Reasonable doubt
Discussion
Globulator said:
Bibs_LEF said:
This went to court for the tyre offence and in the meantime the car was taken to an MOT station for a fresh MOT to take to the police station to remove the prohibition. The tyres had not been changed however it was taken there on a trailer to avoid further potential offences en route. The MOT station passed the car, knowing that there was a PG1 on it for the tyre and issued a new MOT.
Wrong approach really - you need to get a written opinion from a TYRE place.If I was the judge - that's what I'd be wanting, if you could get 2 or 3 from different places, then I'd be impressed.
My old midget got an MOT fine, when one tyre had ballooned out and only 40mm was touching the road - MOT testers are too general, you need the considered opinion of a tyre expert looking just at that tyre.
This exemplifies how important it is to get legal advice before court. Although in my first case my local solicitor would not take on my case as he didnt think I would win (!), in the initial meeting which was free he did give me invaluable pointers as to the exact rules of law and the procedure and exactly what is needed.
IMHO, an MOT certificate would not be enough to give 'reasonable doubt' in this situation. It is just not specific enough to give the level of evidence needed.
However, if it were my case, I would have asked the MOT tester to act as my witness. From the specific faults in the officers statement I would ask him to comment on these in particular and this should be documented with photos.
Then, you would have two complete sets of evidence.
Set 1: The police officer who had the benefit of his opinion from a cursory check of the tyre, who says it is faulty.
Set 2: The VOSA registered MOT tester, with photographic evidence to prove his points and professional qualifications to show the court to prove his expertise - and most importantly the fact that he can be cross examined by the CPS brief. The outcome is that in *his* professional opinion the tyre meets the regulations and secondly he can explain the regulations to the court and thirdly he can show in the photos that it complies with them and in his opinion the police officer is wrong.
Now *that* is reasonable doubt, and *that* would be a situation where I would be truly surprised if the defendant was found guilty.
Alternatively you could appeal against the MOT pass on the basis of the tyre and this would have meant that VOSA would have sent out an area engineer to rule.
This would have been obviously documented.
The ruling of the VOSA area engineer (the same guys who carry out the roadside checks would have been quite compelling evidence IMHO.
IF the MOT does not over rule the C&U requirements WTF is the point of having to get an MOT station to remove the prohibition?
This would have been obviously documented.
The ruling of the VOSA area engineer (the same guys who carry out the roadside checks would have been quite compelling evidence IMHO.
IF the MOT does not over rule the C&U requirements WTF is the point of having to get an MOT station to remove the prohibition?
odyssey2200 said:
Alternatively you could appeal against the MOT pass on the basis of the tyre and this would have meant that VOSA would have sent out an area engineer to rule.
This would have been obviously documented.
The ruling of the VOSA area engineer (the same guys who carry out the roadside checks would have been quite compelling evidence IMHO.
IF the MOT does not over rule the C&U requirements WTF is the point of having to get an MOT station to remove the prohibition?
This may well be the case, but the reason that this case has been seen one sided, is that it has been presented to them one sided. With no-one there to argue these points succinctly then the evidence is not there for the magistrates to see. Also if the magistrates do not know the importance of the relevant issues then again, they go with the evidence that is presented to them.This would have been obviously documented.
The ruling of the VOSA area engineer (the same guys who carry out the roadside checks would have been quite compelling evidence IMHO.
IF the MOT does not over rule the C&U requirements WTF is the point of having to get an MOT station to remove the prohibition?
Mg6b said:
Under inflated tyres are subject to an offence and 3 points if guilty.
MOT testers do not test the pressures in tyres. They may well look OK but if they are underinflated, then passed at MOT and then subsequently checked by police, then an offence against tyre regulations will be upheld at court regardless that the vehicle has just passed an MOT!
Yes but there's an easy fix for that; both for the tyre and the test.MOT testers do not test the pressures in tyres. They may well look OK but if they are underinflated, then passed at MOT and then subsequently checked by police, then an offence against tyre regulations will be upheld at court regardless that the vehicle has just passed an MOT!
OTish - my tyre valves live beneath lockable hubcaps; can I be required to expose them at the roadside?
If you are advised by a BiB that your vehicle has a defect then there are several options however this thread seems to be concentrated on 2, in summary:
1. Take the advice of the BiB and spend a few £10's on a new tyre; sorted
2. Get a little arsey and take the vehicle for an MOT to try and fight the decision of the BiB and risk a legal gamble on the MOT overturning the BiB opinion
Now what is reasonable?
The magistrates, who are generally reasonable and bound by law in their decisions, are the persons charged by our sciety on deciding what is reasonable. I would say they have more than likely decied that to take the course of action at 2. above is not what is considered reasonable.
After all, the BiB was, in his opinion, protecting the public, including the vehicle owner, from a safety standpoint.
While there may be occasions where police opinion is wrong, as is everyones from time-to-time, I would say to set yourself up by behaving smart and trying to get an MOT certificate to overturn a BiB ticketed defect is not reasonable; take thsi option and frankly it serves you right, the plice could do without spending time in court with smart-arses like this.
1. Take the advice of the BiB and spend a few £10's on a new tyre; sorted
2. Get a little arsey and take the vehicle for an MOT to try and fight the decision of the BiB and risk a legal gamble on the MOT overturning the BiB opinion
Now what is reasonable?
The magistrates, who are generally reasonable and bound by law in their decisions, are the persons charged by our sciety on deciding what is reasonable. I would say they have more than likely decied that to take the course of action at 2. above is not what is considered reasonable.
After all, the BiB was, in his opinion, protecting the public, including the vehicle owner, from a safety standpoint.
While there may be occasions where police opinion is wrong, as is everyones from time-to-time, I would say to set yourself up by behaving smart and trying to get an MOT certificate to overturn a BiB ticketed defect is not reasonable; take thsi option and frankly it serves you right, the plice could do without spending time in court with smart-arses like this.
wakeywakey said:
If you are advised by a BiB that your vehicle has a defect then there are several options however this thread seems to be concentrated on 2, in summary:
1. Take the advice of the BiB and spend a few £10's on a new tyre; sorted
2. Get a little arsey and take the vehicle for an MOT to try and fight the decision of the BiB and risk a legal gamble on the MOT overturning the BiB opinion
Now what is reasonable?
The magistrates, who are generally reasonable and bound by law in their decisions, are the persons charged by our sciety on deciding what is reasonable. I would say they have more than likely decied that to take the course of action at 2. above is not what is considered reasonable.
After all, the BiB was, in his opinion, protecting the public, including the vehicle owner, from a safety standpoint.
While there may be occasions where police opinion is wrong, as is everyones from time-to-time, I would say to set yourself up by behaving smart and trying to get an MOT certificate to overturn a BiB ticketed defect is not reasonable; take thsi option and frankly it serves you right, the plice could do without spending time in court with smart-arses like this.
As you have mentioned, the BiB opinion of what is legal, is not always right. 1. Take the advice of the BiB and spend a few £10's on a new tyre; sorted
2. Get a little arsey and take the vehicle for an MOT to try and fight the decision of the BiB and risk a legal gamble on the MOT overturning the BiB opinion
Now what is reasonable?
The magistrates, who are generally reasonable and bound by law in their decisions, are the persons charged by our sciety on deciding what is reasonable. I would say they have more than likely decied that to take the course of action at 2. above is not what is considered reasonable.
After all, the BiB was, in his opinion, protecting the public, including the vehicle owner, from a safety standpoint.
While there may be occasions where police opinion is wrong, as is everyones from time-to-time, I would say to set yourself up by behaving smart and trying to get an MOT certificate to overturn a BiB ticketed defect is not reasonable; take thsi option and frankly it serves you right, the plice could do without spending time in court with smart-arses like this.
The OP's friend has double checked this and got a differing opinion from an MOT test. So why, especially since it seems than they may not be rolling in money change a tyre based upon a BiB opinion which they have just been told is wrong!?
They are not trying to be a 'smart-arse' and I don't see how this could be assumed from what is written.
Their problem was not arrogance, but the fact that it seems obvious that they genuinely thought that they had not committed an offence, and without the benefit of legal advice as they couldnt afford it thought that producing the MOT in court would be enough to prove this.
The problem anyone has when arguing about tyre offences is that they are absolute offences. All the prosecution needs to show is that you were using the vehicle at the time and it had a defective tyre. The using bit you've admitted and the officer provides the evidence about the rest. The fact that it had a recent MOT I suspect is only mitigation. The prosecution do not need to show that you knowingly drove the vehicle with a defective tyre.
JustinP1 said:
As you have mentioned, the BiB opinion of what is legal, is not always right.
It would appear to have been the right opinion in this case 
JustinP1 said:
The OP's friend has double checked this and got a differing opinion from an MOT test.
And an opinion from a Magistrate that overturns that of an MOT tester!JustinP1 said:
...... and without the benefit of legal advice as they couldnt afford it thought that producing the MOT in court would be enough to prove this.
All that did was prove the car has a valid MOT and that was not the charge in the first place!Mg6b said:
JustinP1 said:
As you have mentioned, the BiB opinion of what is legal, is not always right.
It would appear to have been the right opinion in this case JustinP1 said:
The OP's friend has double checked this and got a differing opinion from an MOT test.
And an opinion from a Magistrate that overturns that of an MOT tester!JustinP1 said:
...... and without the benefit of legal advice as they couldnt afford it thought that producing the MOT in court would be enough to prove this.
All that did was prove the car has a valid MOT and that was not the charge in the first place!However, done of us know whether the the tyre *is* faulty or not.
The BiB at the scene thought so, the MOT tester not.
The magistrates with the evidence they were shown - or lack of as the case may be made the only decision they could. That does not mean that the tyre was or is faulty. It just proves they were found guilty. Two different things!
As I mentioned before, IMHO if the case had been handled with using the MOT tester, or even two MOT testers as witnesses, my bet would be a not-guilty verdict.
Am I alone in thinking it ridiculous in thinking that a test, which is accepted as evidence that a vehicle prohibited from the roads as dangerous is now safe to return to the road, is not, when carried out on the un-repaired vehicle is not also accepted as evidence that no fault existed in the first place?
Edited by fluffnik on Sunday 9th March 21:51
fluffnik said:
Am I alone in thinking it ridiculous in thinking that a test, which is accepted as evidence that a vehicle prohibited from the roads as dangerous is now safe to return to the road, is not, when carried out on the un-repaired vehicle is not also accepted as evidence that no fault existed in the first place?
Quite.Edited by fluffnik on Sunday 9th March 21:51
On a different day with a different set of magistrates they may have decided differently. I have heard of stranger things.
The thing is that with an 'expert witness' with a professional lawyer compared to someone defending themselves who has never been in court before, then its not quite a level playing field. The chances of the CPS lawyer getting their witness to say the right things to get a conviction is almost certain. The chances of someone defending themselves with zero legal knowledge against this is impossible, although they might try in a common sense way, that is not always enough.
At the end of the day the magistrates have to uphold the rule of law, and only on the evidence they see.
fluffnik said:
JustinP1 said:
At the end of the day the magistrates have to uphold the rule of law, and only on the evidence they see.
Perhaps justice would be better served if they had a more inquisitorial role?A reasonable person presented with this story would be highly likely to side with the law and be wound up by the beligerant behaviour of the motorist.
wakeywakey said:
fluffnik said:
JustinP1 said:
At the end of the day the magistrates have to uphold the rule of law, and only on the evidence they see.
Perhaps justice would be better served if they had a more inquisitorial role?A reasonable person presented with this story would be highly likely to side with the law and be wound up by the beligerant behaviour of the motorist.
TheGriffalo said:
wakeywakey said:
fluffnik said:
JustinP1 said:
At the end of the day the magistrates have to uphold the rule of law, and only on the evidence they see.
Perhaps justice would be better served if they had a more inquisitorial role?A reasonable person presented with this story would be highly likely to side with the law and be wound up by the beligerant behaviour of the motorist.
Some of the posters on SP&L have the same attitude as some of the magistrates benches. That is unless there is a very extraordinary freak occurance or the defendant has managed to find a loophole that the police evidence is always right and the defendant is guilty. After all, if the police did not think they were guilty they wouldn't be here!? What a cheeky so and so for thinking their opinion of what has happened is better than an experienced expert witness who is 'impartial'!?
On the other hand, there are posters here, and a few benches that think "Hold on a second..." This person in the dock is not the usual type of petty thief scrote we see here. They have taken a day off work to come here, and seem to have a genuine story - there might be something to this.... The police officer is indeed human like the rest of us and prone to making mistakes, assumptions and wrong judgements, and of course under pressure, like a defendant have the ability to bend the truth...
A lot of these cases where someone decides to defend themselves this will be the only factor between being guilty and not guilty.
JustinP1 said:
TheGriffalo said:
wakeywakey said:
fluffnik said:
JustinP1 said:
At the end of the day the magistrates have to uphold the rule of law, and only on the evidence they see.
Perhaps justice would be better served if they had a more inquisitorial role?A reasonable person presented with this story would be highly likely to side with the law and be wound up by the beligerant behaviour of the motorist.
Some of the posters on SP&L have the same attitude as some of the magistrates benches. That is unless there is a very extraordinary freak occurance or the defendant has managed to find a loophole that the police evidence is always right and the defendant is guilty. After all, if the police did not think they were guilty they wouldn't be here!? What a cheeky so and so for thinking their opinion of what has happened is better than an experienced expert witness who is 'impartial'!?
On the other hand, there are posters here, and a few benches that think "Hold on a second..." This person in the dock is not the usual type of petty thief scrote we see here. They have taken a day off work to come here, and seem to have a genuine story - there might be something to this.... The police officer is indeed human like the rest of us and prone to making mistakes, assumptions and wrong judgements, and of course under pressure, like a defendant have the ability to bend the truth...
A lot of these cases where someone decides to defend themselves this will be the only factor between being guilty and not guilty.
In this case I would give more weight to the opinion of an MOT tester than a police officer. One is trained to examine vehicles, one is trained to uphold the law.
My only proviso is that I would insist on finding out if the same tyre was checked by the MOT tester as was reported for the offence. If that is the case then it simply isn't possible to come up with a guilty veredict.
TheGriffalo said:
JustinP1 said:
TheGriffalo said:
wakeywakey said:
fluffnik said:
JustinP1 said:
At the end of the day the magistrates have to uphold the rule of law, and only on the evidence they see.
Perhaps justice would be better served if they had a more inquisitorial role?A reasonable person presented with this story would be highly likely to side with the law and be wound up by the beligerant behaviour of the motorist.
Some of the posters on SP&L have the same attitude as some of the magistrates benches. That is unless there is a very extraordinary freak occurance or the defendant has managed to find a loophole that the police evidence is always right and the defendant is guilty. After all, if the police did not think they were guilty they wouldn't be here!? What a cheeky so and so for thinking their opinion of what has happened is better than an experienced expert witness who is 'impartial'!?
On the other hand, there are posters here, and a few benches that think "Hold on a second..." This person in the dock is not the usual type of petty thief scrote we see here. They have taken a day off work to come here, and seem to have a genuine story - there might be something to this.... The police officer is indeed human like the rest of us and prone to making mistakes, assumptions and wrong judgements, and of course under pressure, like a defendant have the ability to bend the truth...
A lot of these cases where someone decides to defend themselves this will be the only factor between being guilty and not guilty.
In this case I would give more weight to the opinion of an MOT tester than a police officer. One is trained to examine vehicles, one is trained to uphold the law.
My only proviso is that I would insist on finding out if the same tyre was checked by the MOT tester as was reported for the offence. If that is the case then it simply isn't possible to come up with a guilty veredict.
The CPS brief in this case would no doubt have mentioned that we do not know it is the same tyre, and the 'witness' is not there to be cross examined. Given that, as far as I can see they shouldn't be found not guilty.
As I mentioned in my previous posts, IMHO if the MOT tester was there in court to give evidence with photos then the outcome of this case would have been very different.
TheGriffalo said:
...I am a reasonable man...
In Your Humble Opinion only, I do not disagree with you at all.You would be accompanied by 2 other reasonable persons who may of course have an entirely different opinion and sense of reasonableness when presented with the same information; as we are here in fact.
TheGriffalo said:
... and if presented with the facts as they are here I would have sufficient reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty...
You may find it reasonable, I do not.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff