Keep quiet and we'll quash your conviction.......
Discussion
http://www.epost.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=displayContent&sourceNode=144919&contentPK=13155634&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch
KEEP QUIET, AND WE'LL QUASH YOUR CONVICTION
11:02 - 08 September 2005
Motorists who were wrongly convicted of speeding at a speed camera site near Bristol could get their convictions quashed. A group of 13 motorists who are fighting the conviction have been offered a deal by the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership - the organisation which runs the cameras.
If they settle, it could have ramifications for more than 200 other drivers who were also fined for breaking the speed limit on a stretch of the A370 near Flax Bourton.
But one of the group - Richard Barclay from Backwell - is annoyed the settlement includes a gagging clause and that he would be saddled with his own legal costs.
Last year, Bryan Dunthorne, from Lockleaze, and John Hatton, from Weston-super-Mare, both successfully overturned their speeding convictions brought against them after they were snapped outside the village near the end of the Long Ashton bypass.
The partnership is offering to remove penalty points from the licences and return fines if the motorists involved bear the legal costs and there is no publicity about the settlement.
The settlement would take place between the partnership and the group to avoid a judicial review.
Mr Barclay, one of the group being represented by Bath-based solicitors Simon West, appealed to drivers who suspected they were wrongly convicted to come forw a rd .
Mr Barclay, who was given three points on his licence and fined £60 after being caught by a mobile unit in September 2003 on the Long Ashton bypass near Flax Bourton, said: "I thought it was disgraceful when I heard they would only agree to settle with us if they had no publicity.
"I was told by my solicitor that in order to proceed I will have to pay more legal fees and agree to this gagging order.
"One of the reasons I am doing this is out of principle, not just to get the £60 back, as I have already had to fork out a lot of money to get this far. They have already admitted they got it wrong in other cases.
"It's as if they are trying to deter people from going on with the court action. If I was fighting this on my own I would be facing a bill for more than £1,000 in legal costs, and the three points will be off my licence in a year anyway.
"I have said I am not prepared to go ahead with the case unless they lift the ban on publicity.
"Others from the group of 13 have also decided not to continue under those terms." Simon West Solicitors say they are still waiting for instructions from their clients about whether they want to make a settlement with the partnership, or apply for a judicial review.
That will mean the process of law under which the drivers were convicted will be examined.
In a letter to Mr Barclay, Simon West said: "The terms of their agreement would be that each side bear its own costs and there be no p u bl i c i t y. " It is usual for a settlement to go ahead without publicity.
Mr Barclay said: "I feel that it is a simple matter of them giving us our money back in the same way a shop would if you were overcharged.
"There's no grey area, it seems straightforward enough. They got it wrong and should correct their mistake, but instead want to hide behind smoke and mirrors.
"What galls me even more is that I was caught by two police officers operating a mobile speed camera, and I wonder whether it is the best use of the constabulary's resources. " Dave Gollicker, spokesman for the Safety Camera Partnership, said: "We cannot make a comment about this because the legal action is still going on."
KEEP QUIET, AND WE'LL QUASH YOUR CONVICTION
11:02 - 08 September 2005
Motorists who were wrongly convicted of speeding at a speed camera site near Bristol could get their convictions quashed. A group of 13 motorists who are fighting the conviction have been offered a deal by the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership - the organisation which runs the cameras.
If they settle, it could have ramifications for more than 200 other drivers who were also fined for breaking the speed limit on a stretch of the A370 near Flax Bourton.
But one of the group - Richard Barclay from Backwell - is annoyed the settlement includes a gagging clause and that he would be saddled with his own legal costs.
Last year, Bryan Dunthorne, from Lockleaze, and John Hatton, from Weston-super-Mare, both successfully overturned their speeding convictions brought against them after they were snapped outside the village near the end of the Long Ashton bypass.
The partnership is offering to remove penalty points from the licences and return fines if the motorists involved bear the legal costs and there is no publicity about the settlement.
The settlement would take place between the partnership and the group to avoid a judicial review.
Mr Barclay, one of the group being represented by Bath-based solicitors Simon West, appealed to drivers who suspected they were wrongly convicted to come forw a rd .
Mr Barclay, who was given three points on his licence and fined £60 after being caught by a mobile unit in September 2003 on the Long Ashton bypass near Flax Bourton, said: "I thought it was disgraceful when I heard they would only agree to settle with us if they had no publicity.
"I was told by my solicitor that in order to proceed I will have to pay more legal fees and agree to this gagging order.
"One of the reasons I am doing this is out of principle, not just to get the £60 back, as I have already had to fork out a lot of money to get this far. They have already admitted they got it wrong in other cases.
"It's as if they are trying to deter people from going on with the court action. If I was fighting this on my own I would be facing a bill for more than £1,000 in legal costs, and the three points will be off my licence in a year anyway.
"I have said I am not prepared to go ahead with the case unless they lift the ban on publicity.
"Others from the group of 13 have also decided not to continue under those terms." Simon West Solicitors say they are still waiting for instructions from their clients about whether they want to make a settlement with the partnership, or apply for a judicial review.
That will mean the process of law under which the drivers were convicted will be examined.
In a letter to Mr Barclay, Simon West said: "The terms of their agreement would be that each side bear its own costs and there be no p u bl i c i t y. " It is usual for a settlement to go ahead without publicity.
Mr Barclay said: "I feel that it is a simple matter of them giving us our money back in the same way a shop would if you were overcharged.
"There's no grey area, it seems straightforward enough. They got it wrong and should correct their mistake, but instead want to hide behind smoke and mirrors.
"What galls me even more is that I was caught by two police officers operating a mobile speed camera, and I wonder whether it is the best use of the constabulary's resources. " Dave Gollicker, spokesman for the Safety Camera Partnership, said: "We cannot make a comment about this because the legal action is still going on."
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff