehended my question. Whether you did does not particularly matter, in that I specifically asked it of another PHer, not you. Thank you for offering your comments nonetheless.
Perhaps however you could address a different question which I direct specifically to you.
A few years ago, the authorities created an organisation the express mission of which was to make it as difficult as possible for people to appeal against allegations of driving offences. The language used to announce the creation of this organisation was coarse and threatening - quite unbecoming a democracy that presumes it is civilised. IIRC, they boasted that they would make appeals difficult and expensive.
Like the rest of us, the Police and their civilian agents do sometimes get it wrong. Some prosecutions fail because they should never have begun.
Would you please share with us your thoughts on the fairness of a system in which legal aid is not available for defence against an NIP?
Is it right that, unlike well-off drivers, the many drivers with limited resources should be forced to just bend over and take it?
everyone is entitled to a defence. if you have one then forward it, if it is valid then it is just that it should succeed.Instead, it appears that you may not have comprehended my question. Whether you did does not particularly matter, in that I specifically asked it of another PHer, not you. Thank you for offering your comments nonetheless.
Perhaps however you could address a different question which I direct specifically to you.
A few years ago, the authorities created an organisation the express mission of which was to make it as difficult as possible for people to appeal against allegations of driving offences. The language used to announce the creation of this organisation was coarse and threatening - quite unbecoming a democracy that presumes it is civilised. IIRC, they boasted that they would make appeals difficult and expensive.
Like the rest of us, the Police and their civilian agents do sometimes get it wrong. Some prosecutions fail because they should never have begun.
Would you please share with us your thoughts on the fairness of a system in which legal aid is not available for defence against an NIP?
Is it right that, unlike well-off drivers, the many drivers with limited resources should be forced to just bend over and take it?
I think I would put your last question differently; is it right that well-off drivers should be able to pay for a hired gun to forward a cock-and-bull story and have the prosecution fail unjustly? Is it right that the crown should fold because a response is too difficult or expensive to make? Is it right to expect public money to be spent when the well-off and their cock-and-bull are found out?
I would not like someone to be convicted with a faulty reading, equally I would not like to see someone acquitted because of a faulty claim the reading was wrong or because the crown deems it too hard to answer the faulty claim.
I have no comment to make on the fairness or the policy of the legal system but have highlighted the way in which I consider the fairness that is perhaps a contrast to yours. Fairness for all would be my vote and most certainly not more fairness for the well-off than those less well-off...maybe because I am not that well-off and do not drive an R8.
In my personal case, which I explained a couple of pages ago, the Traffic Police absolutely were wrong (I would say that additionally their actions fell below the required standard, but that is another question). If however I had not been able to afford the multiple thousands required to invest in a defence, I would have had no choice - I would have been screwed. I am certain that many other people had over time been caught in the same misconceived speed trap as I was and as a result they got fines, licence points and perhaps bans, and raised insurance premiums - none of which they would have deserved.
So, yeah, it may be unfair if and when a guilty driver gets off because he was able to afford a better brief than what the CPS could offer, but that is unfairness of an abstract sort which harms us all an unnoticeably small amount
In contrast, it is tangibly and specifically unfair when a person is innocent but nonetheless is punished, and that is unfairness of a much worse kind.
The problem is that a technical defence like those forwarded in the OP case are not valid. I saw someone defend himself in a laser case on Friday claiming the speed was wrong because the image was wobbling. It wouldn't affect the speed. Even though the lay person seems to think that it is the case that the speed cannot be right in those circumstances, does it make it right that an acquittal follows? It can't can't be right that an acquittal comes from unreasonable doubt or ignorance...even worse from an expert who is paid to say it is reasonable.
If a defence is reasonable, use it, if not then disappointment may follow when you give an unreasonable defence a go.
Seems to be a lot of speculation here over stuff we don't have facts on.
I'm also not sure why this is a news story but think people are focusing on the wrong aspects anyway.
It has been said before but I find it hard to understand under what circumstances, the prosecution can justify what to those of us without the full facts would consider to be OTT investigation.
What next? Let's send a space rocket up at a cost of £100M to prove a case of the man looked at the officer in a funny kind of way?
My next point is a contradiction. £11K even to me (and I'm quite poor) is not a massive amount of money so if the d
head defendant is a millionaire I doubt he will lose sleep.
If he has a holiday home in Abersoch and drives regularly on that stretch of the A55, he should have known where the mobile traps are. I have a holiday home in the area, I drive along the same stretch of A55, know exactly which point he will have been done at. I often go through that point at 78mph and see the the pigs at the trough there about half a dozen times a year. They have never bothered me. The A55 is one of the most predictable roads for knowing where and when the filth will be out. Is the defendant blind as well as stupid?
I'm also not sure why this is a news story but think people are focusing on the wrong aspects anyway.
It has been said before but I find it hard to understand under what circumstances, the prosecution can justify what to those of us without the full facts would consider to be OTT investigation.
What next? Let's send a space rocket up at a cost of £100M to prove a case of the man looked at the officer in a funny kind of way?
My next point is a contradiction. £11K even to me (and I'm quite poor) is not a massive amount of money so if the d
head defendant is a millionaire I doubt he will lose sleep. If he has a holiday home in Abersoch and drives regularly on that stretch of the A55, he should have known where the mobile traps are. I have a holiday home in the area, I drive along the same stretch of A55, know exactly which point he will have been done at. I often go through that point at 78mph and see the the pigs at the trough there about half a dozen times a year. They have never bothered me. The A55 is one of the most predictable roads for knowing where and when the filth will be out. Is the defendant blind as well as stupid?
Pistom said:
My next point is a contradiction. £11K even to me (and I'm quite poor) is not a massive amount of money so if the dhead defendant is a millionaire I doubt he will lose sleep.
If he has a holiday home in Abersoch and drives regularly on that stretch of the A55, he should have known where the mobile traps are. I have a holiday home in the area, I drive along the same stretch of A55, know exactly which point he will have been done at. I often go through that point at 78mph and see the the pigs at the trough there about half a dozen times a year. They have never bothered me. The A55 is one of the most predictable roads for knowing where and when the filth will be out. Is the defendant blind as well as stupid?
If you have a holiday home, then sorry, you are not "quite poor"head defendant is a millionaire I doubt he will lose sleep. If he has a holiday home in Abersoch and drives regularly on that stretch of the A55, he should have known where the mobile traps are. I have a holiday home in the area, I drive along the same stretch of A55, know exactly which point he will have been done at. I often go through that point at 78mph and see the the pigs at the trough there about half a dozen times a year. They have never bothered me. The A55 is one of the most predictable roads for knowing where and when the filth will be out. Is the defendant blind as well as stupid?
"Pigs, trough, the filth", was it a late night?
Vaud said:
Pistom said:
Load of bks not worth repeating
If you have a holiday home, then sorry, you are not "quite poor"ks not worth repeating"Pigs, trough, the filth", was it a late night?
And yes, it was a late night and too much time watching 70s repeats.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff