Speeding & S172 Court success today
Discussion
madant69 said:
If you knew who was walking among you right now, because of a technicality, your toes would curl...maybe I should ignore the big picture?
Agreed, but the good of the country would be better served if the Legal system diverted more time & resources to pursuing the cases that actually matter and paying less attention to technical offences, comitted by 'ordinary' people where no-one is harmed, but of course there's no profit in it
bluepolarbear said:
If the failure of the police or the CPS allows the accused to walk free when in fact the did commit the crime then so be it because the alternative is a magnitute of order worse.
With respect BPB you're missing the point entirely. I'm not talking about a wing and a prayer job, where we know damn well a guy did a crime but can't prove it. The CPS absolutely will not run a case on a wing and a prayer anymore - it just doesn't happen.
What I'm talking about is a case where you have the evidence but for some stupid reason it's thrown out. That doesn't mean the evidence wasn't gathered, or that the evidence doesn't prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
It just means that some smart-arsed lawywer saw that a "t" wasn't crossed and went for it. And I hope the money they earn helps them out when they get weighed and measured at the gates, I really do...
What we need is a coverall "common sense act", whereby someone can sit down in cases like this and say "yeah, he spelt the road name wrong but it makes no odds..."
madant69 said:
What we need is a coverall "common sense act", whereby someone can sit down in cases like this and say "yeah, he spelt the road name wrong but it makes no odds..."
If we introduce one of these can we also allow police officers to clip junior scroates round the ear?
We seem to have a system where kids can just take the piss out of police officers and theres nothing they can do about it. Not only that but if they do arrest them they have to go to the police station for hours and also face the parents who rather than saying to the bratt "wait till I get you home" say "there there dear we'll sue the nasty police for compensation".
madant69 said:
this is the bollocks the police allways spout.
iF YOU BELIVED THEM THEN EVERY ONE GET OFF.
it bolocks the convition rate in magistrats is about 96 % percent.
those that get off on a tenicality are a tiny amount.
compared with those that get found guilty when there inersent.
Dude this is so wrong! I didn't spout this as a fg police spokesman, I spouted it cause it's what I think!!
Sorry for having this opinion but i'll be buggered if I'm not going to say what I think just cause some of you interpret it as me bending over for the man!!
The 96% conviction rate at mags court (seems a bit high to me...maybe I'm just unlucky!) reflects the fact that they try the minor stuff.
The amount of time I have spent waiting around while the prosecution and defence argue the toss over a minor, insignificant point in an attempt to weasel their w@nky client out of a bang-to-rights job is insane.
What difference does it make?? I didn't sign the T27! So f
Bleh...
P.S. Outlaw, you and me are going to meet up and get sh1tfaced together one day, I swear!
i stoped drinking years ago lol
used do a bottel of scotch a day.
must admit i was rather parshell to the barral of cider or two.
and not the stuff they give to the torists.
madant69 said:
With respect BPB you're missing the point entirely.
<snip>
What I'm talking about is a case where you have the evidence but for some stupid reason it's thrown out. That doesn't mean the evidence wasn't gathered, or that the evidence doesn't prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
We may have to disagree on this one, as with I believe it is you who is missing the point.
You may consider the reason cases are thrown out as "stupid" but that is not the case. They are thrown out because they are inadmissable ie because the evidence is illegal.
You may consider the need for a signature on a witness statement or the BiB have to show continuity of evidence as "trival" but I assure you they are there for very real and serious reasons.
A speeding case dismissed because of an unsigned form is not dismissed on a stupid technicallity but is dismissed becuause the evidence is a) illegal and b) doesn't meet the exacting and high standards required in a democratic justice system.
Any suggestion that we should allow these standards to slip (despite the fact they we are allowing it) is a VERY dangerous thing.
You "anger" / frustration that they guy "walked free" should be aimed at the BiB and CPS who failed to gain / present evidence of sufficient quality and certainity to get a conviction.
In summary, if a case is thrown out because the t isn't crossed then so be it because there is a reason the law says the t must be crossed. If you don't want a case thrown out then stick to the law and don't break it - just the same as speeding really.
>> Edited by bluepolarbear on Saturday 29th November 12:02
From the original poster.
http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?p=3705#3705
-------------------------------------------------------
In reference to the post on the Pistonheads website, heres some information you all may like to know. Jeffreyarcher may also like to place this on the other site so some of the comments Ive made also respond to questions raised there.
First someone mentioned I got off on a technicality, another replied this was down to the technicality being "no evidence". Whatever way it was, I say this: Prove me Guilty. Do not expect that someone else will find me guilty just because you got me into Court in the first place. Provide a solid prosecution case without reasonable doubt, BUT supply me with the evidence you will use so that I may reasonably defend myself and throw in doubt where your allegations are not good enough. I will not accept finger pointing as a valid prosecution argument!
Yes it was a mobile camera.
The 30mph speed limit was on a road where each carriageway is wide enough for 1.75 vehicles, so you could overtake if sensible without danger. It is not near a school. There are no houses that open onto that stretch of road. There are fences to back gardens, not gates. there are no parked cars on the road. There is a pavement either side, but between pavement and road there is a large patch of grass. Large enough to park a van on funnily enough without encroaching on the pavement or road! There was one elderly pedestrian on the opposite side of the road, on the pavement when I was driving. (How can I be sure? (1) she was in the photographs the prosecution provided on the day (2) I am very aware of my surroundings when driving (see below for reason) and can remember the job because the flash of the camera made me check all mirrors and double check what was around me.
The road is straight and there is excellent visibility.
The van was not clearly marked and looked like a contractors van on approach hence I did not slow. I WAS doing around the speed alleged but it was safe in my honest opinion (given my standard of driving -see below) to do so.
I drive covert surveillance vehicles in the private sector, (for purposes of investigation of Fraudsters).
I am trained to the same standard of driving as police qualified to drive vehicles under emergency conditions. I was trained to drive by ex-spec ops personnel and ex-police area car drivers to this standard. My training took place over several weeks and was conducted on both public and private land. (not incidentally by these fly by night £3000 for three days learn everything there is to know private schools, but by my employers at the time, who invested their own time effort and experience into bringing me up to spec prior to my even driving on a job for them) There is no recognition of my standard of driving being equal to that of the police as my work is in the private sector and clearly you are only deemed safe if you wear a uniform which is a nonsense.
I was working at the time of the alleged offence. I do not as a rule speed when I am not working. I have no need to. I generally only drive above the speed limit when my work requires it of me although Im not infallible and yes there are occassions I do speed when perhaps I shouldnt such as an empty motorway at 3am in the morning.
and if anyone needs reminding the prosecution believed that everyone should get a fixed penalty instead of a NIP and they could appeal if they felt it was unjust and of course if they have the time and money, therefore intimating that everyone is guilty without even knowing if it was the person driving at the time that gets the fixed penalty. Its this mentality I feel its worth fighting against. Its this mentality that confirms the whole speeding camera issue is a revenue generating issue and not for the genuine concerns of safety.
I thought I would put people in the picture as Im not registered on the other site and Ive seen a few comments made on there. I also note that some people claiming to be Police on this and the other site are looking at these things very black and white and from a negative viewpoint. Yes, we all know you have a job to do, but take a step back. You are not judge and jury. What does your own common sense tell you ?
The main message is that if people think that they are treated unjustly, no one should just accept such treatment (In any aspect of life). You wouldnt put up with bad service in a restaurant, so why put up with bad service in the legal system?
The law quotes in many things, "The test of the reasonable man", which is to say, what a reasonable man would expect in any given situation, yet when it comes to revenue, we are not considered to be reasonable men and women with reasonable common sense and intelligence that enables us to distinguish in our own minds what is safe and what is not.
Its also worth pointing out that on the Autobahn where there are no limits, people can still get pulled over for driving at speed in a manner which is dangerous. SPEED DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EQUATE TO DANGER. This means, that for the most part, the German Police consider that on such stretches of road, the German motorist is quite able to decide for him or herself what is safe and what is not. The ones that cant decide, which are the minority of drivers, get pulled over and subsequently prosecuted. They do not tar all drivers with the same brush, but actually let people think for themselves and only prosecute the "GUILTY" not the "INNOCENT". Its this distinction that our Legal System needs to take notice of. For example: Just because a speed limit is raised by 20mph, would not see everyone driving differently. The majority would not change their driving habits at all, but we cannot be allowed or trusted to decide for ourselves.
When you take on the system and win, its not just a win for yourself. Its a win for every other person who wants to see the law defined and applied fairly. With enough people mounting a challenge the government have no option but to take notice. The Courts have no option but to take notice. The country has no option but to take notice and from definition, a better legal system, a better standard of application of the law and fairer treatment for all is the only outcome.
The Police DO sometimes forget as I have mentioned above that they are NOT the judge and jury. Not everything is Black and White. There is a whole area of Grey that they need to take notice of.
Im not condoning speeding but Im also not saying that speeding in every case is a danger. Im saying that people can morally decide in most cases what is safe and what is unsafe. A 30mph limit in a residential street, may not lend itself to driving at 30mph. With parked cars, a bend in the distance and children playing at the side of the road, most people would slow to 10mph or so. People dont want to kill other people just because the speed limit is 30mph. They use common sense.
As for going to Court, I was worried. Anyone would be. I was on the verge of conceeding days before and I started to question myself plenty over whether I did the right thing by standing up for my rights, but I did it and as soon as I got into the Court I realised the prosecution were not prepared as they really did expect me to fold even up to the point they asked if they could speak to me without the Mags being there. They expected me to fold although they had no specific evidence. They expected me to fold even though they had denied me my rights. They expected me to fold even though they had not given me the oppportunity to prepare a defence. They expected me to accept they would ask to adjourn and didnt make it clear that I could object and ask for it to be dealt with on that day, just because they realised I would not roll over. They expected me to say, "well if you are going to adjourn I will just plead guilty because I dont want to come back a second time". They believed finger pointing was enough by which to convict and they expected me to accept their negligence in presenting a case and roll over like a good sport! They expected me to accept that the law was poorly defined in this area and to forgive it and accept conviction because if the law was worded differently in their favour I may be convicted. I accepted nothing from them and asked them to prove it.
Stick to your guns. They probably only know as much as you, if you do your homework. In most cases because they deal with a variety of actions and you (if you are sensible) will have done your research thoroughly on just this one subject, you may know more than they do!
-------------------------------------------------------
http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?p=3705#3705
-------------------------------------------------------
In reference to the post on the Pistonheads website, heres some information you all may like to know. Jeffreyarcher may also like to place this on the other site so some of the comments Ive made also respond to questions raised there.
First someone mentioned I got off on a technicality, another replied this was down to the technicality being "no evidence". Whatever way it was, I say this: Prove me Guilty. Do not expect that someone else will find me guilty just because you got me into Court in the first place. Provide a solid prosecution case without reasonable doubt, BUT supply me with the evidence you will use so that I may reasonably defend myself and throw in doubt where your allegations are not good enough. I will not accept finger pointing as a valid prosecution argument!
Yes it was a mobile camera.
The 30mph speed limit was on a road where each carriageway is wide enough for 1.75 vehicles, so you could overtake if sensible without danger. It is not near a school. There are no houses that open onto that stretch of road. There are fences to back gardens, not gates. there are no parked cars on the road. There is a pavement either side, but between pavement and road there is a large patch of grass. Large enough to park a van on funnily enough without encroaching on the pavement or road! There was one elderly pedestrian on the opposite side of the road, on the pavement when I was driving. (How can I be sure? (1) she was in the photographs the prosecution provided on the day (2) I am very aware of my surroundings when driving (see below for reason) and can remember the job because the flash of the camera made me check all mirrors and double check what was around me.
The road is straight and there is excellent visibility.
The van was not clearly marked and looked like a contractors van on approach hence I did not slow. I WAS doing around the speed alleged but it was safe in my honest opinion (given my standard of driving -see below) to do so.
I drive covert surveillance vehicles in the private sector, (for purposes of investigation of Fraudsters).
I am trained to the same standard of driving as police qualified to drive vehicles under emergency conditions. I was trained to drive by ex-spec ops personnel and ex-police area car drivers to this standard. My training took place over several weeks and was conducted on both public and private land. (not incidentally by these fly by night £3000 for three days learn everything there is to know private schools, but by my employers at the time, who invested their own time effort and experience into bringing me up to spec prior to my even driving on a job for them) There is no recognition of my standard of driving being equal to that of the police as my work is in the private sector and clearly you are only deemed safe if you wear a uniform which is a nonsense.
I was working at the time of the alleged offence. I do not as a rule speed when I am not working. I have no need to. I generally only drive above the speed limit when my work requires it of me although Im not infallible and yes there are occassions I do speed when perhaps I shouldnt such as an empty motorway at 3am in the morning.
and if anyone needs reminding the prosecution believed that everyone should get a fixed penalty instead of a NIP and they could appeal if they felt it was unjust and of course if they have the time and money, therefore intimating that everyone is guilty without even knowing if it was the person driving at the time that gets the fixed penalty. Its this mentality I feel its worth fighting against. Its this mentality that confirms the whole speeding camera issue is a revenue generating issue and not for the genuine concerns of safety.
I thought I would put people in the picture as Im not registered on the other site and Ive seen a few comments made on there. I also note that some people claiming to be Police on this and the other site are looking at these things very black and white and from a negative viewpoint. Yes, we all know you have a job to do, but take a step back. You are not judge and jury. What does your own common sense tell you ?
The main message is that if people think that they are treated unjustly, no one should just accept such treatment (In any aspect of life). You wouldnt put up with bad service in a restaurant, so why put up with bad service in the legal system?
The law quotes in many things, "The test of the reasonable man", which is to say, what a reasonable man would expect in any given situation, yet when it comes to revenue, we are not considered to be reasonable men and women with reasonable common sense and intelligence that enables us to distinguish in our own minds what is safe and what is not.
Its also worth pointing out that on the Autobahn where there are no limits, people can still get pulled over for driving at speed in a manner which is dangerous. SPEED DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EQUATE TO DANGER. This means, that for the most part, the German Police consider that on such stretches of road, the German motorist is quite able to decide for him or herself what is safe and what is not. The ones that cant decide, which are the minority of drivers, get pulled over and subsequently prosecuted. They do not tar all drivers with the same brush, but actually let people think for themselves and only prosecute the "GUILTY" not the "INNOCENT". Its this distinction that our Legal System needs to take notice of. For example: Just because a speed limit is raised by 20mph, would not see everyone driving differently. The majority would not change their driving habits at all, but we cannot be allowed or trusted to decide for ourselves.
When you take on the system and win, its not just a win for yourself. Its a win for every other person who wants to see the law defined and applied fairly. With enough people mounting a challenge the government have no option but to take notice. The Courts have no option but to take notice. The country has no option but to take notice and from definition, a better legal system, a better standard of application of the law and fairer treatment for all is the only outcome.
The Police DO sometimes forget as I have mentioned above that they are NOT the judge and jury. Not everything is Black and White. There is a whole area of Grey that they need to take notice of.
Im not condoning speeding but Im also not saying that speeding in every case is a danger. Im saying that people can morally decide in most cases what is safe and what is unsafe. A 30mph limit in a residential street, may not lend itself to driving at 30mph. With parked cars, a bend in the distance and children playing at the side of the road, most people would slow to 10mph or so. People dont want to kill other people just because the speed limit is 30mph. They use common sense.
As for going to Court, I was worried. Anyone would be. I was on the verge of conceeding days before and I started to question myself plenty over whether I did the right thing by standing up for my rights, but I did it and as soon as I got into the Court I realised the prosecution were not prepared as they really did expect me to fold even up to the point they asked if they could speak to me without the Mags being there. They expected me to fold although they had no specific evidence. They expected me to fold even though they had denied me my rights. They expected me to fold even though they had not given me the oppportunity to prepare a defence. They expected me to accept they would ask to adjourn and didnt make it clear that I could object and ask for it to be dealt with on that day, just because they realised I would not roll over. They expected me to say, "well if you are going to adjourn I will just plead guilty because I dont want to come back a second time". They believed finger pointing was enough by which to convict and they expected me to accept their negligence in presenting a case and roll over like a good sport! They expected me to accept that the law was poorly defined in this area and to forgive it and accept conviction because if the law was worded differently in their favour I may be convicted. I accepted nothing from them and asked them to prove it.
Stick to your guns. They probably only know as much as you, if you do your homework. In most cases because they deal with a variety of actions and you (if you are sensible) will have done your research thoroughly on just this one subject, you may know more than they do!
-------------------------------------------------------
Without boring the @rse off everyone, Idris Francis's case in the ECHR is contesting a very narrow interpretation of Article 6. Cobntrary to popular opinion, the right to silence is not being removed "wholesale". There is already a precedent which would undermine any Article 6 defence in the case of Procurator Fiscal Dunfermline v Brown. In this case a drink driver was successfully prosecuted in the face of a good defence (the inadmissability of confessions made under duress ie s.172(2)). The prosecution argued successfully that the interests of community safety overrode any Article 6 protection.
Idris Francis's legal team need to demonstrate that there exists a "material difference" between speeding and drink driving to succeed. The ECHR is not likely to make such a distinction and will probably categorise all motoring offences contained within RTA as exempt from Article 6. The defence team's main hope is that the ECHR takes the statistics demonstrating no causal link between excessive speed alone and public endangerment as proof of no community safety issue. Anyone like to take a bet which way the court will fall? The right to silence under Article 6 is not being contested per se as it must surely fail. The test is the very narrow definition of community safety and Article 6 protection.
This law is invidious but the current government in the UK and the prevailing attitudes of European legislators and judiciary are against the application of common sense.
Idris Francis's legal team need to demonstrate that there exists a "material difference" between speeding and drink driving to succeed. The ECHR is not likely to make such a distinction and will probably categorise all motoring offences contained within RTA as exempt from Article 6. The defence team's main hope is that the ECHR takes the statistics demonstrating no causal link between excessive speed alone and public endangerment as proof of no community safety issue. Anyone like to take a bet which way the court will fall? The right to silence under Article 6 is not being contested per se as it must surely fail. The test is the very narrow definition of community safety and Article 6 protection.
This law is invidious but the current government in the UK and the prevailing attitudes of European legislators and judiciary are against the application of common sense.
mactaff said:
There is already a precedent which would undermine any Article 6 defence in the case of Procurator Fiscal Dunfermline v Brown. In this case a drink driver was successfully prosecuted in the face of a good defence (the inadmissability of confessions made under duress ie s.172(2)). The prosecution argued successfully that the interests of community safety overrode any Article 6 protection.
It is precisely this domestic case which Idris Francis is seeking to overturn in ECHR. BTW, Mrs. Brown was advised at the time that she had a good chance if she pursued it. She chose not to.
mactaff said:
Idris Francis's legal team need to demonstrate that there exists a "material difference" between speeding and drink driving to succeed.
No. That was the position in the U.K. for someone trying to show that Stott -v- Brown does not apply in a speeding case. However, JO ruled on that in Yorke & Maudesley, so such an avenue is now closed, unless someone wanted to take it higher. Idris Francis's team can certainly challenge Lord Bingham's (Stott -v- Brown) contention that the provisions of ECHR Art. 6 are 'not absolute'. They can certainly also go down the 'material difference' route as there is now copious evidence that speed cameras are killing people.
mactaff said:
The test is the very narrow definition of community safety and Article 6 protection.
It is not a very narrow issue; it is a fundamental issue. Are the provisions absolute or are they not?
There may also be the narrow issue, but that is secondary to the fundamental issue.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Tuesday 2nd December 13:12
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff