Power Supply Units to GATSO cameras - update
Discussion
I'll open by mentioning that I am a supporter of this case, and as someone who has also stood up for themselves against a dodgy speeding fine with poor equipment, than I took to appeal, I do know the feeling.
That said, and has been said by Breadvan above among others, I don't buy the reasons given for giving up at this stage. Lack of money/time/effort I can understand, but those are not the reasons given.
There's been plenty of cases where courts do act against the government to the tune of millions of pounds. Indeed, high profile cases run by protest groups also work. Because of one in the European Court yesterday, 400m people's car insurance premium is going to change.
I do not buy that the stated reason for this case was always to lose, and just to chuck money at it until this point where of course it will not set a precedent or be of public benefit anyway. That just doesn't make sense.
Indeed, this conspiracy theory about the government not wanting to bring down a 'house of cards' doesn't play out either.
The amounts of money involved is really a p*** in the wind compared to other costs, and the chance for the current government to blamelessly right the wrongs of the previous government and their quangos would be priceless to them, not something which would be vehemently avoided.
That said, and has been said by Breadvan above among others, I don't buy the reasons given for giving up at this stage. Lack of money/time/effort I can understand, but those are not the reasons given.
There's been plenty of cases where courts do act against the government to the tune of millions of pounds. Indeed, high profile cases run by protest groups also work. Because of one in the European Court yesterday, 400m people's car insurance premium is going to change.
I do not buy that the stated reason for this case was always to lose, and just to chuck money at it until this point where of course it will not set a precedent or be of public benefit anyway. That just doesn't make sense.
Indeed, this conspiracy theory about the government not wanting to bring down a 'house of cards' doesn't play out either.
The amounts of money involved is really a p*** in the wind compared to other costs, and the chance for the current government to blamelessly right the wrongs of the previous government and their quangos would be priceless to them, not something which would be vehemently avoided.
ramtec said:
Fot the benefit of those choosing to comment on a thread that they refuse to read: the story here is of a case that could have led to the turning-over of thousands of speed camera cases. The expert evidence is that fundamental. We declared at the outset that there would be no way that the legal system would allow such a reversal and we correctly predicted that they would have to contrive a way around the problem. They did exactly that. You might want to bear in mind that this case has led to government being advised of an 'exposure' to a potentially devastating scenario. Small wonder they can't get rid of speed cameras fast enough. Please, if you don't have the time to read up on a complex case, bite your tongue and move on...
It wasn't that I refused to read it, I have read every post on here at some point but not recently and it's too time consuming to trawl through it all again, which was why I asked. Linking to someone else's post on another site was also not a specific explanation as to why you didn't appeal but that's fine, I was only asking for a summary of what happened.Edited by ramtec on Tuesday 1st March 08:24
I just don't buy the conspiracy theory, especially the insinuation that the recent abolition of various scamera partnerships is linked to your case.
What ever happend to the good old days of Us versus Them
A copper would step out of the shaddows or from behind a tree or parked car
Pull you over for speeding then either stick you on or give you a b
king.
Maybe find a problem with your vehicle or driving details....
So worst case you got fine and three points - job done.
Or worst still you ran the fecker over .......
A copper would step out of the shaddows or from behind a tree or parked car
Pull you over for speeding then either stick you on or give you a b
king.Maybe find a problem with your vehicle or driving details....
So worst case you got fine and three points - job done.
Or worst still you ran the fecker over .......
Anyone want to offer why CPS would turn up at court without their expert statement or witness when they didn't know that Judge Goulbourn was going to cry off sick? She had already told CPS not to bother turning up without both...
CPS MUST have known that Judge Stobbart was going to offer his 'expert' advice to counter the defence witness.
Anyone who thinks that the outcome of the Crown losing this case would be insignificant really needs to sit down in a darkened room and think for a little while. Remember, we always said they wouldn't let us win and we ONLY set out to demonstrate how they would contort the legal process. Robbie has already adequately demonstrated what happens when you take this kind of case to appeal.
Honestly, guys, I'm staggered at the lack of basic powers of comprehension and deduction on some of the more recent posts.
CPS MUST have known that Judge Stobbart was going to offer his 'expert' advice to counter the defence witness.
Anyone who thinks that the outcome of the Crown losing this case would be insignificant really needs to sit down in a darkened room and think for a little while. Remember, we always said they wouldn't let us win and we ONLY set out to demonstrate how they would contort the legal process. Robbie has already adequately demonstrated what happens when you take this kind of case to appeal.
Honestly, guys, I'm staggered at the lack of basic powers of comprehension and deduction on some of the more recent posts.
ramtec said:
Anyone want to offer why CPS would turn up at court without their expert statement or witness when they didn't know that Judge Goulbourn was going to cry off sick? She had already told CPS not to bother turning up without both...
Honestly, guys, I'm staggered at the lack of basic powers of comprehension and deduction on some of the more recent posts.
Do you genuinely think that this is the first time the CPS has arrived at court without the doing a proper job and bringing the evidence they need!? Do you genuinely think that this is the first time court schedules have been changed?Honestly, guys, I'm staggered at the lack of basic powers of comprehension and deduction on some of the more recent posts.
To give an example, I've represented myself in various hearings four times.
On two of those four times the CPS inexplicably did not bring the evidence required. One time that was as bad as not supplying any of the three police witnesses which was their total case.
On two of those four occasions, the bench had been changed on the day twice. On one occasion, this was as drastic and fundamental as replacing magistrates with a visiting District Judge from 40 miles away.
What has happened to you happens every bloody day all over the country. If you genuinely think that the most likely reason this has happened is some kind of X-Files government conspiracy, then the only person lacking comprehension and deduction is you I am afraid.
ramtec said:
Anyone want to offer why CPS would turn up at court without their expert statement or witness when they didn't know that Judge Goulbourn was going to cry off sick? She had already told CPS not to bother turning up without both...
CPS MUST have known that Judge Stobbart was going to offer his 'expert' advice to counter the defence witness.
Anyone who thinks that the outcome of the Crown losing this case would be insignificant really needs to sit down in a darkened room and think for a little while. Remember, we always said they wouldn't let us win and we ONLY set out to demonstrate how they would contort the legal process. Robbie has already adequately demonstrated what happens when you take this kind of case to appeal.
Honestly, guys, I'm staggered at the lack of basic powers of comprehension and deduction on some of the more recent posts.
Did the CPS have an expert witness?CPS MUST have known that Judge Stobbart was going to offer his 'expert' advice to counter the defence witness.
Anyone who thinks that the outcome of the Crown losing this case would be insignificant really needs to sit down in a darkened room and think for a little while. Remember, we always said they wouldn't let us win and we ONLY set out to demonstrate how they would contort the legal process. Robbie has already adequately demonstrated what happens when you take this kind of case to appeal.
Honestly, guys, I'm staggered at the lack of basic powers of comprehension and deduction on some of the more recent posts.
Who in the Government organisations that deal with this sort of matter has been officially informed of your case and claims the device is flawed in the way you claim?
Nice tack, except that professional legal opinion is almost universally in support of our position. We have had numerous barristers and lawyers confirm that this case is highly irregular. Given the profile of this case within CPS, is it unlikely that they would turn up at court without meeting the requirements of Judge Goulborn's order, particularly since we asked repeatedly before trial date for sight of their evidential statement. After our request for dismissal, Judge Stobbart overruled Judge Goulborn's order to give his own 'expert opinion' without even asking for a submission from CPS.
Drone...the defence witness is from the National Physical Laboratory. They set the standards for the Home Office.
Drone...the defence witness is from the National Physical Laboratory. They set the standards for the Home Office.
Edited by ramtec on Tuesday 1st March 17:00
ramtec said:
Robbie has already adequately demonstrated what happens when you take this kind of case to appeal.
Honestly, guys, I'm staggered at the lack of basic powers of comprehension and deduction on some of the more recent posts.
Is this the same Robbie who used to manufacture amphetamine for a living, refuses to recognise the United Kingdom and instead set himself up as the leader of a fictional non-state, blames the Lockerbie bombing on a secret US weapon-smuggling conspiracy and who believes his legal setbacks are the fault of Freemasons controlling the judiciary? Honestly, guys, I'm staggered at the lack of basic powers of comprehension and deduction on some of the more recent posts.
Or are the Illuminati making me paranoid?
If you have legal advice that you have a good point, surely that is all the more reason for testing the point in a higher court. You appear to be suggesting that the courts would be prejudiced against you, but that is ironically to prejudge the point. If the point has general public importance, then a court of record is the place to ventilate it. District Judge decisions do not establish wide principles. Even the most firmly expressed legal opinion is just an opinion until a court arrives at the same conclusion.
Edited by Breadvan73 on Tuesday 1st March 17:12
I add that cock ups are commonplace, conspiracies are rare. The CPS is under funded and often disorganised. It often fails to comply with court directions. Courts often end up muddling through with imperfect evidence. The notion that the CPS somehow arranged for a change of Judge or otherwise nobbled the process seems unlikely.
CPS doesn't appoint judges to cases. It was made very plain by Judge Goulborn at pre-trial that if CPS didn't comply with her order, the trial would not go ahead because the prosecution would not be in a position to counter the defence expert witness. So, you have an extremely high profile case being flagged up to the Home Office as the potential death knell of the speed camera. Why would CPS have to arrange for a change of judge if Judge Goulborn declared herself too poorly to hear the case. It then becomes a relatively easy matter of finding what ministers refer to as a 'safe pair of hands'.
I suspect that, unlike most of the posters here, my experience of working inside government allows me some understanding of how strings are pulled, gained from first-hand experience.
For those doubting what governments and their statutory bodies get up to, in a completely different case on behalf of a bank, go look at: Michael Durant v FSA and Barclays. Nicely swept under the carpet...
I suspect that, unlike most of the posters here, my experience of working inside government allows me some understanding of how strings are pulled, gained from first-hand experience.
For those doubting what governments and their statutory bodies get up to, in a completely different case on behalf of a bank, go look at: Michael Durant v FSA and Barclays. Nicely swept under the carpet...
Edited by ramtec on Tuesday 1st March 17:50
Have you heard of 'Occam's Razor'?
It is a useful way of finding out what the most likely scenario is.
Either:
1) The first Judge was ill, and the second Judge had a differing opinion as to the process of the case. Or:
2) This case has been flagged up at the highest level of government and widespread and serious corruption has taken place to force the first Judge to pretend they were ill and a second corrupt Judge to hold proceedings instead.
Call me a betting man, but I'd go with 1.
Are you saying that my case also was heard at ministerial level as I also looked stand up against a case on technical issues?
I must be frank, this never crossed my mind, as I am not afflicted with any such delusions of grandeur.
S*** happens. You lost a case. If you don't like it appeal - but don't go claiming that there is a huge conspiracy if you don't want to sound like a crackpot.
It is a useful way of finding out what the most likely scenario is.
Either:
1) The first Judge was ill, and the second Judge had a differing opinion as to the process of the case. Or:
2) This case has been flagged up at the highest level of government and widespread and serious corruption has taken place to force the first Judge to pretend they were ill and a second corrupt Judge to hold proceedings instead.
Call me a betting man, but I'd go with 1.
Are you saying that my case also was heard at ministerial level as I also looked stand up against a case on technical issues?
I must be frank, this never crossed my mind, as I am not afflicted with any such delusions of grandeur.
S*** happens. You lost a case. If you don't like it appeal - but don't go claiming that there is a huge conspiracy if you don't want to sound like a crackpot.
ramtec said:
...had you read the beginning of the thread you would have realised that we predicted the outcome. Now go spend your time looking for WMD or anything else that you're gullible enough to believe...
Have YOU read the start of the thread?If you had, you would have seen that not only had a read it in depth, but was a contributor to it - more than three years ago...
As your attempt to belittle me has spectacularly backfired, I'll hold you to task about exactly what you predicted about the case:
ramtec said:
Whilst I'm sure that the Crown can rely upon DCA to lean heavily on the Judge in a preliminary hearing to decide whether or not the expert evidence is admissible...
They allowed your expert witness no? So you can't really complain too much.ramtec said:
However, I don't expect this to get to trial.
Well, that bit's clearly wrong.ramtec said:
Their move to have the expert witness disallowed, at the next prelim hearing, was entirely predicatable. If they don't succeed in that, I expect the case to be dropped, so that a precedent isn't set.
I guess they weren't as scared as you thought. A precedent wasn't set anyway.I'll say again, if there has been a procedural error as you have alluded then this is clear grounds to appeal.
Don't hold the fact that you never thought you would win as a reason for stopping, I am afraid that is a cop out.
Edited by JustinP1 on Tuesday 1st March 19:01
My own experience of government and legal work suggests that inefficiency and randomness are far more prevalent than deep plotting. It does not on the face of it seem likely that one Judge becoming unavailable to hear a case was anything other than an accident. The idea of some sort of plot to obtain a favourable Judge does sound a tad implausible. Judge John Deed is a colourful fiction and most Judges are not to be leant on by mysterious establishment forces.
Edited by Breadvan73 on Tuesday 1st March 19:07
ramtec said:
Nice tack, except that professional legal opinion is almost universally in support of our position. We have had numerous barristers and lawyers confirm that this case is highly irregular. Given the profile of this case within CPS, is it unlikely that they would turn up at court without meeting the requirements of Judge Goulborn's order, particularly since we asked repeatedly before trial date for sight of their evidential statement. After our request for dismissal, Judge Stobbart overruled Judge Goulborn's order to give his own 'expert opinion' without even asking for a submission from CPS.
Drone...the defence witness is from the National Physical Laboratory. They set the standards for the Home Office.
...but apparently know f***-all about speed cameras. Did he have any evidence that what he was saying had any effect or was it just conjecture?Drone...the defence witness is from the National Physical Laboratory. They set the standards for the Home Office.
Your problem from the outset was you had and still have no expert evidence that the court need take note of. I know that and I ain't a judge. The CPS know that and that is why they just didn't bother to rise to your case because.......you didn't have one.
It is very apparent you now realise that; well done.
ramtec said:
CPS doesn't appoint judges to cases. It was made very plain by Judge Goulborn at pre-trial that if CPS didn't comply with her order, the trial would not go ahead because the prosecution would not be in a position to counter the defence expert witness.
A judge doesn't wash away a case saying that the CPS need to bring an expert witness. How much have you actually spent on this crusade? Please tell me that you haven't had public money to fight your cause.
odyssey2200 said:
Are we not missing the wider point?
Noodyssey2200 said:
Without the Power supply of EVERY gatso being tested the unit attached to it is not deemed to be calibrated.
So says a bloke from NPL. He may as well be the bloke down the pub and most probably is. On what authority and with what evidence? Not enough for a court to take note of it seems. odyssey2200 said:
If this is the case than millions of motorists have been wrongly convicted due to faulty equipment.
There is no case.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff