Power Supply Units to GATSO cameras - update
Discussion
Mill Wheel said:
Breadvan73 said:
Even anarchist lawyers have to be able to explain their points clearly. Does anyone know what the point was?
Rules is rules...?If you are going to enforce according to the letter of the law expect to be able to prove that The Powers That Be have also followed the letter of the law and not just the spirit.
I think the article is simply a rather obscurely written version of:-
:Corporal Jones:
They don't like it up 'em Capt Mainwaring."
:/Cpl Jones:
I'd not heard of Robbie the Pict before this morning. I''m not convinced that he is a great hero, given the amount of public money which he apparently burns.
See http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/39Robbie-the-Pic..., reporting on a case in which a senior Court of Session Judge said:-
"it is worth observing again that this appellant has never stated positively that he was not 'speeding' on a 'motorway' at the material time.
"Yet this case has occupied days of evidence and submissions at District and Appellate Court levels.
"Virtually all of this time, and consequent public expense, has been taken up with the appellant's pursuit of ill-founded technical arguments in respect of an offence which ultimately attracted a modest fine and the minimum number of penalty points.
"Such misuse of the legal process is not acceptable."
_
Speaking truth to power and all that is all very well, and can be a good thing, but quite often it just costs everyone a ton of money, to no good purpose.
See http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/39Robbie-the-Pic..., reporting on a case in which a senior Court of Session Judge said:-
"it is worth observing again that this appellant has never stated positively that he was not 'speeding' on a 'motorway' at the material time.
"Yet this case has occupied days of evidence and submissions at District and Appellate Court levels.
"Virtually all of this time, and consequent public expense, has been taken up with the appellant's pursuit of ill-founded technical arguments in respect of an offence which ultimately attracted a modest fine and the minimum number of penalty points.
"Such misuse of the legal process is not acceptable."
_
Speaking truth to power and all that is all very well, and can be a good thing, but quite often it just costs everyone a ton of money, to no good purpose.
Not at all, but assertions that such is happening need to be made out. Here's another example of Robbie spending your money and mine, and losing:-
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/117...
The Judge says this:-
"This case, according to Mr Shrimpton, counsel appearing for the appellant, raises very important constitutional questions involving issues of separation of powers and the like. Indeed, so strongly has Mr Shrimpton felt about this that before this hearing today he actually made an application, which on 4th March 2009 was dealt with by a Divisional Court comprising Laws LJ and Ouseley LJ, whereby Mr Shrimpton sought to persuade the court that this matter should be heard by a constitution comprising five judges, including preferably the Lord Chief Justice himself. The Divisional Court was not prepared so to order and I am afraid Mr Shrimpton is today going to have to content himself with a decision of one judge alone, that, as it happens, being a decision of myself. In truth, I have to say that I do not think this case raises any constitutional issues of importance at all. What it does raise is an issue of statutory interpretation, and issues of statutory interpretation commonly are heard by the courts every day of the sitting week during the sitting year."
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/117...
The Judge says this:-
"This case, according to Mr Shrimpton, counsel appearing for the appellant, raises very important constitutional questions involving issues of separation of powers and the like. Indeed, so strongly has Mr Shrimpton felt about this that before this hearing today he actually made an application, which on 4th March 2009 was dealt with by a Divisional Court comprising Laws LJ and Ouseley LJ, whereby Mr Shrimpton sought to persuade the court that this matter should be heard by a constitution comprising five judges, including preferably the Lord Chief Justice himself. The Divisional Court was not prepared so to order and I am afraid Mr Shrimpton is today going to have to content himself with a decision of one judge alone, that, as it happens, being a decision of myself. In truth, I have to say that I do not think this case raises any constitutional issues of importance at all. What it does raise is an issue of statutory interpretation, and issues of statutory interpretation commonly are heard by the courts every day of the sitting week during the sitting year."
F i F said:
Mill Wheel said:
Breadvan73 said:
Even anarchist lawyers have to be able to explain their points clearly. Does anyone know what the point was?
Rules is rules...?If you are going to enforce according to the letter of the law expect to be able to prove that The Powers That Be have also followed the letter of the law and not just the spirit.
I think the article is simply a rather obscurely written version of:-
:Corporal Jones:
They don't like it up 'em Capt Mainwaring."
:/Cpl Jones:
Rules is rules Guvna'.
Breadvan73 said:
Indeed, but, as I keep asking, which rule is said to have been contravened? The bloke may have a perfectly valid point, in which case all credit to him for raising it, but it isn't clear from the report what it is.
Incorrectly signed SI's. You can't enforce the law to the letter and expect the public to accept any lower standard when it comes to how the law was implemented.It's either lawful or it isn't....
Do you know in what way the Instruments were "incorrectly signed"? The report refers to Instruments being signed by Secretaries of State. That is the usual thing. It may be worth noting that the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 doesn't require a signature in any event.
Edited by Breadvan73 on Tuesday 28th June 17:28
Whilst we're on the subject of spending tax-payers' money, I wonder how many courts have acted like Derby Magistrates, in applying the wrong endorsement codes to drivers' licences, then covering up their gaff and failing to inform drivers who have been paying excessive insurance premiums as a result?
Oh yes, for the DTs, I have a letter from the court confirming their error, along with an admission that they don't know how many drivers were affected.
I think it's called 'malfeasance' but 'corruption' will do...
Oh yes, for the DTs, I have a letter from the court confirming their error, along with an admission that they don't know how many drivers were affected.
I think it's called 'malfeasance' but 'corruption' will do...
Breadvan73 said:
Do you know in what way the Instruments were "incorrectly signed"? The report refers to Instruments being signed by Secretaries of State. That is the usual thing. It may be worth noting that the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 doesn't require a signature in any event.
In such a way that the CPS copped (sic) out of running with it Edited by Breadvan73 on Tuesday 28th June 17:28
They're persistent buggers these Scameraships, they wouldn't drop it unless they knew it would set a precedent.
Precedents are only set at High Court/Court of Session level and above.
The Derby thing sounds bad, but sounds more like carelessness than misfeasance, which requires targeted malice. One of the defects of English public law is that there is no freestanding financial remedy for administrative error.
The Derby thing sounds bad, but sounds more like carelessness than misfeasance, which requires targeted malice. One of the defects of English public law is that there is no freestanding financial remedy for administrative error.
The SCPs are just a by-product of ACPO Ltd's commercial perogative. Many of the senior SCP managers are contracted ACPO employees. The Association of Chief Police Officers LIMITED in charge of SCPs, standards compliance for speed cameras, AND industry liaison? If it weren't quite such a disgustingly blatant conflict of interest, it might just raise a smile...
Edited by ramtec on Wednesday 29th June 07:56
For me, the main concern about the structure of SCPs is that the revenue raised goes to local authorities for general expenditure rather than road related expenditure. SCPs aren't businesses providing dividends to shareholders, and Chief Constables are not retiring to Switzerland on the proceeds of speeding tickets. The system operates as a form of form of taxation. I don't oppose taxation in principle, as local authority services must be paid for, but I am not convinced that this is a very fair method of supplementing other forms of local authority finance.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff