Interesting one here
Discussion
Friend of mine (they all start like this 
)
Sat for hours on the M4/A4 going into London due to an accident. The gantry sign was on saying that one lane was closed. As he drew up to the scene of the accident, a police car was towing the remains of a vehicle away, and, in order to finally make progress, he took a judgement call to overtake (by all accounts at a very gentle pace - it's a Ford Focus, not a TVR!) into the emtpy road ahead. He then carried merrily on his way, happy that he had eased the nightmare of traffic behind him.
Next he knows, NIP for being in a lane that was closed according to the signs on the gantry. Asked for evidence, gets sent two identical statements from the Policemen in the car, and one from the gantry camera operative. Statement from the gantry operative states that video evidence will also be submitted. Asked for evidence, but was told "we've got 120 sumbissions, and we can't possibly provide the evidence for every one".
He's due in court on Wednesday for a hearing. My feeling is that he should go for a dismissal, as requested evidence (from himself & solicitor) has not been provided.
Another option is to plead guilty and go for mitigating circumstances...
Any thoughts from you knowledgable people???
Thanks.
) Sat for hours on the M4/A4 going into London due to an accident. The gantry sign was on saying that one lane was closed. As he drew up to the scene of the accident, a police car was towing the remains of a vehicle away, and, in order to finally make progress, he took a judgement call to overtake (by all accounts at a very gentle pace - it's a Ford Focus, not a TVR!) into the emtpy road ahead. He then carried merrily on his way, happy that he had eased the nightmare of traffic behind him.
Next he knows, NIP for being in a lane that was closed according to the signs on the gantry. Asked for evidence, gets sent two identical statements from the Policemen in the car, and one from the gantry camera operative. Statement from the gantry operative states that video evidence will also be submitted. Asked for evidence, but was told "we've got 120 sumbissions, and we can't possibly provide the evidence for every one".
He's due in court on Wednesday for a hearing. My feeling is that he should go for a dismissal, as requested evidence (from himself & solicitor) has not been provided.
Another option is to plead guilty and go for mitigating circumstances...
Any thoughts from you knowledgable people???
Thanks.
Hollywood Wheels said:
Is your 'friend' (
I wasn't there, so I can't say. I can say that he is a very sensible person, and has an excellent sense of judgement. He freely admits that the lane was 'technically' closed, and that he reckons he is 'technically' guilty. On the other hand, he was just getting out of the way...
But I can see your point...
BliarOut said:
He should simply insist on the evidence seven days before court to have it analysed. IIRC if they refuse it can't be produced in court. No evidence means no case.
No evidence apart from the officers statements...
In my experience, the CPS are arses about actually giving you the opportunity to put forward a fair case. In may case they refused and then ignored my asking of 4 or 5 bits of relevant information. I spent a lot of time getting advice from the clerk of the court who was very helpful, who seemed to suggest they would get away with it anyway by just bringing it to court...
I think this practice is sadly commonplace.
gilbertd said:
But if they've got 120 submissions, that's 119 others all being done for the same thing. I can understand one bad judgement call, or maybe even 10, but 120? Sounds like the lane was still closed even though there was no need for it to be.
If the lanes states it is closed. Then the lane is closed.
Judgements by those who decide to ignore that are obviously being dealt with
mg6b said:
But if they've got 120 submissions, that's 119 others all being done for the same thing. I can understand one bad judgement call, or maybe even 10, but 120? Sounds like the lane was still closed even though there was no need for it to be.
If the lanes states it is closed. Then the lane is closed.
Judgements by those who decide to ignore that are obviously being dealt with
In a nutshell.
The problem your friend has is that he has contravened the law, it isnt fair, as it was prob safe - but thats the way it goes sometimes.
Had a near similar instance myself the other day in Reading. Was sat at the front of the Q by the traffic lights (which had a gatso red light camera behind it).
Police car screams up behind the Q, people can sideline to get out of their way. I cannot, as any further movement that would have facilitated the police car getting past, would have tripped the camera. So we waited. I could see the policeman in the car gesticulating and shouting, so I undid my window and pointed backwards to the gatso cam.
It would have been safe for me to go forward, but it would have been a technical breach of the letter of the law as far as the camera is concerned.
Offences detected by camera/machine often dont tell 100% of the story.
Youve just been unlucky.
Chalk it up...
princeperch said:
I could see the policeman in the car gesticulating and shouting, so I undid my window and pointed backwards to the gatso cam.
What a dreadful state of affairs. Of course I would have done the same thing as you did. Isn't it sickening that The System forces us to abandon good citizenship and logical thinking -- both former hallmarks of being British.
How can we have let this happen?
SM
[quote=princeperchI could see the policeman in the car gesticulating and shouting, so I undid my window and pointed backwards to the gatso cam.
It would have been safe for me to go forward, but it would have been a technical breach of the letter of the law as far as the camera is concerned.[/quote]
You are obliged by law to follow the directions of a constable in uniform. You are allowed to contravene a traffic signal under those instructions.
If it was your judgement that the officer behind was giving you a clear instruction to go through the red light, then you broke the letter of the law by not going through the light.
Of course, whether you'd have been able to find him to get the ticket cancelled is another matter...
It would have been safe for me to go forward, but it would have been a technical breach of the letter of the law as far as the camera is concerned.[/quote]
You are obliged by law to follow the directions of a constable in uniform. You are allowed to contravene a traffic signal under those instructions.
If it was your judgement that the officer behind was giving you a clear instruction to go through the red light, then you broke the letter of the law by not going through the light.
Of course, whether you'd have been able to find him to get the ticket cancelled is another matter...
mg6b said:
If the lanes states it is closed. Then the lane is closed.
Judgements by those who decide to ignore that are obviously being dealt with
True, the law also states that all evidence must be made available at least 7 days before the hearing. Therefore I would go for dismissal on the grounds that there is no admissable evidence.
>> Edited by F348 on Tuesday 21st February 12:55
supermono said:
I could see the policeman in the car gesticulating and shouting, so I undid my window and pointed backwards to the gatso cam.
What a dreadful state of affairs. Of course I would have done the same thing as you did. Isn't it sickening that The System forces us to abandon good citizenship and logical thinking -- both former hallmarks of being British.
How can we have let this happen?
SM
I agree. The sorry outcome of 'the system' would be is that if you did edge forward through the camera, it would have been you who is forced to take a day off work to attend court and put forward your case. Even then, case history has shown you would still lose...
The similar case has shown all the wrong messages. If after the defendant had pleaded not guilty and the CPS checked the story with the police logs and found his story to be correct the case was dropped, this would have sent a definate message to other drivers when faced with the same situation. That is, if you are faced with this situation, you can still do the 'right thing' and all you will have to do is write a letter of explantion.
What has happened proves the opposite. When you try to help the hard working people of the emergency services, the 'system' sticks two fingers back at you.
7db said:
[quote=princeperchI could see the policeman in the car gesticulating and shouting, so I undid my window and pointed backwards to the gatso cam.
It would have been safe for me to go forward, but it would have been a technical breach of the letter of the law as far as the camera is concerned.
You are obliged by law to follow the directions of a constable in uniform. You are allowed to contravene a traffic signal under those instructions.
If it was your judgement that the officer behind was giving you a clear instruction to go through the red light, then you broke the letter of the law by not going through the light.
Of course, whether you'd have been able to find him to get the ticket cancelled is another matter...[/quote]
As put previously; he was "gesticulating".
Now what does that mean ?
Go through the light mate, the camera doesnt work
Go through the light ill take care of the ensuing ticket
Dont what ever you do, go any further, that light signal camera is there for a reason, and youll kill someone if you go forward any further.
Not worth risking it. So I didnt.
gilbertd said:
Sounds like the lane was still closed even though there was no need for it to be.
It was - at the very next gantry, the red cross was replaced by a green whatever shape.
BliarOut said:
He should simply insist on the evidence seven days before court to have it analysed. IIRC if they refuse it can't be produced in court. No evidence means no case.
He did - and was presented with 3 statements, two from police drivers and the third from a gantry camera operative. All of whom rely on the video evidence which has not been disclosed.
Thus, IMO, this is all hinging on a legal technicality. Referencing the CPS site:
CPS said:
The video film, on which evidence is recorded of an incident, is a document for the purposes of the Magistrates Court (Advance Information) Rules 1985. The Divisional Court in the case of R v Calderdale Magistrates Court ex parte Donahue and Cutler 2001 Crim L.R. 141 has held that there is a duty on the Prosecution to disclose on request by the Defence a copy of any video recording forming part of the prosecution case prior to plea before venue being considered.
www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section13/chapter_r.html#_Toc44658270
I have advised him to talk to the Clerk of the Court on arrival, to get his advice on all the process side of thing (has never been to court before). Will keep you posted on this one.
F348 said:
If the lanes states it is closed. Then the lane is closed.
Judgements by those who decide to ignore that are obviously being dealt with
True, the law also states that all evidence must be made available at least 7 days before the hearing. Therefore I would go for dismissal on the grounds that there is no admissable evidence.
>> Edited by F348 on Tuesday 21st February 12:55
Very similar to those who decide to drive the last 300 meters down the hard shoulder to ease congestion on a motorway when they need to leave at the next exit. How considerate of them to have such a benevolent view for other motorists stuck in congestion behind them
. Quite often they will tell you that they are providing a service to the public and the police by managing the traffic flow. Nothing to do with the fact they are fed up with sitting in the queue and see an oportunity to have one over on everyone else waiting patiently then
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff