Hypothetical question
Discussion
If I were to go to court regarding the speed camera NIP I have in front of me and the Magistrate were to ignore my arguement or fine against me could I ask for a re-trial with a non biased court. ie one that is not a member of a Scamera partnership?
There has to be the biggest conflict of interest there someware?
There has to be the biggest conflict of interest there someware?
gooby said:
If I were to go to court regarding the speed camera NIP I have in front of me and the Magistrate were to ignore my arguement or fine against me could I ask for a re-trial with a non biased court. ie one that is not a member of a Scamera partnership?
There has to be the biggest conflict of interest there someware?
There has to be the biggest conflict of interest there someware?
I can't imagine any judge reacting well to a suggestion that they were biased against you. At best they might find it mildly amusing. At worst they might start thinking in terms of contempt of court.
GreenV8S said:
gooby said:
If I were to go to court regarding the speed camera NIP I have in front of me and the Magistrate were to ignore my arguement or fine against me could I ask for a re-trial with a non biased court. ie one that is not a member of a Scamera partnership?
There has to be the biggest conflict of interest there someware?
There has to be the biggest conflict of interest there someware?
I can't imagine any judge reacting well to a suggestion that they were biased against you. At best they might find it mildly amusing. At worst they might start thinking in terms of contempt of court.
I never realised that the courts were part of the pratnership;s
so much for "blind" justice then?GreenV8S said:
gooby said:
If I were to go to court regarding the speed camera NIP I have in front of me and the Magistrate were to ignore my arguement or fine against me could I ask for a re-trial with a non biased court. ie one that is not a member of a Scamera partnership?
There has to be the biggest conflict of interest there someware?
There has to be the biggest conflict of interest there someware?
I can't imagine any judge reacting well to a suggestion that they were biased against you. At best they might find it mildly amusing. At worst they might start thinking in terms of contempt of court.
Not sure I would expect them to 'like' it but there is a conflict of interest. How can a magistrate be a member of a camera partnership and be unbiased when a scamera prosecution comes before them? Could I ask for a full declaration of the realtionship between the magistrate and scamera partnership before the proceedings take place?
gooby said:
GreenV8S said:
gooby said:
If I were to go to court regarding the speed camera NIP I have in front of me and the Magistrate were to ignore my arguement or fine against me could I ask for a re-trial with a non biased court. ie one that is not a member of a Scamera partnership?
There has to be the biggest conflict of interest there someware?
There has to be the biggest conflict of interest there someware?
I can't imagine any judge reacting well to a suggestion that they were biased against you. At best they might find it mildly amusing. At worst they might start thinking in terms of contempt of court.
Not sure I would expect them to 'like' it but there is a conflict of interest. How can a magistrate be a member of a camera partnership and be unbiased when a scamera prosecution comes before them? Could I ask for a full declaration of the relationship between the magistrate and scamera partnership before the proceedings take place?
I don't profess to understand these things, so whilst I sympathise with your line of thought it would seem wise to tread carefully.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
gooby said:
could I ask for a re-trial ...
Could I ask for a full declaration ...
Could I ask for a full declaration ...
You can ask for what you like, but I would say your chances of getting either of them were somewhere between slim and none. Meanwhile, implying or saying that the magistrate was corrupt or prejudiced against you seems unlikely to improve the outcome of your case.
GreenV8S said:
gooby said:
could I ask for a re-trial ...
Could I ask for a full declaration ...
Could I ask for a full declaration ...
You can ask for what you like, but I would say your chances of getting either of them were somewhere between slim and none. Meanwhile, implying or saying that the magistrate was corrupt or prejudiced against you seems unlikely to improve the outcome of your case.
Do you receive any funding from the body bringing this case before you?GreenV8S said:
gooby said:
could I ask for a re-trial ...
Could I ask for a full declaration ...
Could I ask for a full declaration ...
You can ask for what you like, but I would say your chances of getting either of them were somewhere between slim and none. Meanwhile, implying or saying that the magistrate was corrupt or prejudiced against you seems unlikely to improve the outcome of your case.
Not accusing the magistrate of being corrupt or predjudiced, just not impartial. Isnt it a statutory right for an impartial trial?
gooby said:
GreenV8S said:
gooby said:
If I were to go to court regarding the speed camera NIP I have in front of me and the Magistrate were to ignore my arguement or fine against me could I ask for a re-trial with a non biased court. ie one that is not a member of a Scamera partnership?
There has to be the biggest conflict of interest there someware?
There has to be the biggest conflict of interest there someware?
I can't imagine any judge reacting well to a suggestion that they were biased against you. At best they might find it mildly amusing. At worst they might start thinking in terms of contempt of court.
Not sure I would expect them to 'like' it but there is a conflict of interest. How can a magistrate be a member of a camera partnership and be unbiased when a scamera prosecution comes before them? Could I ask for a full declaration of the realtionship between the magistrate and scamera partnership before the proceedings take place?
Why do you think the magistrates work for a camera partnership?
I think you may be a little misguided here. The chances of you getting three magistrates who all work for camera partnerships are extremely slim. I know of a few magistrates in this area, a couple of them friends and they definately do not work for partnerships.
Regardless of this they also have a duty to try a case fairly. Although sentencing can vary from court to court and their mood, they do have a duty to look at the facts, and in a lot of scenarios they are well directed by the clerk, who *is* legally trained as to what the possible outcomes may be.
I have sucessfully defended myself on traffic charges, and could give you an idea if your line of defence will work or not. If you have a technical defence or something you can substantiate then you have a chance, however also be aware that magistrates also have their 'ear bent' by a number of people who are annoyed in being charged with speeding and use the day to generally explain why the government is money grabbing and the camera shouldnt be there in the first place. That will *never* make the magistrates endeer themselves to you, and will certainly not be a logical defence as this wont work.
There is also the factor that if anyone who is there in a capacity to be impartial, the magistrates or the clerk they muast declare themselves if they have any conflict of interest. For example, if the magistrates or even the clerk knew the defendant, or for example the magistrate was trying a defendand who stole from a shop owned by his wife, then they would have to declare this and rule themselves out of being involved with the case.
Magistrates are humans, and as such will have bias. Naturally if cases dont go our way then we assume that is against us. You have the option to appeal and have your case heard at Crown court, this time in front of a Judge.
Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 2nd November 13:55
Dorset Scamera Partnership said:
The Partnership organisations include Dorset County Council, Borough of Poole, Bournemouth Borough Council, the Highways Agency, Dorset Police, Dorset and Somerset Strategic Health Authority, Dorset Magistrates and the Crown Prosecution Service. Each organisation brings unique knowledge and experience to road safety and is fully committed to achieving the Partnership’s aims. Following the first anniversary of the Partnership, members expressed their continued support:
They are not listed as individuals but as a group, as an entirity. If you read this it says the Magistrates support the use of scameras. Not an individual magistrate.
Perhaps I should send a letter to the partnership and ask which Magistrates are included in the partnership organisation so I can therefore get an impartial trial.
justinp1 said:
Why do you think the magistrates work for a camera partnership?
That's not what the OP stated.
He stated - correctly - that certain magistrates' courts are part of the 'safety' camera partnership. Whilst they don't draw their wages from the partnerships, there is a conflict of interest here; i.e. one part of the partnership zaps you on a road and issues you a NIP, whilst another part of the partnership decides if you are guilty or not.
gooby said:
If I were to go to court regarding the speed camera NIP I have in front of me and the Magistrate were to ignore my arguement or fine against me could I ask for a re-trial with a non biased court. ie one that is not a member of a Scamera partnership?
There has to be the biggest conflict of interest there someware?
There has to be the biggest conflict of interest there someware?
An appeal to the crown court is in effect a retrial...
Sean
gooby said:
Dorset Scamera Partnership said:
The Partnership organisations include Dorset County Council, Borough of Poole, Bournemouth Borough Council, the Highways Agency, Dorset Police, Dorset and Somerset Strategic Health Authority, Dorset Magistrates and the Crown Prosecution Service. Each organisation brings unique knowledge and experience to road safety and is fully committed to achieving the Partnership’s aims. Following the first anniversary of the Partnership, members expressed their continued support:
They are not listed as individuals but as a group, as an entirity. If you read this it says the Magistrates support the use of scameras. Not an individual magistrate.
Perhaps I should send a letter to the partnership and ask which Magistrates are included in the partnership organisation so I can therefore get an impartial trial.
Ahhhh, *now* I see what you mean!
I did not know that.
It depends what input each of the magistrates had, *however* it does state there that 'Each organisation... ...is fully committed to achieving the Partnership's aims.' That is the statement which would imply a conflict of interest.
...which is something completely different to magistrates acting as a consulting body when deciding policy.
I think you are onto something quite big here. I hope Paul (Safe Speed) is reading this, if not I would email him the link that came from. After seeing that, I quite support your view, in fact you could even argue that all of the Dorset magistrates have a conflict of interest.
When some of us challenged the Cumbria Silly Scamera pratnership, via their now-defunct forum, about this, Callaghan (their Speedfinder-General) replied that it was the Magistrates Court Service which was a partner, not individual magistrates.
Now, one might think this is the same thing, especially as the Mags. clerks advise and guide the Mags in many cases, so, as the UK constitution requires any individual charged with any offence to have a fair and unbiased trial, one could claim that the Mags are not in any way impartial.
A claim to the European Court of Human Rights might be an option and, so far as I know, no-one has done that - yet.
Now, one might think this is the same thing, especially as the Mags. clerks advise and guide the Mags in many cases, so, as the UK constitution requires any individual charged with any offence to have a fair and unbiased trial, one could claim that the Mags are not in any way impartial.
A claim to the European Court of Human Rights might be an option and, so far as I know, no-one has done that - yet.
The Magistrates who sit before you have nothing to gain or lose in convicting you.
HM courts service is part of the partnership, which is the administrative side of the court - making sure the floor is kept clean, phones work, etc. There's a pretty clear separation between the legal types and the administrative types in a court. The administration of justice is made by magistrates, advised by clerks, who are answerable to the LC's department. The mags are (largely) unpaid.
Most of the ones I know get quite annoyed at the suggestion that they aren't impartial, but will be fair regardless.
If you want to martyr yourself to the "cause" by spending money taking the point to appeal, then fill your boots. You'd probably be better off spending your efforts not getting caught speeding...
HM courts service is part of the partnership, which is the administrative side of the court - making sure the floor is kept clean, phones work, etc. There's a pretty clear separation between the legal types and the administrative types in a court. The administration of justice is made by magistrates, advised by clerks, who are answerable to the LC's department. The mags are (largely) unpaid.
Most of the ones I know get quite annoyed at the suggestion that they aren't impartial, but will be fair regardless.
If you want to martyr yourself to the "cause" by spending money taking the point to appeal, then fill your boots. You'd probably be better off spending your efforts not getting caught speeding...
7db said:
You'd probably be better off spending your efforts not getting caught speeding...
ahh but thats illegal, ie flashing lights, board by the side of the road....
whereas a legal challange becasue the court service is in fagvour of the aims of the camera partnership is cleary a prior bias.
superlightr said:
7db said:
You'd probably be better off spending your efforts not getting caught speeding...
ahh but thats illegal, ie flashing lights, board by the side of the road....
That's obstructing officers in the execution of their duty, you're thinking of there. I'm thinking of the driver taking a bit of resonsibility not to drive with a complete disregard for the posted limit past points of enforcement.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff