Stiffer speeding penalties for leading rideout. or not.

Stiffer speeding penalties for leading rideout. or not.

Author
Discussion

agtlaw

Original Poster:

6,680 posts

205 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
Some of you may remember this: http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults...

I had an interesting trial today. The police/prosecution tried to rely on the Chichester case as some kind of precedent. The MCN report was actually served with the crown's case. I told the CPS by email to get the proper case report if they intended to rely on it but they didn't. The Chichester case is a crown court case and therefore not a binding precedent; as any law undergraduate knows.

Brief facts of my case are these. Police officer is doing speed checks (pro laser 3) at a rural location. 60 mph road. Two bikers pass him. He checks the 1st (and furthest from him) with the PL. -96 mph at 570 feet. He doesn't check the 2nd biker's speed with the PL. There are 50 yards or so between the bikers. The 2nd biker is apparently attempting to catch up with the 1st at the same or a faster speed. Along the same road, but out of sight over a crest, a 2nd officer is waiting. First officer sends a radio message to stop the two bikers and she does so. Second officer doesn't allege either was speeding when she saw them. Neither bikers admit to speeding at the roadside. One biker intimates that he was catching up with the other and this is noted in a PNB entry. Unsigned by the biker. CPS prosecute both bikers for speeding.

Trial. Prosecution purport to identify biker 1 as defendant 1 in their opening. Facts as outlined above put in evidence by police officers. Description of biker 1 - "blue bike, blue helmet". Description of biker 2 - "blue bike". Police officers can't say who biker 1 at the time of the check or whether their positions changed when they reached officer 2. Neither can they say which biker was on which bike. Neither biker gives evidence at trial as we're not keen to help the prosecution prove its case.

Magistrates decide that the individuals alleged to be speeding are the two defendants. Both officers saw no other traffic on the road. However, the officers were unable to identify the lead biker. This gave the court cause for concern and where there is doubt that would be resolved in favour of the defendants. Not guilty x2.

A good result but it didn't allow me to take the case to the High Court (which would have been my intention). Speeding requires corroboration. The prosecution case was essentially that it doesn't matter which biker was the lead biker. His speed was corroborated by the Pro Laser and the 2nd biker's speed was corroborated by the 1st biker's speed. I referred to this in my closing as secondary corroboration of a type not normally accepted by the courts. However, it was open to the court to convict on the basis outlined and following from that I would have been keen to set a precedent in the High Court. Thankfully, for my two clients, we don't need to do that and similar cases will continue to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

randlemarcus

13,507 posts

230 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
Hmm. Seems like "never match your leathers to your bike" just became "always match your leathers to your bike to everyone else on the rideout" biggrin

rob.kellock

2,213 posts

191 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
Some of you may remember this: http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults...

I had an interesting trial today. The police/prosecution tried to rely on the Chichester case as some kind of precedent. The MCN report was actually served with the crown's case. I told the CPS by email to get the proper case report if they intended to rely on it but they didn't. The Chichester case is a crown court case and therefore not a binding precedent; as any law undergraduate knows...

A good result...
Chichester case not binding but may have been persuasive?

Stunning result based on the facts as summarised, well done. As the poster on the wall of my old chemistry teacher's lab stated - if you can't convince them, confuse them ;-)


Edited by rob.kellock on Wednesday 25th April 22:20

Hooli

32,278 posts

199 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
randlemarcus said:
Hmm. Seems like "never match your leathers to your bike" just became "always match your leathers to your bike to everyone else on the rideout" biggrin
Black leathers are the best thumbup

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
Interesting stuff, especially as a bike rider.

CBR JGWRR

6,518 posts

148 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Hooli said:
randlemarcus said:
Hmm. Seems like "never match your leathers to your bike" just became "always match your leathers to your bike to everyone else on the rideout" biggrin
Black leathers are the best thumbup
Best bet is black leathers with a green kawasaki.

Like every other kawasaki in the country...

smile

98elise

26,364 posts

160 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
I'm not sure why getting away with 96 in a 60 is a good result?

Do you believe them to be guilty or innocent?

Speed all you want, but be prepared to take it on the chin when you get caught.

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 26th April 06:27

Nigel Worc's

8,121 posts

187 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
98elise said:
I'm not sure why getting away with 96 in a 60 is a good result?

Do you believe them to be guilty or innocent?

Speed all you want, but be prepared to take it on the chin when you get caught.

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 26th April 06:27
Jesus wept, are you for real ?

If you cause damage or harm, take it on the chin, otherwise advise the enforcement cretins to get a life !

pitmansboots

1,372 posts

186 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
....A good result but it didn't allow me to take the case to the High Court (which would have been my intention). Speeding requires corroboration. The prosecution case was essentially that it doesn't matter which biker was the lead biker. His speed was corroborated by the Pro Laser and the 2nd biker's speed was corroborated by the 1st biker's speed. I referred to this in my closing as secondary corroboration of a type not normally accepted by the courts. However, it was open to the court to convict on the basis outlined and following from that I would have been keen to set a precedent in the High Court. Thankfully, for my two clients, we don't need to do that and similar cases will continue to be dealt with on a case by case basis.
It is a matter of opinion whether the result was "good", I'm sure your clients are pleased. It would seem that the prosecution have been jockeyed by you into a position that was beyond recovery; another prosecutor may not have fallen for that and presented the case more effectively.
Your planned defence, before the prosecution gave you one for free, was based upon a "secondary corroboration of a type not normally accepted by the courts.". While that was an angle to take that was, in my opinion, cavalier, I think it is unlikely to be successful.
If a speed detection officer sees. 2 vehicles travelling at a similar speed or one travelling faster than the other, then measures the speed of the slower vehicle; corroboration by the speed measuring device has been effected. Just because this isn't normally presented in evidence doesn't give a reason that it should never be accepted by a court.
Is it reasonable to evidence the speed of one vehicle by the speed of another vehicle to prove that both vehicles are exceeding a speed limit? In my opinion it is; anyone who is able to see 2 vehicles travelling together or if one is approaching another by catching it up can see the relative speeds of those vehicles. If you know the speed of the slower one is higher than the speed limit, then both are. To reject this evidence, reasonable doubt needs to be shown; it should be reasonably simple for the prosecution to evidence that; the prosecutor and witnesses in the case the OP refers to showed the simple can be made difficult. Whether that was the skill of the defence advocate or the inefficiency of the crown prosecutor and witnesses is as debatable as the planned defence tactic.
I say it was lucky the planned prosecution evidence was poorly presented. Well done, never-the-less.
Looking forward to the High Court laughing your case out of court, good luck.

Did the Magistrates err in their decision?
agtlaw said:
....Magistrates decide that the individuals alleged to be speeding are the two defendants. Both officers saw no other traffic on the road. However, the officers were unable to identify the lead biker. This gave the court cause for concern and where there is doubt that would be resolved in favour of the defendants. Not guilty x2.
Both bikers have been found by the Magistrates to be speeding, case proven. What speed each driver was doing is only relevant to the sentence; if the higher speed is not able to be shown to be attributable to one of them then the sentence can be made to be the same for both even if it is the minimum sentence. That is surely a reasonable decision rather than acquitting.
Perhaps there is case law that says if one convict is more guilty than the other and they won't say or it can't be proven which is which an acquittal for both follows. Is there such a case and if their is, is that reasonable?

Edited by pitmansboots on Thursday 26th April 09:10

Negative Creep

24,942 posts

226 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Nigel Worc's said:
98elise said:
I'm not sure why getting away with 96 in a 60 is a good result?

Do you believe them to be guilty or innocent?

Speed all you want, but be prepared to take it on the chin when you get caught.

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 26th April 06:27
Jesus wept, are you for real ?

If you cause damage or harm, take it on the chin, otherwise advise the enforcement cretins to get a life !
Would you feel the same if it was 2 chavs in their Saxos who got off the hook?

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
As a trial lawyer, I take my wig off to agtlaw for his skill in provoking the prosecutor into errors, and thus bamboozling the court to acquit two plainly guilty hoonists. Part of me says: this is why we have a burden of proof, and if the defence can induce the prosecution to slip up in proving the offence, then hoorah for the system. Another part of me thinks that this is ripe and cheesy. I also think that the Divisional Court would probably have taken a pretty firm line on the argument that agtlaw hoped to run there, and might have used the judicial version of "yuh momma".

Still, a win's a win, so well done, sort of.

Snowboy

8,028 posts

150 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
See, this is why we need a Judge Dredd style of law where armed bds can just shoot the speeding motorcyclists off their bikes with a 50 cal pistol.

Put that video on Police-Camera-Action and it’ll be a lot more interesting.

Any biker who avoids getting shot is considered innocent.


(the above post may not be posted in earnest. I may just be being silly. This may be because today is Friday for me and I’m off for a long weekend away)

wolves_wanderer

12,356 posts

236 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Negative Creep said:
Would you feel the same if it was 2 chavs in their Saxos who got off the hook?
If it can't be proved which one was which and who was speeding then yes.

shouldbworking

4,769 posts

211 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Surely regardless of exactly who was who in the situation they still have enough evidence to secure a conviction? 2 bikes, one of which was verified @ 96mph, and two officers view that the other rider travelling at a similar pace?

Or does the offence require a specific speed linked to a specific driver?

Regardless, it hardly seems fair to link the case of blaming the speed of subsequent riders on the lead rider with a case of two riders on a hoon who got off because the officers failed to get all the information.

Snowboy

8,028 posts

150 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
wolves_wanderer said:
Negative Creep said:
Would you feel the same if it was 2 chavs in their Saxos who got off the hook?
If it can't be proved which one was which and who was speeding then yes.
But, if they were both speeding then surely that’s enough for conviction.

If 2 people rob a bank in gorilla suits and the police aren’t sure which one was which, they can still both be arrested for bank robbery.

pitmansboots

1,372 posts

186 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
As a trial lawyer, I take my wig off to agtlaw for his skill in provoking the prosecutor into errors, and thus bamboozling the court to acquit two plainly guilty hoonists. Part of me says: this is why we have a burden of proof, and if the defence can induce the prosecution to slip up in proving the offence, then hoorah for the system. Another part of me thinks that this is ripe and cheesy. I also think that the Divisional Court would probably have taken a pretty firm line on the argument that agtlaw hoped to run there, and might have used the judicial version of "yuh momma".

Still, a win's a win, so well done, sort of.
It's as "ripe and cheesy" as rushing to the toilet or being chased by papparazzi but when the prosecutor picks up the case that morning forced errors can occur perhaps.
There is evidence that one of eh bikers was travelling at 96mph and a second was travelling faster than that. As the speed is 26mph higher than the hugest speed limit and probably 36mph higer that the road these 2 chaps were on how much doubt about guilt can there be? Practically none and the doubt is certainly not reasonable IMHO.
A retrial at Crown Court wouldn't have the same result I'm sure. Somehow, I doubt that the budget holder in CPS will sanction an appeal and retrial even if the circumstances of eh case permit an appeal.
It is a shame the High Court judges can't leap up and punch the air, that would be fun. I have seen a few cases there when they must have retired to their chambers and said WTF was that based upon; he should have his licence to practice removed scamming clients like that. Hey-Ho!

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Some of the groovier High Court Judges have been known to say "yeah, right" and similar when confronted with ye olde stinky Stilton from the Bar. I have never quite heard one say "yes, and monkeys might fly out of my butt" in response to an advocate's submission , but a few have come close.

pitmansboots

1,372 posts

186 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
shouldbworking said:
Surely regardless of exactly who was who in the situation they still have enough evidence to secure a conviction? 2 bikes, one of which was verified @ 96mph, and two officers view that the other rider travelling at a similar pace?

Or does the offence require a specific speed linked to a specific driver?

Regardless, it hardly seems fair to link the case of blaming the speed of subsequent riders on the lead rider with a case of two riders on a hoon who got off because the officers failed to get all the information.
They can't use the evidence of the 2 officers because they saw the vehicles on different parts of the road. Brightly v Pearson [1938] 4 All E.R. 127. The officers must speak as seeing the speeding on the same part of the road.

A specific speed is not required although here we have one. 96mph from a laser. The other biker was seen by the officer making the measurement to be travelling faster to catch up. Both are therefore proven to be speeding. The specifics of the speed are used for sentencing and perhaps consideration of other charges such as dangerous driving.

I don't think anyone is blaming the subsequent rider for being 'forced' to keep up. The Magistrates were convinced both were speeding so both were guilty of that offence; they have then decided to acquit because they don't agree which one should be given a higher penalty that the other; that is a perverse and absurd decision that should be appealed IMHO.

pitmansboots

1,372 posts

186 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Some of the groovier High Court Judges have been known to say "yeah, right" and similar when confronted with ye olde stinky Stilton from the Bar. I have never quite heard one say "yes, and monkeys might fly out of my butt" in response to an advocate's submission , but a few have come close.
A raised eyebrow has so much more meaning when it is raised in front of a barmy barrister by a High Court judge.
The High Court should have its own TV channel.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 26th April 2012
quotequote all
The Supreme Court does.