LTI: via full tape, judge agrees no prior opinion=not guilty
Discussion
attn justamin (are you trying to get full tape?) and Peter Ward
From pepipoo.
Motorist successfully defends against speeding charge by getting full tape, showing (surprise surprise) that out of 140 vehicles scanned over 1 hour only 21 were at or above 35mph ie the limit 30mph +10% + 2mph.
40 were between 31mph and 34mph and 79 were not speeding at all.
Officer doing the job says he was bored and targetting cyclists, planes etc. Claims the targeting of vehicle not speeding was cos they all slowed down while he pulled the trigger (yeah right, motorists are all SO observant).
Judge says without prior opinion law not satisfied, NG.
See this topic, post by boriscorn on page 4.:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1928...
Upshot:
- Good reason to argue for disclosure of full tape
- Verifies our argument that they are not/may not be forming opinion
- If this is a police officer, imagine what the civilians are like (in my experience the former give you a chance to spot them, the latter blast away at everything at extreme range)
- An appeal, so unsure of weighting of this decision
- The officer did admit he was bored and shooting other things, so we haven't seen whether the numerical evidence of the full tape is enough to prove they are no making prior opinion (it should be)
IMO in light of this judgement failing to provide the full tape for a defence of this argument, with knowledge of operator failings, is conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Not that MO counts for anything :-)
dave
From pepipoo.
Motorist successfully defends against speeding charge by getting full tape, showing (surprise surprise) that out of 140 vehicles scanned over 1 hour only 21 were at or above 35mph ie the limit 30mph +10% + 2mph.
40 were between 31mph and 34mph and 79 were not speeding at all.
Officer doing the job says he was bored and targetting cyclists, planes etc. Claims the targeting of vehicle not speeding was cos they all slowed down while he pulled the trigger (yeah right, motorists are all SO observant).
Judge says without prior opinion law not satisfied, NG.
See this topic, post by boriscorn on page 4.:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1928...
Upshot:
- Good reason to argue for disclosure of full tape
- Verifies our argument that they are not/may not be forming opinion
- If this is a police officer, imagine what the civilians are like (in my experience the former give you a chance to spot them, the latter blast away at everything at extreme range)
- An appeal, so unsure of weighting of this decision
- The officer did admit he was bored and shooting other things, so we haven't seen whether the numerical evidence of the full tape is enough to prove they are no making prior opinion (it should be)
IMO in light of this judgement failing to provide the full tape for a defence of this argument, with knowledge of operator failings, is conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Not that MO counts for anything :-)
dave
Need to wait for the appeal (cynically IMHO likely to reverse the decision as political weight will be brought to bear on the judge hearing).
...but if upheld it's very good news. If the prosecution refuse to release the full tape, then the defence presents this finding and alleges the officer/civilian was on a fishing expedition, and therefore the evidence must be suspect. After all, this judge has found on a point of law...
:keepsfingerscrossed:
...but if upheld it's very good news. If the prosecution refuse to release the full tape, then the defence presents this finding and alleges the officer/civilian was on a fishing expedition, and therefore the evidence must be suspect. After all, this judge has found on a point of law...
:keepsfingerscrossed:
havoc said:
Need to wait for the appeal (cynically IMHO likely to reverse the decision as political weight will be brought to bear on the judge hearing).
...but if upheld it's very good news. If the prosecution refuse to release the full tape, then the defence presents this finding and alleges the officer/civilian was on a fishing expedition, and therefore the evidence must be suspect. After all, this judge has found on a point of law...
:keepsfingerscrossed:
:keepsdreaming:...but if upheld it's very good news. If the prosecution refuse to release the full tape, then the defence presents this finding and alleges the officer/civilian was on a fishing expedition, and therefore the evidence must be suspect. After all, this judge has found on a point of law...
:keepsfingerscrossed:
- it's sad but true, the appeal is about as predictable as night following day
Thats great news, thanks for posting!
It is of course what myself and others have said for a few years.
There simply is no motivation to do what is an exceedingly boring job properly or to the proper standards. Hardly anyone questions their presumed guilt and when they do they get the treatment that Peter Ward got just in order to see the tape.
There is no wonder then why there is no motivation as there is next to zero chance of them ever being found out. I am willing to bet that this was the first time a full tape of his was seen in a case - if he knew he was never going to be found out then why bother doing the job properly?
It is of course what myself and others have said for a few years.
There simply is no motivation to do what is an exceedingly boring job properly or to the proper standards. Hardly anyone questions their presumed guilt and when they do they get the treatment that Peter Ward got just in order to see the tape.
There is no wonder then why there is no motivation as there is next to zero chance of them ever being found out. I am willing to bet that this was the first time a full tape of his was seen in a case - if he knew he was never going to be found out then why bother doing the job properly?
havoc said:
Need to wait for the appeal (cynically IMHO likely to reverse the decision as political weight will be brought to bear on the judge hearing).
...but if upheld it's very good news. If the prosecution refuse to release the full tape, then the defence presents this finding and alleges the officer/civilian was on a fishing expedition, and therefore the evidence must be suspect. After all, this judge has found on a point of law...
:keepsfingerscrossed:
Agreed....but if upheld it's very good news. If the prosecution refuse to release the full tape, then the defence presents this finding and alleges the officer/civilian was on a fishing expedition, and therefore the evidence must be suspect. After all, this judge has found on a point of law...
:keepsfingerscrossed:
The problem in my case and appeal I honestly think was that the magistrates did not believe that the operator could be doing it *that* wrong. It was a nightmare to get them over the concept that not only was the operator inaccurate they were fundamentally incompetant.
They simply couldnt believe that a trained operator who has been nabbing people for X years could be that bad, and the ACPO Code and other points must be somehow mistaken.
At the moment, it is difficult to get the magistrates or judge to get the full tape, as it can sound like the defendant is deliberately fishing for something to hold up the case - the magistrates simply dont think that the operator has not done their job, but as you say, if this case can be referenced there is now a 'legal' reason why the tape should be released rather than a hypothetical guess by the defence.
TheGriffalo said:
Jasandjules said:
What level of court was it?
Crown court(Hull). That makes it binding on the lower courts doesn't it?However, if it is a smaller point of a case, for example, whether it is 'necessary' to disclose the full tape it will be a useful case to reference.
Not only does it show that the defendant should have reasonable grounds for asking for it not just on principle of disclosure, but on what has shown to have happened on this tape.
Further to that it also counteracts all of the BS 'Human Rights' or 'Data Protection Act' smokescreens that the magistrates at the lower court s fall for when bought up by the CPS as an excuse.
I think, armed with the transcript in this case, I cannot see how the CPS could continue to deny the full tape to anyone in the same position.
Whether or not a case is 'binding' on a lower court is not that simple. In this case it is on a specific point of law. I.e. one officer's opinion is insufficient for a prosecution, and there is a requirement for some form of corroboration. The only point for appeal would be whether such poor judgement would be sufficient to merit corroboration in those cases where the vehicle was over the speed limit: 61 over in 140. I must admit that I'm with the magistrates on this one. Whilst one would not expect 100% reliability of the officer's opinion - that's why back-up is required - circa 40% (if my maths is correct) does show a certain unreliability.
What this decision does mean is that, unless or until the decision goes to a higher court, any such case brought before that particular court should bring the same conclusion. If there is variation around the country then the CPS might feel that they should instigate an appeal using a sort of hypothetical example.
What perhaps might change is the requirement for corroboration. The only reason it was required was to stop prosecutions on the strength of one officer's opinion as to speed. In other words it was a protective measure. With the advent of accurate recording devices there was a legal 'fudge' whereby one officers opinion of excess speed was corroborated by the speedometer, radar, that sort of thing. There could be the suggestion that, as fixed cameras do not require corroboration, nor should then when hand-held.
What this decision does mean is that, unless or until the decision goes to a higher court, any such case brought before that particular court should bring the same conclusion. If there is variation around the country then the CPS might feel that they should instigate an appeal using a sort of hypothetical example.
What perhaps might change is the requirement for corroboration. The only reason it was required was to stop prosecutions on the strength of one officer's opinion as to speed. In other words it was a protective measure. With the advent of accurate recording devices there was a legal 'fudge' whereby one officers opinion of excess speed was corroborated by the speedometer, radar, that sort of thing. There could be the suggestion that, as fixed cameras do not require corroboration, nor should then when hand-held.
Derek Smith said:
With the advent of accurate recording devices there was a legal 'fudge' whereby one officers opinion of excess speed was corroborated by the speedometer, radar, that sort of thing. There could be the suggestion that, as fixed cameras do not require corroboration, nor should then when hand-held.
And that's the danger, be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it. All that will happen is that the requirement for corroboration will be withdrawn and service will resume as normal.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff