Speeder calls Brunstrom to the witness box
Discussion
Story copied below, offered by the writer for free circulation...
Anybody fancy a day in the public gallery...?
I am facing a speeding prosecution trial on the 15th May, 10am at
Wrexham magistrates court. I won't be trying to avoid prosecution by
some legal technicality, or by challenging the accuracy of the LTI
20-20 laser gun (why did 3 recent programmes on ITV, BBC1 and Radio
4 all fail to mention that in January, at Preston Crown Court, the
importer Frank Garratt admitted the LTI 20-20 laser gun was
unreliable, although the Home Office, police and manufacturers have
continually denied this?). I will challenge the basic concept that a
fraction of a second speed measurement and close-up snapshot of a
car can determine unsafe driving. I will plead guilty but present
considerable mitigating circumstances. (On a deserted dual
carrigeway, I touched 35mph for 1.2 seconds and had a valid reason
for doing so). My speed was appropriate and actually better than
other drivers. What hopefully makes this case newsworthy is that, as
well as summoning 3 other people who could provide information
relating to road policing (or lack of), the money-making and
sometimes unsafe operating practices of mobile speed camera vans,
and dodgy procedures regarding speed awareness courses, (all 3 of
who to date are trying to get out of attending) I have also
summoned Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom as a witness because I am
confident I can force him to admit this is an unjust prosecution.
For someone who has previously been so vocal on the subject of speed
cameras, insisting his policy is fully justified, his sudden shyness
is surprising. His non-attendance is apparently because 'he has no
direct involvement with the processing of camera offences' ! It's
clear that he is now shirking responsibility and is unwilling to
come to court and face the truth about his policy. He doesn't want
police lies and corruption to be revealed. I am currently waiting to
see if the court have the confidence to demand the attendance of any
of the witnesses I want.
I hope to build up plenty interest in what could be an interesting
case so feel free to circulate this information to other interested parties.
Andrew Currie
19 Heol Llanegryn
Abergynolwyn
Gwynedd
LL36 9YE
01654 782294 www.35mmdpl@clara.co.uk
Anybody fancy a day in the public gallery...?
I am facing a speeding prosecution trial on the 15th May, 10am at
Wrexham magistrates court. I won't be trying to avoid prosecution by
some legal technicality, or by challenging the accuracy of the LTI
20-20 laser gun (why did 3 recent programmes on ITV, BBC1 and Radio
4 all fail to mention that in January, at Preston Crown Court, the
importer Frank Garratt admitted the LTI 20-20 laser gun was
unreliable, although the Home Office, police and manufacturers have
continually denied this?). I will challenge the basic concept that a
fraction of a second speed measurement and close-up snapshot of a
car can determine unsafe driving. I will plead guilty but present
considerable mitigating circumstances. (On a deserted dual
carrigeway, I touched 35mph for 1.2 seconds and had a valid reason
for doing so). My speed was appropriate and actually better than
other drivers. What hopefully makes this case newsworthy is that, as
well as summoning 3 other people who could provide information
relating to road policing (or lack of), the money-making and
sometimes unsafe operating practices of mobile speed camera vans,
and dodgy procedures regarding speed awareness courses, (all 3 of
who to date are trying to get out of attending) I have also
summoned Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom as a witness because I am
confident I can force him to admit this is an unjust prosecution.
For someone who has previously been so vocal on the subject of speed
cameras, insisting his policy is fully justified, his sudden shyness
is surprising. His non-attendance is apparently because 'he has no
direct involvement with the processing of camera offences' ! It's
clear that he is now shirking responsibility and is unwilling to
come to court and face the truth about his policy. He doesn't want
police lies and corruption to be revealed. I am currently waiting to
see if the court have the confidence to demand the attendance of any
of the witnesses I want.
I hope to build up plenty interest in what could be an interesting
case so feel free to circulate this information to other interested parties.
Andrew Currie
19 Heol Llanegryn
Abergynolwyn
Gwynedd
LL36 9YE
01654 782294 www.35mmdpl@clara.co.uk
off_again said:
Cant force him to be present and as a result he will simply not turn up. Why should he justify his policies - what do you think this is? A democracy? A meritocracy? Nah, come on, the magistrate will simply follow the law and bingo - 3 points and a £30 fine. Not much you can do....
Nope.
So, Brunstrom isn't involved in any of this? He doesn't have all the tickets signed off in his name / title? I thought this was the case!?
He admits the offence, but thinks a magistrates court might oblige witnesses to show up so he can attempt to show in mitigation that the whole system is unfair. Earth to Andrew Currie ... psssh beep ... Come in Andrew Currie .... psssh beep ... What planet are you on? .... pssshh beep ...
NCC1701 said:
JonRB said:
NCC1701 said:
What a huge waste of time.
Magistrates verdict will be - Guilty, 3 points, £60 fine plus costs. Next......
Magistrates verdict will be - Guilty, 3 points, £60 fine plus costs. Next......
Actually, based on my own experiences, it will be more like £170 + £35 costs
In that case,
What a really huge waste of time.A huge waste of time is what is needed though. We should all be doing this kind of thing at every opportunity. While they are wasting their time with this they will be leaving everyone else alone.
chrispy porker said:
Short and sweet, but I must agree!
Whilst of course I agree that the principle is correct, he is seriously misguided in the fact that he will be taken seriously in court with that methodology.
When I defended myself at magistrates court, my a strange coincidence - or not so strange being the 'capital' of the North Wales driving taxation program - I defended myself at the very same Wrexham magistrates court.
The clerk of the court was very helpful and afterwards he congratulated me in that I made his afternoon most interesting as I did indeed challenge my laser dodgyscope case in technical points which the CPS and police had no answer to.
I was told that the large majority of the people who defend themselves against speeding offences come in with the misguided opinion that appearing at court themselves will make a difference to apparantly challenge the speeding system itself and be found not-guilty, or generally have a rant...
...and the magistrates and the clerks are very used to it and are frankly bored of it wasting everyones time.
I can see that the magistrates will simply not allow the proposed charade to last more than a few minutes - so I wouldn't spend the petrol driving there unfortunately.
Mr Brunstrom might be a good witness - in the right scenario.
In a case where the operator of the equipment has blatantly ignored the correct procedure and put risk of false readings - Mr Brunstrom would be very useful in the dock to explain how his own ACPO Code of Practice which he wrote the forward to does have to be followed 'scrupulously' to maintain evidential integrety and it is *NOT A SET OF GUIDELINES*! Secondly, that may be a situation in which he may not be able to politically weasel out of appearing.
I unfortunately think IMHO that the more cases like this that are 'fought' in this way really muddies the cases of innocent parties who would like the magistrates to view it in an open light.
The way I see it the court is going to get very impatient with him and the clerk/magistrates will be reminding him that this is a speeding case - nothing more, so do you plead guilty or not guilty? Guilty then? Right that's points and fine. And no we're not interested in what you have to say!
NCC1701 said:
Trouble is, it will be the same court and resources that are used to prosecute the drink drivers, disqual drivers, no insurance etc that we are so keen to get off the road.
It will be of no use to Andrew Currie only waste his time, cost him more and waste more tax payers money.
This is true. It will be of no use to Andrew Currie only waste his time, cost him more and waste more tax payers money.
However it is the CPS deciding to waste the courts time, not the accused, british law likes to think people are innocent until proven guilty. The OP suspects he may be guilty but he is not qualified to decide, in law you are only guilty if the court finds you guilty - whether by proving it or by pleading guilty. The 'pay us now and you can have a discount' attitude of the scamships reminds me of the old mafia extortion rackets and has no place in our justice system. It also enables millions of law abiding people to be robbed of £60 for safe driving, while any real criminal will be using false plates, addresses, stolen cars etc. And as a result stealing our number plates and IDs more often than ever before. So Mr. Law Abiding gets hit (for a victimless crime) from the people he employs with his council tax, and the criminals. Ironically the same criminals that he pays the police to protect him against.
Under british law we are all entitled to our day in court, and if we choose to use that day to slow down the money-train of the speed camera brigade I think that is worthwhile. The speed camera brigade or 'scammerati' as they are sometimes known are not in my opinion helping road safety at all, in fact it looks to me like they are ignoring road safety by leaving real road dangers alone, while teaching everyone that they are safe just as long as they are within the limit.
So in the long term the OP could actually be contributing to road safety and saving lives - simply by slowing down the relentless spread of this hideous plague across our country.
Good on you!
Globulator said:
NCC1701 said:
Trouble is, it will be the same court and resources that are used to prosecute the drink drivers, disqual drivers, no insurance etc that we are so keen to get off the road.
It will be of no use to Andrew Currie only waste his time, cost him more and waste more tax payers money.
This is true. It will be of no use to Andrew Currie only waste his time, cost him more and waste more tax payers money.
However it is the CPS deciding to waste the courts time, not the accused, british law likes to think people are innocent until proven guilty. The OP suspects he may be guilty but he is not qualified to decide, in law you are only guilty if the court finds you guilty - whether by proving it or by pleading guilty. The 'pay us now and you can have a discount' attitude of the scamships reminds me of the old mafia extortion rackets and has no place in our justice system. It also enables millions of law abiding people to be robbed of £60 for safe driving, while any real criminal will be using false plates, addresses, stolen cars etc. And as a result stealing our number plates and IDs more often than ever before. So Mr. Law Abiding gets hit (for a victimless crime) from the people he employs with his council tax, and the criminals. Ironically the same criminals that he pays the police to protect him against.
Under british law we are all entitled to our day in court, and if we choose to use that day to slow down the money-train of the speed camera brigade I think that is worthwhile. The speed camera brigade or 'scammerati' as they are sometimes known are not in my opinion helping road safety at all, in fact it looks to me like they are ignoring road safety by leaving real road dangers alone, while teaching everyone that they are safe just as long as they are within the limit.
So in the long term the OP could actually be contributing to road safety and saving lives - simply by slowing down the relentless spread of this hideous plague across our country.
Good on you!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff