Speeding & S172 Court success today
Discussion
Just a little booster for those already down the unsigned route and who were feeling a bit despondent after some recent cases.
From: www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=707
-------------------------------------------------------
This is a bit long winded but I thought it worth mentioning as much as possible in case anyone else is due in Court and getting nervous or thinking of giving up and not fighting. It goes to show that when you stand up for yourself, they dont expect it. When you dont roll over to them, they dont know what to do and most of all, that you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, something the CPS fail to understand!!
I went to Court today for Speeding 57mph in a 30mph and Failing to identify the Driver:
I had been requesting the evidence against me since the 16th October from the Chief Crown Prosecutor and CJU and over the last week had written twice to the Listing Clerk copying him in on those letters I sent along with the correspondance I had from the Essex Safety Camera Partnership.
It was quite long and involved with the Magistrates not being present for the majority of the case as the Clerk of the Court, Prosecutor and I argued the points.
I was served the evidence (section 9 Statements and Photos) in Court whilst the Magistrates were not present. The prosecution argued that I was not entitled to see the evidence before then.
I argued under the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996 Para 1 (1) (a) as mentioned on this site that I should have had the evidence at least Seven days prior to the hearing. This was denied by the Prosecution.
I also argued to back it up that I had rights under the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome 4.XI.1950) specifically Article 6 (3) (b) that I should have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of my defence and that I had been denied this.
The prosecution argued that they would ask to adjourn 14 days. She intended to ask for an adjounment also as their Police Officer had also not turned up.
The Clerk pointed out that there was no evidence for the speeding as I had not signed the form and I could not be identified from the Photographs.
The only one to argue therefore was the failing to identify and heres where it turned into a circus:
The Prosecution argued that it is implied that the form should be signed in Law otherwise there was no point in sending out the form.
I gave the Clerk copies of the entire Judgments for Broomfield, for Yorke and some info I found on Pickford just to head off any attempt by the prosecution to use only parts of the judgment in their favour.
The Prosecution then argued that the system was flawed and that everyone caught on camera should automatically receive a fixed penalty and if it wasnt them, appeal the decision later (Guilty till proven innocent)
I showed at this point a letter from Essex Safety Camera Partnership to the Clerk, sent to me stating and I quote this directly:
"I accept that it is not a requirement in law for the form to be signed".
The letter is signed by an Enquiry Administator for Essex Police.
The Prosecution argued at this point that The Police had no right to tell me what was and was not the Law and further that she DID NOT KNOW WHO THE ESSEX SAFETY CAMERA PARTNERSHIP WERE or what authority they thought they had, but clearly as they were not the CPS or a Magistrate they did not in actual fact have any authority.
She also argued that the Police were not allowed to interpret the Law.
The Police should not have advised me that there is no requirement to sign the form.
I asked the Prosecutor why, as a person who respects authority, should I not respect the word of someone acting for Essex Police.
She informed me that the Police simply could not interpret the Law, that was the job of the CPS and the Magistrate to do so.
I asked what I should do the next time a Police Officer directs me to obey their instruction to pull over and stop or to move along in the street. She told me to obey them. I asked at what point I should believe the word of a Police Officer and at what point I should disregard everything they say.
At this point, she sat down and stopped listening and in actual fact speaking to me.
The Magistrates then came back. Prosecution asked for an Adjournment and I was advised that I need not submit to their request if I did not want to and that they would have to go ahead today. I chose to go ahead today.
The Prosecution was told they could not submit the evidence they had just served on me.
The Prosecution then basically received a rap on the knuckles from the Magistrates for conducting the case badly and keeping them waiting out back.
Both Speeding and Failing to Identify were dismissed on the basis of no evidence. I was asked if I wanted costs, but decided not to cos I had enjoyed my day so far and the Magistrates then asked if they could keep the Broomfield, Pickford and Yorke Judgments as they had not seen them and there were two more unsigned NIP cases that morning they had to deal with and wanted to read up on it!!!
I have to say the Clerk to the Court and the Magistrates were weighted seemingly against the Prosecution and were arguing any points I missed for me.
From: www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=707
-------------------------------------------------------
This is a bit long winded but I thought it worth mentioning as much as possible in case anyone else is due in Court and getting nervous or thinking of giving up and not fighting. It goes to show that when you stand up for yourself, they dont expect it. When you dont roll over to them, they dont know what to do and most of all, that you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, something the CPS fail to understand!!
I went to Court today for Speeding 57mph in a 30mph and Failing to identify the Driver:
I had been requesting the evidence against me since the 16th October from the Chief Crown Prosecutor and CJU and over the last week had written twice to the Listing Clerk copying him in on those letters I sent along with the correspondance I had from the Essex Safety Camera Partnership.
It was quite long and involved with the Magistrates not being present for the majority of the case as the Clerk of the Court, Prosecutor and I argued the points.
I was served the evidence (section 9 Statements and Photos) in Court whilst the Magistrates were not present. The prosecution argued that I was not entitled to see the evidence before then.
I argued under the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996 Para 1 (1) (a) as mentioned on this site that I should have had the evidence at least Seven days prior to the hearing. This was denied by the Prosecution.
I also argued to back it up that I had rights under the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome 4.XI.1950) specifically Article 6 (3) (b) that I should have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of my defence and that I had been denied this.
The prosecution argued that they would ask to adjourn 14 days. She intended to ask for an adjounment also as their Police Officer had also not turned up.
The Clerk pointed out that there was no evidence for the speeding as I had not signed the form and I could not be identified from the Photographs.
The only one to argue therefore was the failing to identify and heres where it turned into a circus:
The Prosecution argued that it is implied that the form should be signed in Law otherwise there was no point in sending out the form.
I gave the Clerk copies of the entire Judgments for Broomfield, for Yorke and some info I found on Pickford just to head off any attempt by the prosecution to use only parts of the judgment in their favour.
The Prosecution then argued that the system was flawed and that everyone caught on camera should automatically receive a fixed penalty and if it wasnt them, appeal the decision later (Guilty till proven innocent)
I showed at this point a letter from Essex Safety Camera Partnership to the Clerk, sent to me stating and I quote this directly:
"I accept that it is not a requirement in law for the form to be signed".
The letter is signed by an Enquiry Administator for Essex Police.
The Prosecution argued at this point that The Police had no right to tell me what was and was not the Law and further that she DID NOT KNOW WHO THE ESSEX SAFETY CAMERA PARTNERSHIP WERE or what authority they thought they had, but clearly as they were not the CPS or a Magistrate they did not in actual fact have any authority.
She also argued that the Police were not allowed to interpret the Law.
The Police should not have advised me that there is no requirement to sign the form.
I asked the Prosecutor why, as a person who respects authority, should I not respect the word of someone acting for Essex Police.
She informed me that the Police simply could not interpret the Law, that was the job of the CPS and the Magistrate to do so.
I asked what I should do the next time a Police Officer directs me to obey their instruction to pull over and stop or to move along in the street. She told me to obey them. I asked at what point I should believe the word of a Police Officer and at what point I should disregard everything they say.
At this point, she sat down and stopped listening and in actual fact speaking to me.
The Magistrates then came back. Prosecution asked for an Adjournment and I was advised that I need not submit to their request if I did not want to and that they would have to go ahead today. I chose to go ahead today.
The Prosecution was told they could not submit the evidence they had just served on me.
The Prosecution then basically received a rap on the knuckles from the Magistrates for conducting the case badly and keeping them waiting out back.
Both Speeding and Failing to Identify were dismissed on the basis of no evidence. I was asked if I wanted costs, but decided not to cos I had enjoyed my day so far and the Magistrates then asked if they could keep the Broomfield, Pickford and Yorke Judgments as they had not seen them and there were two more unsigned NIP cases that morning they had to deal with and wanted to read up on it!!!
I have to say the Clerk to the Court and the Magistrates were weighted seemingly against the Prosecution and were arguing any points I missed for me.
plodbucket said:
So, you got away with speeding on a technicality then?
Yeah, and?
if you can literally get away with murder on a technicality, then why shouldn't we use the law as it is written to "get away" with speeding? If they had the right laws in place and weren't attempting to fleece us continually, there would be a lot more respect for them and due process and we'd all accept the occassional rap for what we do. But with speed limits and speed enforcement in complete disarray and at the complete whim of "do-gooders" (the worst sort of person IMHO), then we can and should use the law to defend ourselves.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty is how it stands, and as long as thats the case, if they can't prove it, then there is no case to answer.
pdV6 said:
So, you got away with speeding on a technicality then?
Only the slightly minor technical point that there was no evidence against him...
OK, so I'll put it a different way. The fella above got away with doing 57 in a 30 because the CPS bungled the case. Can anybody see the problem here?
plodbucket said:I can!
plodbucket said:
So, you got away with speeding on a technicality then?
Only the slightly minor technical point that there was no evidence against him...
OK, so I'll put it a different way. The fella above got away with doing 57 in a 30 because the CPS bungled the case. Can anybody see the problem here?
Please point out where there was any admission that the speed was correct. This was not tried. It doesn't matter which way you put it. I suggest you don't exert yourself further in trying to find another.
plodbucket said:
OK, so I'll put it a different way. The fella above got away with doing 57 in a 30 because the CPS bungled the case. Can anybody see the problem here?
Err.... Not Really !
Plodbucket maybe you are implying that it must be dangerous because its a 30 limit. Therefore to do 57 in it is maybe nearly attempted murder. I tend to find too many instances of such 30 limits should have been NSL in the first place.
puggit said:
Plod bucket - I get your point entirely 
57 in a 30 is entirely irrepsonsible
But why was he in court if there's no evidence that he did 57 in a 30?
There may well have been, but CPS did not produce it. The guy did his homework and played the system. He sensibly argued the validity of the evidence. The CPS did not rise to the same standard as the driver.
The guy above was either (i) very intelligent, well-informed and knew he could throw enough doubt into the case to have it rejected, (ii) was facing an exceptional punishment and worked very hard on his defense or (iii) lucky.
So why do many people "roll over and take it"? Probably because they know they did wrong and are willing to take the punishment and consequences.
Richard C said:
OK, so I'll put it a different way. The fella above got away with doing 57 in a 30 because the CPS bungled the case. Can anybody see the problem here?
Err.... Not Really !
Plodbucket maybe you are implying that it must be dangerous because its a 30 limit. Therefore to do 57 in it is maybe nearly attempted murder. I tend to find too many instances of such 30 limits should have been NSL in the first place.
I have absolutely no knowledge of the location where the incident happened. Maybe 57 there was perfectly appropriate. Maybe the 30 limit was bananas.
Do you think that for every case regarding a speeding violation the CPS should *prove* that the speed was inappropriate, regardless of speed limits? How?
There's no need to prove the speed was inappropriate. That argument is just being used to prove there is an unnecessary clamp down on speeding which is being fabricated by the people in power. The law is the law, and this driver was breaking it.
What they do need to do is to prove who was driving - this country is built on the foundations of 'innocent until proven guilty' - which the S172 flies in the face of.
Of course, more TrafPol pulling people over would provide a good chunk of the answer.
What they do need to do is to prove who was driving - this country is built on the foundations of 'innocent until proven guilty' - which the S172 flies in the face of.
Of course, more TrafPol pulling people over would provide a good chunk of the answer.
streaky said:
pdV6 said:
plodbucket said:
So, you got away with speeding on a technicality then?
Only the slightly minor technical point that there was no evidence against him...
OK, so I'll put it a different way. The fella above got away with doing 57 in a 30 because the CPS bungled the case. Can anybody see the problem here?
I can!
Please point out where there was any admission that the speed was correct. This was not tried. It doesn't matter which way you put it. I suggest you don't exert yourself further in trying to find another.
I have no idea whether the speed was measured accurately. You're right - even if the case was not rejected through lack of evidence, the measurement could have been challenged. It never happened so we'll never know.
I'm curious to know whether the driver will correlate or deny the speed he was travelling at.
puggit said:There was no proof produced that the law was broken. This was not tried - Streaky
There's no need to prove the speed was inappropriate. That argument is just being used to prove there is an unnecessary clamp down on speeding which is being fabricated by the people in power. The law is the law, and this driver was breaking it. ...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff