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.
>> All.
Just a note of clarifaication; I am sorry if I did not make it clear in my original post. I was not the accused in this case. However, the post appeared genuine and I thought it worthy of a wider audience, particularly, as I said, as there has been quite a bit of negative news on the subject recently, and to give heart to thoses already 'in the system'.
>>plodbucket
As one who obviously believes that motorists, alone, should be the subject of automatic convictions without any evidence, perhaps you can expalian why the CPS usually always have to be dragged kicking and screaming to provide the evidence, particularly where video evidence is involved (although it appeared not to be in this case)?
The inescapable conclusion is that in the majority of cases it does not show what they say it shows; why else would they be so determined to suppress it, particularly, as in this case, it may result in a case being lost?
Just a note of clarifaication; I am sorry if I did not make it clear in my original post. I was not the accused in this case. However, the post appeared genuine and I thought it worthy of a wider audience, particularly, as I said, as there has been quite a bit of negative news on the subject recently, and to give heart to thoses already 'in the system'.
>>plodbucket
As one who obviously believes that motorists, alone, should be the subject of automatic convictions without any evidence, perhaps you can expalian why the CPS usually always have to be dragged kicking and screaming to provide the evidence, particularly where video evidence is involved (although it appeared not to be in this case)?
The inescapable conclusion is that in the majority of cases it does not show what they say it shows; why else would they be so determined to suppress it, particularly, as in this case, it may result in a case being lost?
madant69 said:
He didn't win the case, the CPS lost it. If he'd have been served the evidence and given time to prepare the case, he would have been stuffed.
Accused said:
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.
IMHO, that was the point in this case (speeding), because there is no comment about whether they decided whether the other evidence was admissable or not, or whether an adjournment would be allowed or not. Therefore, IMO, it was not about the evidence not being served.
Perhaps you can answer the question I posed to plodbucket, i.e. "perhaps you can explain why the CPS usually always have to be dragged kicking and screaming to provide the evidence, particularly where video evidence is involved (although it appeared not to be in this case)?
The inescapable conclusion is that in the majority of cases it does not show what they say it shows; why else would they be so determined to suppress it, particularly, as it (the suppression) may result in a case being lost?"
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Friday 28th November 09:05
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!
-------------------------------------------------------
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