SCPs attempt to pervert course of justice
Discussion
Another SCP is actively attempting to subvert due process.
www.dorsetsafetycameras.org.uk/downloads/foi_files/Op_Group_minutes_06-06-06.pdf
[Para.9]Staff are currently sorting through offences and will be ringing persons directly to try and get them to accept the alternative of a Fixed Penalty.
[emphasis added]
See also www.cambs.police.uk/camops/safetycameras/information/foi/minutes/06-04-04.pdf
[Para. 5.1]MW said the magistrates service is looking at initiatives, such as cold calling, which would ‘push’ people down the line of paying their conditional offers.
[emphasis added]
Speeding is a criminal offence and anybody charged or threatened with prosecution is absolutely entitled to a court hearing. I understand that the cost recovery scheme has changed (or will change) so that SCP's are funded centrally instead of (as has been the case) only from fixed penalty revenue.
The conflict of interest was stark and even with the change in funding arrangements, I'm not convinced it doesn't still exist. Perhaps SCPs are still targeted on fixed penalty revenues, even if no longer funded by them. It's not hard to imagine that a SCP performance indicator may be the proportion of fixed penalty offers accepted, and only a short step from there to management bonuses being paid for 'on target' performance.
It is scandalous that the enforcement/prosecuting authorities are seeking to deter people from exercising their right to due process by pressuring them to accept a fixed penalty. That choice should be made by the defendant free of any pressure, perhaps with advice from a lawyer.
This entire enforcement system is perverted and rotten to the core - it's sickening to see the once respected and admired British justice system stoop to such levels.
www.dorsetsafetycameras.org.uk/downloads/foi_files/Op_Group_minutes_06-06-06.pdf
DSCP minutes said:
[Para.9]Staff are currently sorting through offences and will be ringing persons directly to try and get them to accept the alternative of a Fixed Penalty.
[emphasis added]
See also www.cambs.police.uk/camops/safetycameras/information/foi/minutes/06-04-04.pdf
Cambs SCP minutes said:
[Para. 5.1]MW said the magistrates service is looking at initiatives, such as cold calling, which would ‘push’ people down the line of paying their conditional offers.
[emphasis added]
Speeding is a criminal offence and anybody charged or threatened with prosecution is absolutely entitled to a court hearing. I understand that the cost recovery scheme has changed (or will change) so that SCP's are funded centrally instead of (as has been the case) only from fixed penalty revenue.
The conflict of interest was stark and even with the change in funding arrangements, I'm not convinced it doesn't still exist. Perhaps SCPs are still targeted on fixed penalty revenues, even if no longer funded by them. It's not hard to imagine that a SCP performance indicator may be the proportion of fixed penalty offers accepted, and only a short step from there to management bonuses being paid for 'on target' performance.
It is scandalous that the enforcement/prosecuting authorities are seeking to deter people from exercising their right to due process by pressuring them to accept a fixed penalty. That choice should be made by the defendant free of any pressure, perhaps with advice from a lawyer.
This entire enforcement system is perverted and rotten to the core - it's sickening to see the once respected and admired British justice system stoop to such levels.
Observer2 said:
It is scandalous that the enforcement/prosecuting authorities are seeking to deter people from exercising their right to due process by pressuring them to accept a fixed penalty. That choice should be made by the defendant free of any pressure, perhaps with advice from a lawyer.
Perhaps they are trying to level the field so that fewer people are suckered into mounting a hopeless defence by their "friends" on websites who advocate "make the bastards work for every penny" and then end up with criminal convictions and stiffer penalties plus costs. There is plenty of misinformation on both sids of that debate, and popping down to a court to see the victims of pepipoo and others might be worth your while.
Still - on the charge of PCJ - can't see it there.
jasandjules said:
Telephoning someone to "encourage" them to pay up, could be taken as harassment could it not? Also, where do they get the telephone number from? Could be a data protection issue.
There's books full of names, addresses and phone numbers
.I wouldn't think that this was a problem.7db said:
Perhaps they are trying to level the field so that fewer people are suckered into mounting a hopeless defence by their "friends" on websites who advocate "make the bastards work for every penny" and then end up with criminal convictions and stiffer penalties plus costs. There is plenty of misinformation on both sids of that debate, and popping down to a court to see the victims of pepipoo and others might be worth your while.
What about the occurances of false readings, false evidence etc for genuine cases? these people have a right to defend themselves if they genuinly feel they have a case, they shouldn't be intimidated or threatened with a heavier fine purely because they want to excercise that right.
You surely cannot advocate the legal system bullying the potentially innocent?
esselte said:
jasandjules said:
Telephoning someone to "encourage" them to pay up, could be taken as harassment could it not? Also, where do they get the telephone number from? Could be a data protection issue.
There's books full of names, addresses and phone numbers
.I wouldn't think that this was a problem.Edited for carp speeling
Edited by sheepy on Tuesday 20th June 11:40
7db said:
Observer2 said:
It is scandalous that the enforcement/prosecuting authorities are seeking to deter people from exercising their right to due process by pressuring them to accept a fixed penalty. That choice should be made by the defendant free of any pressure, perhaps with advice from a lawyer.
Perhaps they are trying to level the field so that fewer people are suckered into mounting a hopeless defence by their "friends" on websites who advocate "make the bastards work for every penny" and then end up with criminal convictions and stiffer penalties plus costs. There is plenty of misinformation on both sids of that debate, and popping down to a court to see the victims of pepipoo and others might be worth your while.
Still - on the charge of PCJ - can't see it there.
The burden of due process - the requirement to gather evidence, identify and interview witnesses, collate statements and exhibits, prepare and present the case in court, all to the applicable evidential and procedural standards - operates as a natural counter-balance in all areas of law, both criminal law and civil law. It provides a 'tension' that tends to ensure that legal proceedings are only commenced and continued where the damage suffered is sufficently serious to justify the financial and other costs of discharging the due process burden. The tension of due process clearly applies to civil law but it also applies to criminal law where the prosecution must judge, in any given case, whether the seriousness of the offence, the cost and difficulty of bringing the case to trial and the prospects of securing conviction justify bringing criminal proceedings in the public interest.
In the case of camera detected speeding offences, there is no consideration, either before proceedings are initiated (i.e. before the notice of intended prosecution is issued), or at any time before the case is brought to trial, of the relative seriousness of the offence nor of the public interest. Statute expressly requires a constable to decide whether or not to issue a CoFP. Many SCPs are staffed mostly by civilians and it is doubtful whether this obligation is discharged. The CPS also have a statutory duty to consider the public interest before bringing a prosecution. Again, it is hard to believe that this is done on every occasion that a speeding summons is issued. These are all insidious side effects of a mass enforcement system based on remote, automated/semi-automated detection and a fast-track enforcement process that relies on compelled self-incrimination.
So, overall, in the case of camera detected speed enforcement, there is no tension that regulates the scale of enforcement. In fact the opposite is true. The creation of SCPs (which now exist in almost all constabulary regions) has given rise to entirely new bureaucratic institutions, largely unaccountable to the public (and certainly not directly accountable), whose primary activity is the detection of speeding offences and enforcement of related law. As seen above, at least some of these partnerships are actively attempting to dissuade accused persons from exercising their right to a court hearing.
It's extraordinary that you attempt to justify this behaviour by reference to websites which exist to provide factual information about the law. It is likely that the vast majority of punters have no idea about (for example) the 14 day rule for service of a NIP. I don't agree with everything that appears on PePiPoo but it has helped many people to identify procedural or technical irregularities in the prosecution case and to mount a defence based upon them. That's absolutely right and necessary. Even if some of the advice on PePiPoo is inaccurate, are you really suggesting that two wrongs make a right? Anyway, you'll find that the number of registered posters on PePiPoo is a tiny proportion of the total number of NIPs issued so there is no equivalence in the scale of disinformation between PePiPoo and the SCPs who (for example) issue false statements such as:
"If you are the registered keeper, you are obliged to know who is driving your vehicle at any time"
or
"A NIP does not have to be served within 14 days, it only has to be posted"
to cite just two examples.
Does all this represent a prosecutable attempt to pervert the course of justice? Realistically, no. Nevertheless, in my opinion, justice is being perverted by the speed enforcement system as a whole.
Edited by Observer2 on Tuesday 20th June 11:35
Observer2 said:
good stuff
Hear hear.
My feeling is that due legal process -- and perhaps civilisation itself -- is a temporary aberation. It may have existed in Britain for a few hundred years but it's not natural. As pressure grows on government to be "seen to be doing something" on everything no matter what, and the judiciary is pressurised to meet "public common sense expectations of justice" by the government, little niceties like justice are quietly dropped.
Who is complaining? Certainly not the general public, which is all that matters when it comes to the important things in life like getting re-elected. Yes of course if this continues there will come a time when more will complain, and it may by then be too late. But such is life and the history of civilisations.
Sorry, there's some sweeping statements in there
apache said:
7db said:
Perhaps they are trying to level the field so that fewer people are suckered into mounting a hopeless defence by their "friends" on websites who advocate "make the bastards work for every penny" and then end up with criminal convictions and stiffer penalties plus costs. There is plenty of misinformation on both sids of that debate, and popping down to a court to see the victims of pepipoo and others might be worth your while.
What about the occurances of false readings, false evidence etc for genuine cases? these people have a right to defend themselves if they genuinly feel they have a case, they shouldn't be intimidated or threatened with a heavier fine purely because they want to excercise that right.
You surely cannot advocate the legal system bullying the potentially innocent?
They aren't "potentially" innocent, they *are* innocent, until proven guilty.
apache said:
7db said:
Perhaps they are trying to level the field so that fewer people are suckered into mounting a hopeless defence by their "friends" on websites who advocate "make the bastards work for every penny" and then end up with criminal convictions and stiffer penalties plus costs. There is plenty of misinformation on both sids of that debate, and popping down to a court to see the victims of pepipoo and others might be worth your while.
What about the occurances of false readings, false evidence etc for genuine cases? these people have a right to defend themselves if they genuinly feel they have a case, they shouldn't be intimidated or threatened with a heavier fine purely because they want to excercise that right.
You surely cannot advocate the legal system bullying the potentially innocent?
Who is getting bullied? The FPN system is a bargain in judicial terms. There is little waste of court time and penalty is small as a result. Obviously if you are innocent and know that you are provably innocent you'll be keen to fight and win in court, and so you should. Where there are false readings and false evidence I'm sure we all would.
And those who are informed of the risks of taking on the battle, chancing their arm to get a result -- perhaps using one of the many technicalities to generate a result of resaonable doubt. Well good luck to them. I'm sure they know the risks already. If they do, then no cold-calling will help, will it?
7db said:
apache said:
7db said:
Perhaps they are trying to level the field so that fewer people are suckered into mounting a hopeless defence by their "friends" on websites who advocate "make the bastards work for every penny" and then end up with criminal convictions and stiffer penalties plus costs. There is plenty of misinformation on both sids of that debate, and popping down to a court to see the victims of pepipoo and others might be worth your while.
What about the occurances of false readings, false evidence etc for genuine cases? these people have a right to defend themselves if they genuinly feel they have a case, they shouldn't be intimidated or threatened with a heavier fine purely because they want to excercise that right.
You surely cannot advocate the legal system bullying the potentially innocent?
Who is getting bullied? The FPN system is a bargain in judicial terms. There is little waste of court time and penalty is small as a result. Obviously if you are innocent and know that you are provably innocent you'll be keen to fight and win in court, and so you should. Where there are false readings and false evidence I'm sure we all would.
And those who are informed of the risks of taking on the battle, chancing their arm to get a result -- perhaps using one of the many technicalities to generate a result of resaonable doubt. Well good luck to them. I'm sure they know the risks already. If they do, then no cold-calling will help, will it?
If the system was robust then plenty of people wouldn't feel they would try their luck by going to court. The very fact that some people can and do get off on technicalities proves that the system is in doubt, and that it IS worth your time to know all the details.
I'm sure there are potentially hundreds of people falsely served with a NIP for speeding, who will get called up and pressured into accepting a fine and points for doing nothing wrong.
How can anyone justify a system that could force someone into falsely accepting a crime they didn't commit?
How is that anything but criminal in itself? It's like telling a murder **suspect** that if they accept murder before a trial they'll get 5yrs... surely any plead (guilty or not guilty) should be made in court, not through pieces of paper when no evidence or knowledge of due process (which 99.999% of normal people will not know) is followed.
Dave
7db said:
apache said:
7db said:
Perhaps they are trying to level the field so that fewer people are suckered into mounting a hopeless defence by their "friends" on websites who advocate "make the bastards work for every penny" and then end up with criminal convictions and stiffer penalties plus costs. There is plenty of misinformation on both sids of that debate, and popping down to a court to see the victims of pepipoo and others might be worth your while.
What about the occurances of false readings, false evidence etc for genuine cases? these people have a right to defend themselves if they genuinly feel they have a case, they shouldn't be intimidated or threatened with a heavier fine purely because they want to excercise that right.
You surely cannot advocate the legal system bullying the potentially innocent?
Who is getting bullied? The FPN system is a bargain in judicial terms. There is little waste of court time and penalty is small as a result. Obviously if you are innocent and know that you are provably innocent you'll be keen to fight and win in court, and so you should. Where there are false readings and false evidence I'm sure we all would.
And those who are informed of the risks of taking on the battle, chancing their arm to get a result -- perhaps using one of the many technicalities to generate a result of resaonable doubt. Well good luck to them. I'm sure they know the risks already. If they do, then no cold-calling will help, will it?
So exercising your right to a court hearing is "a waste of court time", is it?. For your information, anybody accused of a criminal offence is absolutely entitled to require a court hearing, even if only to plead guilty and put in a plea of mitigation, and even if the mitigation is not well founded. That's a fundamental part of the justice system. Your attitude stinks - you and the SCPs are clearly well matched.
If you had read (as I have) new cases on PePiPoo, you would have found (if you know enough about the law) that there are a significant number where the OP has a genuine, valid defence on some grounds or other. Say 5% of OPs have a decent defence and that PePiPoo visitors represent ~0.1% of the total number of tickets issued in a year. That's possibly ~100,000 cases a year where people are overtly or subliminally intimidated into accepting a fixed penalty where a reasonable knowledge of law and procedure would have resulted in discontinuance or acquittal (these are all conservative numbers).
Those visitors to PePiPoo who are sufficiently encouraged to take on the burden of mounting a defence, which in many cases will include multiple court visits (perhaps a long distance from where they live), representing themselves in court as a lay defendant, often in the face of unhelpful, patronising or downright hostile clerk and prosecution lawyer, deserve huge recognition and credit for standing up to a system that is massively weighted against them.
Very, very few have the determination to take on the criminal justice system and are willing to expose themselves to the pressure of a courtroom. Yes - some of them do it more from bloody-mindedness than because they have a good case, but there are quite a reasonable number of successes and those provide encouragement to people who feel they are being treated unjustly but do not know how to defend themselves. The penalty for speeding is (deliberately or fortuitously) pitched at a level which makes it uneconomic for most people to consider hiring a lawyer (the majority of whom are hopelessly incompetent when it comes to motoring matters anyway).
Your supercilious attitude is contemptible.
7db said:
apache said:
7db said:
Perhaps they are trying to level the field so that fewer people are suckered into mounting a hopeless defence by their "friends" on websites who advocate "make the bastards work for every penny" and then end up with criminal convictions and stiffer penalties plus costs. There is plenty of misinformation on both sids of that debate, and popping down to a court to see the victims of pepipoo and others might be worth your while.
What about the occurances of false readings, false evidence etc for genuine cases? these people have a right to defend themselves if they genuinly feel they have a case, they shouldn't be intimidated or threatened with a heavier fine purely because they want to excercise that right.
You surely cannot advocate the legal system bullying the potentially innocent?
Who is getting bullied? The FPN system is a bargain in judicial terms. There is little waste of court time and penalty is small as a result. Obviously if you are innocent and know that you are provably innocent you'll be keen to fight and win in court, and so you should. Where there are false readings and false evidence I'm sure we all would.
And those who are informed of the risks of taking on the battle, chancing their arm to get a result -- perhaps using one of the many technicalities to generate a result of resaonable doubt. Well good luck to them. I'm sure they know the risks already. If they do, then no cold-calling will help, will it?
7db said:
Obviously if you are innocent and know that you are provably innocent you'll be keen to fight and win in court, and so you should. Where there are false readings and false evidence I'm sure we all would.
right back at you pal. Are we to assume that all these NIPs are based on solid and honest truth? In light of recent exposures of Talivan behaviour and unpalatble methods of camera placement and over zealous pursuit in some regions of the motorist then it seems the general public do not trust you any more, and you are surprised when some seek to challenge a system they feel is corrupt?
Edited by apache on Tuesday 20th June 13:21
7db said:
Observer2 said:
...
Your supercilious attitude is contemptible.
Your supercilious attitude is contemptible.
What about the wry smile on the Bench's face as he convicts yet another pepipoo victim -- do you find that contemptible too?
The fact that you have failed to address any of the substantive points in this thread, and resort to throwaway remarks, speaks volumes.
...as did your comment on my attitude.
The points remain (on the poor pepipoo user's licence as often as not) that there's nothing wrong with the SCP or Courts Service making sure that the defendant is clear on his choice of action in electing to pursue the rather riskier court option than accepting the FPN. Obviously it's his right to appear in court and upgrade his offence to a criminal conviction, add court costs and have the penalty re-assessed by a magistrate.
If he's not guilty, then that's the way he should probably go. If he wants to have a go at the technicalities, then he probably already knows what he's giving up. A phone call isn't making a difference? If he's hiding and forgetting about it, ignoring it and hoping it'll go away, then a phone call might be an ideal reminder that it won't and that he should take the FPN rather than wait and appear in court.
The points remain (on the poor pepipoo user's licence as often as not) that there's nothing wrong with the SCP or Courts Service making sure that the defendant is clear on his choice of action in electing to pursue the rather riskier court option than accepting the FPN. Obviously it's his right to appear in court and upgrade his offence to a criminal conviction, add court costs and have the penalty re-assessed by a magistrate.
If he's not guilty, then that's the way he should probably go. If he wants to have a go at the technicalities, then he probably already knows what he's giving up. A phone call isn't making a difference? If he's hiding and forgetting about it, ignoring it and hoping it'll go away, then a phone call might be an ideal reminder that it won't and that he should take the FPN rather than wait and appear in court.
7db said:
...as did your comment on my attitude.
The points remain (on the poor pepipoo user's licence as often as not) that there's nothing wrong with the SCP or Courts Service making sure that the defendant is clear on his choice of action in electing to pursue the rather riskier court option than accepting the FPN. Obviously it's his right to appear in court and upgrade his offence to a criminal conviction, add court costs and have the penalty re-assessed by a magistrate.
If he's not guilty, then that's the way he should probably go. If he wants to have a go at the technicalities, then he probably already knows what he's giving up. A phone call isn't making a difference? If he's hiding and forgetting about it, ignoring it and hoping it'll go away, then a phone call might be an ideal reminder that it won't and that he should take the FPN rather than wait and appear in court.
Talking of ignoring... The points remain (on the poor pepipoo user's licence as often as not) that there's nothing wrong with the SCP or Courts Service making sure that the defendant is clear on his choice of action in electing to pursue the rather riskier court option than accepting the FPN. Obviously it's his right to appear in court and upgrade his offence to a criminal conviction, add court costs and have the penalty re-assessed by a magistrate.
If he's not guilty, then that's the way he should probably go. If he wants to have a go at the technicalities, then he probably already knows what he's giving up. A phone call isn't making a difference? If he's hiding and forgetting about it, ignoring it and hoping it'll go away, then a phone call might be an ideal reminder that it won't and that he should take the FPN rather than wait and appear in court.
BliarOut said:
So why are the SCP's so reluctant to release video evidence gathered from the supposedly infallible LTI 20-20?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff