Speeding & S172 Court success today
Discussion
puggit said:
Domster - just how can they close the loophole? Lets not forget under ECHR law you can't incriminate yourself.
I am not entirely sure about the exact legislation, but generally speaking loopholes tend to get closed. The problem is that the new legislation normally has one or two new ones in it, or some renegade judge lets someone off and creates some interesting case law precedent. A completely watertight legal system doesn't exist.
The ECHR thing is interesting. I'm not sure the UK Govt realised the ramifications of the EU in respect to law when we signed up, LOL. It is a headache for UK legislators. Laws are more effective the more 'tailored' they are to a country and its people - one law for all across Europe can create problems. However, the 'can't incriminate yourself' law seems a reasonable one. It just shows that NIPs need a little box on them with 'no comment' next to it
Of course, the flipside is that forward facing truvelos which allow better driver identification could become more favoured by police forces.
madant69 said:
Just a point. 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.
Unfortunately these are the same sort of tricks that are used continually by rapists, murderers, drug smugglers, illegal immigrants, drink drivers (endless list).
As soon as a minor procedural chink appears ANYWHERE, you've as good as won, because normal magistrates are not well versed enough in law to handle case of this nature imho. A stipe would have had none of it.
Although I applaud the mans intelligence and research and admit to get off a speeding ticket is a very minor thing (and a small victory to those who are unable to spot cameras), it just reiterates to me that the legal system needs tightening up before it comes apart at the seams.
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?
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.
plodbucket said:
So, you got away with speeding on a technicality then?
Your assuming he was speeding. Innocent until proven guilty?
Where is your evidence? The prosecutor had none.
The Magistrates deemed he had no case to answer, therefore he 'got away' with nothing as there was nothing to get away with.
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?
SInce he wasn't charge with dangerous driving he was driving safely.
As long as he's safe I don't care how fast he goes!
The existing loophole is almost closed and this man was extremely fortunate given the most recent case law to have "got away" with this. The magistrates and the prosecutor were utterly clueless as the judgements he handed over actually contain cast iron rebuttals to his defence in case law! A switched on magistrate, clerk or prosecutor would have easily secured a conviction.
There is a lot of pub talk about points of law but those who have their cases dismissed these days are succeeding by wearing down incompetent law enforcers or making prosecution too costly. The Idris Francis case should clarify s.172 and the inevitable appeal to ECHR will decide the final result.
PACE specifically allows for voluntary confessions without a caution in more than one section (ss.76(1), 78(2) and 82(1) apply), unsigned NIPs can be admitted as evidence except in the limited circumstances of dpp v Yorke & Mawdesley. The legislation is a mess and the motivations behind it are unconstitutional and venal - good law this ain't.
The best course of action is to take the unsigned NIP route as far as you can and if the court summons arrives get a solicitor to handle your case from there. If dpp v Francis results in successful prosecutions under s. 172, ask for your court hearing to be deferred until the ECHR clarifies european law.
There is a lot of pub talk about points of law but those who have their cases dismissed these days are succeeding by wearing down incompetent law enforcers or making prosecution too costly. The Idris Francis case should clarify s.172 and the inevitable appeal to ECHR will decide the final result.
PACE specifically allows for voluntary confessions without a caution in more than one section (ss.76(1), 78(2) and 82(1) apply), unsigned NIPs can be admitted as evidence except in the limited circumstances of dpp v Yorke & Mawdesley. The legislation is a mess and the motivations behind it are unconstitutional and venal - good law this ain't.
The best course of action is to take the unsigned NIP route as far as you can and if the court summons arrives get a solicitor to handle your case from there. If dpp v Francis results in successful prosecutions under s. 172, ask for your court hearing to be deferred until the ECHR clarifies european law.
Swilly said:
So, you got away with speeding on a technicality then?
Your assuming he was speeding. Innocent until proven guilty?
Where is your evidence? The prosecutor had none.
The Magistrates deemed he had no case to answer, therefore he 'got away' with nothing as there was nothing to get away with.
In legal terms, correct.
In real terms, likely to be very incorrect.
Just because something is unproven doesn't mean that a crime wasn't committed. It just means that the offender wasn't caught and punished. I am not a 'murderer' until I am convicted for murder but does that make me a nicer guy if I get away with killing someone?
So in this case a crime wasn't committed. 57mph was plucked out of thin air and it was all a big conspiracy against an innocent motorist doing 30mph
Come on guys, get real. He got off on a technicality and fair play. 
But being pedantic is a little bit petty compared to some of the other issues here. domster said:
In legal terms, correct.
In real terms, likely to be very incorrect.
Just because something is unproven doesn't mean that a crime wasn't committed. It just means that the offender wasn't caught and punished. I am not a 'murderer' until I am convicted for murder but does that make me a nicer guy if I get away with killing someone?
So in this case a crime wasn't committed. 57mph was plucked out of thin air and it was all a big conspiracy against an innocent motorist doing 30mph
Can this approach also be applied to alleged rapists, teachers accused of sexual assualt/assault, or any other crime that the accused gets away with.......on a technicality, which happens to be that technically there is/was no evidence.
Wasnt it the actual Magistrate that stated the prosecution had no evidence of speeding.
There are literally thousands of cases each year where the CPS and/or the Police believe they know who the culprits are when an offence is known to have been committed. However, no summons is ever issued due to lack of proper evidence. The CPS/Police are not able to say, for example, "we believe that you committed that burgulary/rape/theft and if you don't confess we'll charge you with failing to confess". It would be entirely unacceptable if they were able to do this.
But, that is what happens with, and only with, current motoring law as it applies to cash-cameras. Why should the requierment be allowed to apply only for this?
In this case the CPS did not have any evidence as to who committed the offence without self-incrimination which the suspect did not have to provide in law.
It it suggested that human rights should now be overturned and that people should be forced to confess to any crime or offence under threat of a penalty for not doing so just because a third party beilieves that there is a strong probability they are guilty? Surely not!
But, that is what happens with, and only with, current motoring law as it applies to cash-cameras. Why should the requierment be allowed to apply only for this?
In this case the CPS did not have any evidence as to who committed the offence without self-incrimination which the suspect did not have to provide in law.
It it suggested that human rights should now be overturned and that people should be forced to confess to any crime or offence under threat of a penalty for not doing so just because a third party beilieves that there is a strong probability they are guilty? Surely not!
domster said:
No evidence just means you can't PROVE a crime.
It MAY still have taken place.
It MAY NOT have taken place.
And the law isnt about what may or may not, but what can be proven, through legally obtained evidence and in a legal manner, DID occur.
(I watched Justice DEED last night m'lud)
I'm not sure who is suggesting that.
The ECHR ruling on self-incrimination is a good one and reasonable in a democracy. It would be dodgy to get rid of it wholesale.
The best route for legislators would be to let people chose guilty or not guilty on a NIP, and then get a signed statement from them if they plead not guilty.
Then the CPS review the evidence. If there isn't enough etc. then the case fails. Simple.
If an untrue written statement could be proven there may be another offence added, perjury or perverting the course of justice etc.
I dunno, people have been lying to the police for ages and there's a lot of dodgy justice floating around, but this isn't rocket science. The fact is that the driver in this case got off because the CPS were idiots and the current NIP system is flawed.
The ECHR ruling on self-incrimination is a good one and reasonable in a democracy. It would be dodgy to get rid of it wholesale.
The best route for legislators would be to let people chose guilty or not guilty on a NIP, and then get a signed statement from them if they plead not guilty.
Then the CPS review the evidence. If there isn't enough etc. then the case fails. Simple.
If an untrue written statement could be proven there may be another offence added, perjury or perverting the course of justice etc.
I dunno, people have been lying to the police for ages and there's a lot of dodgy justice floating around, but this isn't rocket science. The fact is that the driver in this case got off because the CPS were idiots and the current NIP system is flawed.
Swilly said:
No evidence just means you can't PROVE a crime.
It MAY still have taken place.
It MAY NOT have taken place.
And the law isnt about what may or may not, but what can be proven, through legally obtained evidence and in a legal manner, DID occur.
(I watched Justice DEED last night m'lud)
That is why I say that it MAY
Because it may not have as well. Only one person knows if it did - but that is why we have juries in this country (I don't watch Bodie in a wig but this may feature in John Deed
). If concrete evidence is not available, probability and circumstantial evidence will come into play. Just as our fellow here may not have been speeding, so the Soham kids may have been involved in an unfortunate 'double accident' in Mr Huntley's bathroom
Good points tho'
Domster, how could you ask for a plea of guilty or not guilty then get a signed statement if the plea is 'not guilty'. After the plea, and indeed before, all suspects have a right not to be required to self-incriminate, so no signed statement would be forthcoming. That's the whole point.
The Huntley case was mentioned. He has been charged because other strong evidence existed, not because there were deaths and he confessed and that is the only evidence and nothing else linked him, or so I presume. In, say, a rape case there is normally DNA evidence, plus evidence of violence, etc., not just a forced confession. If there isn't the CPS do not usually proceed, even though they may believe the accused to be guilty.
In a speed/cash camera case there is the photograph of a number plate with an apparent speed indicated from the electronic measuring gizmo on it. The vehicle is registered to a person or company. There is no evidence as to who was driving - it could be anyone, even if the vehicle is only insured for one person (most people can drive any vehicle not owned by them on their own policies).
There is absolutely no other evidence unless the driver chooses to confess, or is forced to confess under the threat of being prosecuted for not confessing. An unsigned NIP is not a confession.
That is the situation and no-one should ever be convicted of anything without evidence.
The Huntley case was mentioned. He has been charged because other strong evidence existed, not because there were deaths and he confessed and that is the only evidence and nothing else linked him, or so I presume. In, say, a rape case there is normally DNA evidence, plus evidence of violence, etc., not just a forced confession. If there isn't the CPS do not usually proceed, even though they may believe the accused to be guilty.
In a speed/cash camera case there is the photograph of a number plate with an apparent speed indicated from the electronic measuring gizmo on it. The vehicle is registered to a person or company. There is no evidence as to who was driving - it could be anyone, even if the vehicle is only insured for one person (most people can drive any vehicle not owned by them on their own policies).
There is absolutely no other evidence unless the driver chooses to confess, or is forced to confess under the threat of being prosecuted for not confessing. An unsigned NIP is not a confession.
That is the situation and no-one should ever be convicted of anything without evidence.
Cooperman said:
Domster, how could you ask for a plea of guilty or not guilty then get a signed statement if the plea is 'not guilty'. After the plea, and indeed before, all suspects have a right not to be required to self-incriminate, so no signed statement would be forthcoming. That's the whole point.
It was just an idle suggestion, I'm not up on my legal process. Surely a statement doesn't need to self incriminate tho' - a statement could be 'no comment'. Besides, I'm not sure how easy it is to incriminate yourself simply by putting your 'innocent' version of events across ie "I was driving in my car on the A40 at 30mph". It just lets a defendant put their side of the story down in writing, if they wish to do so. They could file no comment if they thought they'd put their foot in it. Don't signed statements feature heavily already in the legal world?
Cooperman said:
The Huntley case was mentioned. He has been charged because other strong evidence existed, not because there were deaths and he confessed and that is the only evidence and nothing else linked him, or so I presume. In, say, a rape case there is normally DNA evidence, plus evidence of violence, etc., not just a forced confession. If there isn't the CPS do not usually proceed, even though they may believe the accused to be guilty.
In a speed/cash camera case there is the photograph of a number plate with an apparent speed indicated from the electronic measuring gizmo on it. The vehicle is registered to a person or company. There is no evidence as to who was driving - it could be anyone, even if the vehicle is only insured for one person (most people can drive any vehicle not owned by them on their own policies).
I was merely using that to illustrate a point and it is a bit of a can of worms. Evidence on a rape case will be more actively pursued and the CPS are more likely to try and get a conviction, so they are not balanced offenses. However, my point is still that if you applied the 'reasonable man test' or a jury of 12 right-minded people to the circumstantial evidence, they could possibly suggest that if your car was speeding in a certain area and you couldn't account for your movements then you MAY have been driving at the time - whether beyond all reasonable doubt or not is another matter.
Cooperman said:
There is absolutely no other evidence unless the driver chooses to confess, or is forced to confess under the threat of being prosecuted for not confessing.
That is why Truvelos exist, but you are right - the evidence is a lot more dubious than in other cases. I completely agree with the threat of prosecution for not confessing point, and have done all along. But if you don't want to enter a guilty plea/confess, then why not plead NOT GUILTY and sign the form? Then procedure could be followed and you could sort things properly (inc a 'no comment' statement if you so wish) instead of relying on some loophole and the CPS to feck things up.
Cooperman said:
An unsigned NIP is not a confession.
That is the situation and no-one should ever be convicted of anything without evidence.
No one said that an unsigned NIP IS a confession. That is why I mentioned having plea boxes on one - so you could confess if you wanted, and plead not guilty if you want to as well.
outlaw 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 f
g 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
g what?!? The guy was 3 times over the limit!!! Etc etc etc. Bleh...
P.S. Outlaw, you and me are going to meet up and get sh1tfaced together one day, I swear!
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?
Mine wouldn't. Its the job of the police to collect sufficient evidence to show that a) a crime was commited and b) the accussed beyond resonable doubts did it. It is the job of the CPS to present this either to judges or to a jury and convince them that a) a crime was committed and b) the accussed beyond resonable doubts did it.
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. You want a system were the police only have to show that the accused may have been at the scene the CPS show that its plausible that the accused did it..
The standard of justice in this country is being eroded, we no longer have right to silence, double jeopadry, we have laws where you have to confess or face a high penalty of not confessing, laws where you are assumed guilty unless you can prove your innocence, laws where you can be indefinately detained without trial, stopped and searched without a warrent. If you as jo public suspect someone is committing some offences you are guilty of an offence if you don't tell the police. You can get 6mths inside for wearing a tshirt with the wrong slogan on the front of it!!
In 1930 Germany was a democratic country in 1940 it wasn't - the laws allowing the above were exactly the laws the nazi party introduced to wrestle democracy from the people.
>> Edited by bluepolarbear on Friday 28th November 19:21
mactaff said:
The existing loophole is almost closed and this man was extremely fortunate given the most recent case law to have "got away" with this. The magistrates and the prosecutor were utterly clueless as the judgements he handed over actually contain cast iron rebuttals to his defence in case law! A switched on magistrate, clerk or prosecutor would have easily secured a conviction.
There is a lot of pub talk about points of law but those who have their cases dismissed these days are succeeding by wearing down incompetent law enforcers or making prosecution too costly. The Idris Francis case should clarify s.172 and the inevitable appeal to ECHR will decide the final result.
PACE specifically allows for voluntary confessions without a caution in more than one section (ss.76(1), 78(2) and 82(1) apply), unsigned NIPs can be admitted as evidence except in the limited circumstances of dpp v Yorke & Mawdesley. The legislation is a mess and the motivations behind it are unconstitutional and venal - good law this ain't.
The best course of action is to take the unsigned NIP route as far as you can and if the court summons arrives get a solicitor to handle your case from there. If dpp v Francis results in successful prosecutions under s. 172, ask for your court hearing to be deferred until the ECHR clarifies european law.
So metcalf you feel going down the unsigned NIP route is definatly bad idea then.....??
ST
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff