should i have hired a solicitor?
Discussion
Well I was not going to have any more input on this thread, especially as both DVD and DeMolay were doing an admirable job of debunking the defence flights of fancy, but after Iolaire’s self satisfied round robin e-mail pointing out how he had given a full reply, and especially after the unworthy post about DVD on page 6 of the motorway breakdown thread www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=6&f=10&t=136225&h=0 I’d just like to point out a few observations.
Well I have read this thread through and cannot see anything which confirms the following
Except for an assumption in a previous post
So an assumption is now a fact is it? Is there some other information not available to the rest of us ?
Then on another subject
Again I cannot see anywhere where anyone has advised Shoodie to plead guilty apart from a one liner from beaconbuoy and the context of that post is rather unclear.
What people (BiB and others) have advised is that this is how the system works. If you want to contest the accuracy of the recorded figures then these are some of the factors you have to consider in addition to the sworn testimony of Shoodie and wife. It is then up to the beak to decide the balance of the evidence.
Well as I see it the only person who can give facts about the incident is shoodie. He was on the A30 near Exeter. He was accompanied by his wife and driving at a claimed 90-95 according to two witnesses albeit neither independent. He was clocked by vascar at 107.2 mph by an officer whose car on a bridge over the A30 was not fully visible to Shoodie. Timing was between white marks. Weather dry sunny evening. That is about all we know, only from one side of the equation as usual.
What we do not know is whether even 90 was appropriate considering road and traffic conditions at the time, never mind 107. We do not know about the visibility of shoodie from the vantage point of plod. We don’t even know the limit in force from the information given, it has just been assumed to be NSL.
All the rest of the bluster is based on assumptions assumptions assumptions. I really have not got the patience to list all the statements made to support the arguments which are merely based on assumptions.
[Lock stock mode]
Assumption is the mother of all
ups.
[/Lock Stock mode]
There will not be a bib or mag who has not heard at one point the accused spilling tears, swearing on their mother’s eyesight and their baby’s life that they are innocent. Only to undergo the Jekyll and Hyde transformation when faced with the evidence and immediately spill their guts, coughing to the offence and twenty seven others. Cynical? Moi?
Shoodie: if you feel this prosecution evidence is wrong, then fight for it, gather as much evidence as you can. If there are timing marks on the road, find the location and spend some time by visiting the site, get up onto the bridge in question and see it from plod’s eyes. You might just find something to your advantage.
It will not be easy, and you have a mountain to climb, but tell the truth, and it will never vary, because you will have lived it in real time, and the story will never vary, because that is what it is, the truth.
Interested to hear the outcome though, good luck. Plea bargaining is an interesting idea.
Iolaire on 8.12.04 said:
The extra effort required in answering most of these questions because people do not read the posts correctly becomes increasingly irritating.
Well I have read this thread through and cannot see anything which confirms the following
Iolaire on 19.12.04 said:
Due to the fact that he was positioned at, or very close to the first datum point for the calculation, he could not have clear sight of the second one,
Except for an assumption in a previous post
Iolaire on 7.12.04 said:
Let's assume the officer had his vehicle exactly in line with the first datum point
So an assumption is now a fact is it? Is there some other information not available to the rest of us ?
Then on another subject
Iolaire on 8.12.04 said:
If Shoodie had taken the advice of the BiB over this matter, he would be sitting with no driving licence right now and a conviction.
Again I cannot see anywhere where anyone has advised Shoodie to plead guilty apart from a one liner from beaconbuoy and the context of that post is rather unclear.
What people (BiB and others) have advised is that this is how the system works. If you want to contest the accuracy of the recorded figures then these are some of the factors you have to consider in addition to the sworn testimony of Shoodie and wife. It is then up to the beak to decide the balance of the evidence.
Iolaire on 20.12.04 said:
When every specific fact is taken into account IN THIS CASE
Well as I see it the only person who can give facts about the incident is shoodie. He was on the A30 near Exeter. He was accompanied by his wife and driving at a claimed 90-95 according to two witnesses albeit neither independent. He was clocked by vascar at 107.2 mph by an officer whose car on a bridge over the A30 was not fully visible to Shoodie. Timing was between white marks. Weather dry sunny evening. That is about all we know, only from one side of the equation as usual.
What we do not know is whether even 90 was appropriate considering road and traffic conditions at the time, never mind 107. We do not know about the visibility of shoodie from the vantage point of plod. We don’t even know the limit in force from the information given, it has just been assumed to be NSL.
All the rest of the bluster is based on assumptions assumptions assumptions. I really have not got the patience to list all the statements made to support the arguments which are merely based on assumptions.
[Lock stock mode]
Assumption is the mother of all
ups. [/Lock Stock mode]
There will not be a bib or mag who has not heard at one point the accused spilling tears, swearing on their mother’s eyesight and their baby’s life that they are innocent. Only to undergo the Jekyll and Hyde transformation when faced with the evidence and immediately spill their guts, coughing to the offence and twenty seven others. Cynical? Moi?
Shoodie: if you feel this prosecution evidence is wrong, then fight for it, gather as much evidence as you can. If there are timing marks on the road, find the location and spend some time by visiting the site, get up onto the bridge in question and see it from plod’s eyes. You might just find something to your advantage.
It will not be easy, and you have a mountain to climb, but tell the truth, and it will never vary, because you will have lived it in real time, and the story will never vary, because that is what it is, the truth.
Interested to hear the outcome though, good luck. Plea bargaining is an interesting idea.
I haven't had a chance to read through the full discussion yet but it certainly does seem interesting.
Shoodie, I got 'caught' on exactly the same road (A30), by exactly the same method (VASCAR) doing almost exactly the same speed (107.3 mph). This happened on the A30 near Temple/Bodmin.
Lesson number 1 to learn from is that the A30 is really being cracked down on for speeding at the moment. I've been visiting my girlfriend who lives in Cornwall for years now and the police presence has certainly increased lately.
The police were hiding behind a hedgerow and I only saw them as I passed them, they pulled me over and took me into the car where they showed me the speed on the VASCAR device, cautioned me etc. and sent me on my way. As far as I know, there was no video evidence.
I went to court, with a barrister, pled guilty and came away with 6 points and £400 fine. Prior to this I had a clean licence.
I gained quite a bit of information through the whole experience which I will gladly post if you like but it seems that you're not going to submit a straight forward guilty plea.
I'd be very interested to hear how you get on as I was quite sure I wasn't doing 107.3 as claimed, although I admit I was driving in excess of the posted limit.
All the best,
Steve
Shoodie, I got 'caught' on exactly the same road (A30), by exactly the same method (VASCAR) doing almost exactly the same speed (107.3 mph). This happened on the A30 near Temple/Bodmin.
Lesson number 1 to learn from is that the A30 is really being cracked down on for speeding at the moment. I've been visiting my girlfriend who lives in Cornwall for years now and the police presence has certainly increased lately.
The police were hiding behind a hedgerow and I only saw them as I passed them, they pulled me over and took me into the car where they showed me the speed on the VASCAR device, cautioned me etc. and sent me on my way. As far as I know, there was no video evidence.
I went to court, with a barrister, pled guilty and came away with 6 points and £400 fine. Prior to this I had a clean licence.
I gained quite a bit of information through the whole experience which I will gladly post if you like but it seems that you're not going to submit a straight forward guilty plea.
I'd be very interested to hear how you get on as I was quite sure I wasn't doing 107.3 as claimed, although I admit I was driving in excess of the posted limit.
All the best,
Steve
I am posting this reply on here also as it's directly relevant to this post and is very important.
IOLAIRE said:
How to deal with you people?; that is the question.
I am going to refrain from slipping into insulting diatribe that quite clearly is the norm for all you "legal experts", complete with silly, wee drawings; an attempt, no doubt, at calculated distraction from the real issues, because this is now no longer funny in any respect; it has become deadly serious.
I have in this, and many other posts, explained the concepts that I have utilised to help drivers defend themselves against the worst excesses of the law, perpetrated initially of course by traffic police officers.
The manner in which I carried this out was done in such a way that a child could understand it; I will therefore waste no further time defending myself against people who constantly try and defend and sustain a system that in morality is indefensible, and then further would encourage the victims of this system to simply throw in the towel in acceptance and "take it on the chin". Instead I will, for the last time, explain the motifs behind my assertions and principles.
I have made many relationships with solicitors over the years, including several members of this site and, with the exception of DeMolay , have been in harmony with every single one, to a man.
Now I am perhaps being generous when I refer to DeMolay as a solicitor, but of course my assumptions on this are hampered by his insistent anonimity.
I suspect that he may even be an ex-traffic cop, who knows!!
The solicitors I have known and worked with have used the principles I detail here to defend themselves and their clients in Road Traffic cases, mostly successfully.
Mungo has inferred that my knowledge of the law is limited because I am a "motor engineer".
If you think that that is all I am Mungo, then you quite clearly have not read my posts or understand nothing of what I have written, or are simply seriously myopic.
I have, on three occasions in my life, resisted the temptation to become a solicitor, the main reason being the constraints that would then be placed on me by the Law Society.
But I have, for over thirty years now, studied the law in several countries, the most significant for me being Greece, where the ancient principles that form the basis of Western Law and cultures can still be studied; NOT how to become a lawyer in three easy steps, but what the law is actually about.
There exists an ability within people which, like mechanical sympathy or artistic ability, is either in someone at birth or is not: this is the principle of natural justice, and it is clear to me now that it is inside some of us much, much more powerfully than others.
It is the thing that enables some of us to become for example Traffic Wardens, wandering on quite happily whistling our favourite tune whilst handing out tickets by the hundreds; whilst others can see the gross injustice and clear immorality in such a thing.
I believe now that to be a Traffic Officer in today’s environment and go about your duties WITHOUT QUESTIONING THEM, and I strongly emphasize this, requires a lack of natural justice or, and I suspect this is nearer the truth, the ability to suppress the emotion as it rises in your conscience, and “just get on with your job”.
DVD is a man of exceptional ability blessed with what appears to be total recall, i.e. a photographic memory, something I desperately envy him for!
But sadly, at the end of the day he is still a traffic cop, trained to prosecute motorists.
Some of you seem to think that I have a personal hatred of traffic police or I am on a vendetta against them; nothing could be further from the truth. My uncle was a traffic cop in the fifties and sixties: a man of fearless ability who drove a Mark 7 Jaguar, a 34 cwt. monster with drum brakes and crossply tyres. He was tireless in his pursuit of real criminals and idiotic drivers and I admired him enormously. But he must be turning in his grave right now at what is going on in the enforcement services today.
I read much about the BiB on the site giving advice and helping people, but I have to say that the help that is given is simply to outline perhaps a particular regulation or process but not the defence of being prosecuted; that is what most people want to see, because their sense of natural justice is being assaulted, they feel as if they have been badly treated, BECAUSE the law is being applied in a manner that is unjust.
It is of no consequence to that individual that they may technically be guilty of an offence, it is the fact that the law will pursue them, a normally law abiding citizen, to the ends of the earth to gain a conviction for speeding in a criminal court, and in most cases where all factors considered, their speed was wholly appropriate and safe.
And yet there is absolutely no recognition or consideration of any of these factors, you are over the speed limit, you’re done, that’s it!
The two cases that are under discussion now both involve drivers being prosecuted purely on the verbal testimony of one police officer, and this is extremely prevalent in England, but does not happen in Scotland; in Scotland TRUE corroboration is required between two officers, or one officer and another witness.
Whilst the law is still desperately flawed, Scotland is world renowned for its sense of natural justice in the courts, something tragically that is disappearing.
Let’s examine what is happening.
DVD very kindly quoted the regulation that governs how the evidence is demonstrated to a court namely Section 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
In this Act we read :-
A person prosecuted for a speeding offence shall not be liable to be convicted SOLELY on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding the specified limit.
In Scotland all prosecutions are carried out using the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act, which introduces further legislation into the presentation and quality of evidence.
What is vital here is that this Reg actually states that the evidence of one officer is NOT acceptable. The reality is of course, and here I would wholeheartedly agree with DeMolay and indeed anyone who says that in England the lower courts will convict on the evidence of one police officer alone, which of course is completely contrary to the above reg. but is being done virtually on a daily basis.
For the last time, THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!!
The inference here is that the corroboration necessary to substantiate the claim from the officer comes from his use, in these cases of either VASCAR or a calibrated speedometer; but in BOTH these cases, there is no MATERIAL evidence of either of these procedures, so in reality no corroboration exists, it is still just the police officers word; are we all grasping this?
The police officer makes a claim verbally in court that Mr X was speeding, to corroborate this he needs to demonstrate to the court that he used a device as a means of accurately measuring that speed. In both these cases HE CANNOT DO SO, he can only, once again, SAY that he did. There is therefore NO corroboration.
If he made his verbal statement and then turned to a VCR and talked the court through the video of Mr Xs vehicle passing the VASCAR points and the speed shown to be accurately calculated then you have instant corroboration. You have the officer’s sworn statement as one piece of evidence, and the video tape as the corroborative evidence.
Once again, nothing short of this is acceptable, I don’t care how many magistrates or BiBs think it is.
Let’s examine what the Right Honourable the Lord McCluskey, Senator of the College of Justice, has to say about evidence.
“The facts are not the evidence. The evidence given on oath may enable the judge to hold facts proved by the evidence; but the facts are effectively a creation or composition of the court, using the material provided by the evidence. Facts may be established in various ways, for example, by formal admission or agreement or by inference from other facts or by the effect of a presumption or from judicial knowledge, as well as the normal method of the court accepting as a fact that which a reliable witness swears he observed.
But, when constructing or making findings in fact, the decision to hold a particular ‘fact’ established must be based upon a consideration of the whole evidence bearing upon that ‘fact’.”
It is clear from this that the acceptance of the single officer’s testimony in Shoodie’s case that this would be relative to:- "the court accepting as a fact that which a reliable witness swears he observed."
If Shoodie decided to accept for example the VASCAR test certificate that the prosecution have issued as being correct and reliable it would come under the auspice of:- "by formal admission or agreement."
But then we come to a dead stop, because we have a very simple but nonetheless fatal problem with His Lordship’s last paragraph,
"But, when constructing or making findings in fact, the decision to hold a particular ‘fact’ established must be based upon a consideration of the whole evidence bearing upon that ‘fact’."
There is nothing else in the prosecution’s evidence to enable the court to consider the whole evidence as it relates to that one fact, there is no other evidence, there is only one “piece”, the officer’s statement.
If you want to argue or disagree with the rock solid philosophy or principles in this, “corroborated” by the words of His Lordship, then I wish you the very best of luck, because I will most certainly not be responding to your arguments, I consider it a lost cause.
I now have sight of the papers in Shoodie’s case and the statement made by the police officer completely reinforces the fact that he could not possibly have had clear sight of the second datum point. The crown have apparently also reduced the charge to exceeding the 70 limit, although I want them to clarify this.
I have warned Shoodie about sub judice so he won’t be making any public statements on here just now, but I promise all of you that I will explain in crystal clear detail exactly what transpires at the end of the case.
The sustenance of these types of case in the magistrates courts are simply due to the totally disproportionate amount of effort required to defend them, and hence the resignation by most drivers to simply pay up and shut up.
As the level of prosecution increases and the penalties become ever more draconian, this will hopefully change as drivers strive to protect their licences and their freedom.
I will not hesitate to help anyone who I consider is being abused by the law to defend themselves if it is within my power.
If you are genuinely interested in this, I will be happy to debate any of the issues with you; if you come on here and tell me I'm talking "crap", "garbage", "tosh" or any other form of insult no matter how small, I will totally ignore you.
So which way did I jump? Here we go...
I take on board a friend, IOLAIRE, who masterminded this whole plan to success. What I'm about to describe are his moves which I simply enacted:
I didn't hire a solicitor although on the date of my first hearing last year, when I arrived at court, I changed my plea from 'guilty to as charged' to 'guilty, but NOT as charged' i.e. i was speeding but not at the alledged speed of 107mph.
This resulted in an adjournment and induced a 'Newton' hearing which happens when both parties agree that speeding did take place but disagree at what the speed was. It simply deals with the facts and evidence to determine the actual speed being done.
This hearing took place in January this year, but I did not have to attend.
The outcome of this resulted in a new trial hearing for March 29th. I had to prepare my case for defence. I wrote to CPS (the prosecution) and told them that I and my partner had returned to the scene and I couldn't accept their calculated reading of 107mph from the viewpoint at which it was taken. I asked for their evidence against me (to which I have a right), all kinds of evidence, such as the VASCAR calibration certificate, a certificate from the Highways Authority to verify the distance between the two datum points, photographic or video evidence.
In that same letter I also added that, for the sake of expediency, I would be happy to entertain a lesser speed of 90mph and would accept penalty points and fine accordingly.
I heard no response.
I wrote again this time using recorded delivery. The next day I could 'see' (Royal Mail's website) they had received the letter. But still no reply.
A week before the final hearing I wrote to the court and told them my situation, that I had been denied the evidence and therefore I could not stand trial. I also said if I had to turn up I would demand expenses from CPS.
I found out who the Chief Prosecutor of the CPS was for my case and wrote to her as well informing her of this 'problem'.
Both letters were sent recorded.
Court replied to turn up anyway, and said they would consider getting costs from CPS.
I turned up.
Moments before the arrival of the magistrates the clerk made a revelation that seemed to have come down from God: that the court had had a word with CPS and CPS had agreed to accept 'my version of events'.
What this meant is that they accepted my speed of 90mph and I would stand the trial according to that.
Relieved, I had nothing to worry about anymore since I now just had to slip back into a no-brainer 'guilty as charged' mode.
Made a big hearty apology.
£100 fine, £35 costs, 4 points!!
I HEREBY PROVE IOLAIRE IS A GENIUS !!!
He is lightyears ahead in his professionalism and understanding of the justice system than many of his opposing counterparts. Take a leaf.
I rest my case.
I take on board a friend, IOLAIRE, who masterminded this whole plan to success. What I'm about to describe are his moves which I simply enacted:
I didn't hire a solicitor although on the date of my first hearing last year, when I arrived at court, I changed my plea from 'guilty to as charged' to 'guilty, but NOT as charged' i.e. i was speeding but not at the alledged speed of 107mph.
This resulted in an adjournment and induced a 'Newton' hearing which happens when both parties agree that speeding did take place but disagree at what the speed was. It simply deals with the facts and evidence to determine the actual speed being done.
This hearing took place in January this year, but I did not have to attend.
The outcome of this resulted in a new trial hearing for March 29th. I had to prepare my case for defence. I wrote to CPS (the prosecution) and told them that I and my partner had returned to the scene and I couldn't accept their calculated reading of 107mph from the viewpoint at which it was taken. I asked for their evidence against me (to which I have a right), all kinds of evidence, such as the VASCAR calibration certificate, a certificate from the Highways Authority to verify the distance between the two datum points, photographic or video evidence.
In that same letter I also added that, for the sake of expediency, I would be happy to entertain a lesser speed of 90mph and would accept penalty points and fine accordingly.
I heard no response.
I wrote again this time using recorded delivery. The next day I could 'see' (Royal Mail's website) they had received the letter. But still no reply.
A week before the final hearing I wrote to the court and told them my situation, that I had been denied the evidence and therefore I could not stand trial. I also said if I had to turn up I would demand expenses from CPS.
I found out who the Chief Prosecutor of the CPS was for my case and wrote to her as well informing her of this 'problem'.
Both letters were sent recorded.
Court replied to turn up anyway, and said they would consider getting costs from CPS.
I turned up.
Moments before the arrival of the magistrates the clerk made a revelation that seemed to have come down from God: that the court had had a word with CPS and CPS had agreed to accept 'my version of events'.
What this meant is that they accepted my speed of 90mph and I would stand the trial according to that.
Relieved, I had nothing to worry about anymore since I now just had to slip back into a no-brainer 'guilty as charged' mode.
Made a big hearty apology.
£100 fine, £35 costs, 4 points!!
I HEREBY PROVE IOLAIRE IS A GENIUS !!!
He is lightyears ahead in his professionalism and understanding of the justice system than many of his opposing counterparts. Take a leaf.
I rest my case.
I remeber well when I was told by the police (Some years ago now) I was doing between 112 and 118 they had no proof, it was night and I saw the police come round a lorry that was over taking another they didnt follow me because as soon as he pulled out from lane one to round the lorries I saw the headlights appear between the gap of the lorries hit the breaks and was under 70 before he got site of me after clearing lorry 2. Result I end up in magistrates and what a shock its not what he stated to me of 112-118 but now 106 to 112 so story changed, no evidence what so ever bar the fact the cops made the statement that they followed me from a standing start from position x on the M1 and pulled me at postion y (Again false as they where already moving) I proved that it was impossible for me to have done anything above 97 in that gap, and admited speeding.
Final result was 6 points and no ban
Final result was 6 points and no ban
Aw shucks Shoodie, you've got me turning all pink, me being such a sensitive soul y'know!
The truth is there is nothing brilliant about this; what it's really about is refusing, very stubbornly, to accept the unacceptable, and doing your homework; and maybe thirty years experience also helps a wee bit!
But most importantly you must fight for what you believe in, otherwise you just exist instead of living.
If we all did this it would undoubtedly change things dramatically.
Don't pander to them; bare your teeth, but do it nicely and intelligently!!
The truth is there is nothing brilliant about this; what it's really about is refusing, very stubbornly, to accept the unacceptable, and doing your homework; and maybe thirty years experience also helps a wee bit!
But most importantly you must fight for what you believe in, otherwise you just exist instead of living.
If we all did this it would undoubtedly change things dramatically.
Don't pander to them; bare your teeth, but do it nicely and intelligently!!
james_j said:
What would have happened, though, if you had said you were not speeding at all?
Would the CPS/Police have gone to the trouble of continuing with the case?
MMM, it makes me wonder whether they had any evidence at all and were just pleased that you offered up 90.
It is a bit worrying, isn't it? Either they were sure they could prove he was doing 107, or they had screwed up completely, and should have dropped it.
It reminds me of the (perhaps apocryphal) story of someone being done for a speed that their car wouldn't do. When they showed that their car would only do 95, not 110, the speed on the ticket was dropped to that.
Is it any wonder, when we see cases like this, that so many of us ore becoming distrustful of the authorities when it comes to speeding offences?
philly said:
I'm very interested to hear the views on this outcome from FiF, DVD and DeMolay, especially DeMolay.
Regards all.
Phil.
My pleasure.
Firstly, well done shoody for sticking to your guns. Secondly, credit to IOLAIRE for giving you the advice that helped you lessen the blow to 4 points. At 107mph you would have been looking at a short ban.
I have to say that this case reeks of a CPS balls-up, or reluctance to gather the evidence you requested. When you suggested the Newton hearing it was probably a blessing for the CPS. In the first instance it meant they didn't have to go about compiling a stack of paperwork to present to you. Secondly, it meant the they would get the 'guilty' verdict they were after. The fact that you got a couple of points less than you would have is of little consequence.
I still maintain that if the really wanted to get you, they would have. Your entire case seemed to be based on police lies/inaccuracies. Asking for things like distances between signs from the roads department smacks of desperation. I've seen it too many times, and any CPS prosecutor worth their salt (or less busy) would have buried you, and I would advise against the sort of advice IOLAIRE was dishing out in previous posts.
Having said all that, and not to appear churlish, you got a result in evading a ban, so well done to you, and to IOLAIRE for having a go.
I concur with what DeMolay has written.
There does seem to be a slackness (expense saving) by CPS who on authorising a prosecution should have had ALL the evidence to hand within the file to secure a conviction which doesn't seem to be the case.
But at the end of the day they will no doubt consider themselves happy in that they did get a conviction. The case was not thrown out. So, in modern parlance justice has been served?
DVD
There does seem to be a slackness (expense saving) by CPS who on authorising a prosecution should have had ALL the evidence to hand within the file to secure a conviction which doesn't seem to be the case.
But at the end of the day they will no doubt consider themselves happy in that they did get a conviction. The case was not thrown out. So, in modern parlance justice has been served?
DVD
DeMolay said:
I have to say that this case reeks of a CPS balls-up ... any CPS prosecutor worth their salt
Dwight VanDriver said:From my limited, guilt-free touches wood and ignition keys quick smart experience of the process leading to hearings such as this, in magistrates courts they dispense justice by the yard. Spin that coin, throw the dice, twist another card...no, stick...
There does seem to be a slackness (expense saving) by CPS...DVD
DVD is on the money with his comment "they did get a conviction". That does matter, the CPS crew are on BLiar's mate's performance targets aren't they? Everybody else is. Any interest in justice i.e. the truth, is secondary. Having watched this sickening game of poker played out at high stakes for the persons involved, faith in 'the system' evaporated.
Better if purely motoring offences were dealt with in a manner similar to the USA - BiB can issue a fine to be paid, a modest one as there should be no indirect tax element - and there's no Court involvement for any speeding cases and other non-injury or no-damage offences.
turbobloke said:
Better if purely motoring offences were dealt with in a manner similar to the USA - BiB can issue a fine to be paid, a modest one as there should be no indirect tax element - and there's no Court involvement for any speeding cases and other non-injury or no-damage offences.
That's not really correct. fast enough over there, and you are still going to court.
Northernboy said:In my defence, your honour, I was careful to say similar not same, having some small knowledge of the matter
Better if purely motoring offences were dealt with in a manner similar to the USA - BiB can issue a fine to be paid, a modest one as there should be no indirect tax element - and there's no Court involvement for any speeding cases and other non-injury or no-damage offences.
Edited to add: what followed was a brief summary description of what I was proposing for over here, not what I was claiming happens over there >> Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 9th April 20:26
DeMolay said:
Your entire case seemed to be based on police lies/inaccuracies.
Having read the whole thread through again, I fail to see how you draw this conclusion. Shoodies case is based on lack of evidence, pure and simple. Without a camera on board the police car, there is nothing to tie in a vascar reading with the defendants vehicle, other than the same BIB that exercised judgement of the defendants speed in the first place.
Many years ago I got a ticket by two (obnoxious)BIB in a car that drove past me on the opposite side of the road at around midnight. No Vascar, radar etc. and they obviously couldn't have been following me for any distance at all. However, two BIB's meant two independant bits of evidence. The solicitor I spoke to actualy said "The BIB have a fairly weak case, but it's only 3 points and £30 so I'd advise you to pay up this time. If the BIB lose they can make your life a misery". I didn't ask if his statement was from personal experience
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff