Can cases be split?

[Gixerlix]

Iam in the same position as Wimdows and there has been much talk of spliting Speeding and Failure to Supply cases, but how do you actually do it?

I've asked twice for the cases to be herd seperatley and I just recived a letter from CPS stating 'the court has properly decided that both cases [failure to supply and speeding] will be tried together as they stem from a common case'. Is this correct?

Secondly the a they won't release any calibration certificates and state that I can question the camera operator at the trial - next week. Is that right?

Finaly, the CPS refer to a case on 30th December but I have yet to recive a summons. Can I wait until the summons comes (if it does) or should the CPS' letter be sufficent warning?

Thaks in advance
G

[kevinday]

IMHO (I am not a lawyer) it is impossible to hear the cases together, because they are mutually exclusive. If you failed to supply the driver information there is no evidence for a speeding charge, therefore for a speeding charge to stick they must have evidence of the driver, ergo you must have supplied it.

[Cooperman]

I thought that the prosecution must supply any evidence they intend to use to the accused at least 7 days before any hearing. If they don't do that then such evidence is not admissable.
Talk to a lawyer, ideally one recommended by one of the web-sites (Pepipoo or SafeSpeed). They could probably make the entire thing disappear!

[pdV6]

I'm sure they'd let you buy just 3 bottles instead of 6, but why not get the whole case and use the rest at New Year?

[wimdows]

I heard similar things. However, I will request to have the cases split, and let you guys know what response I'll get.

Has anyone had any result with having the cases 'failing to provide' and 'speeding' split?

Cheers,
Wim

>> Edited by wimdows on Tuesday 23 December 22:30

[kenp]

kevinday said:

IMHO (I am not a lawyer) it is impossible to hear the cases together, because they are mutually exclusive. If you failed to supply the driver information there is no evidence for a speeding charge, therefore for a speeding charge to stick they must have evidence of the driver, ergo you must have supplied it.

Mutual exclusivity or double jepardy (being dealt with twice for the same offence) does not apply here. basically you are dealing with alternative charges. Typically 'failing to produce' brings the alternative charge of 'failing to have' with it. These are two quite seperate offencs and should be punished differently, but will flow out of the same circumstances. For example you are stopped and show your driving licence and insurance certificate. You are given a producer for your MOT certificate. You fail to produce (or fail within the time limit) or you cannot produce because you do not have an MOT. The first two scenarios are quite different from the third and this will not become apparent until the hearing.

[kevinday]

I see your point Kenp, but, for a case to proceed to court the CPS must be confident of getting a conviction. In the circumstances as noted, they have no evidence for one or other of the cases, therefore it should not go to court?

[kenp]

kevinday said:

I see your point Kenp, but, for a case to proceed to court the CPS must be confident of getting a conviction. In the circumstances as noted, they have no evidence for one or other of the cases, therefore it should not go to court?

You are confusing 'policy' with actuality. It is a broad policy to only prosecute if there is a 50% or greater likelyhood of getting a conviction (this is a subjective test). Alternative or lesser charges (murder/manslaughter, Sec 18 or Sec 20 GBH) can always only lead to a single conviction. In fact alternative or lesser charges would always increase the likelihood of a conviction.

[kevinday]

Oh I see, blatant missuse of power in my view (as an Englishman living abroad.