should i have hired a solicitor?
Discussion
One dry sunny August evening, driving down to Cornwall with my partner, I was caught doing 107.2mph on the A30 dual-carriageway near Exeter. The police officer was parked half-visible on one of the crossing bridges and clocked me using his VASCAR 5000 covering two white marks on the road 0.4 miles apart in 13.42 seconds i.e. 107.2 mph!
Court case is on Monday but I decided not to hire a solicitor in the view that I have no claims for a reduction in the length of any ban they're intending to impose. Also I couldn't afford one!
I know they don't have any video evidence because the patrol car was not equipped with any video recording equipment.
Could I be wrong in not hiring a solicitor? If so, is it too late to get an adjournment at this eleventh hour?
>>> Edited by shoodie on Tuesday 7th December 17:49
Court case is on Monday but I decided not to hire a solicitor in the view that I have no claims for a reduction in the length of any ban they're intending to impose. Also I couldn't afford one!
I know they don't have any video evidence because the patrol car was not equipped with any video recording equipment.
Could I be wrong in not hiring a solicitor? If so, is it too late to get an adjournment at this eleventh hour?
>>> Edited by shoodie on Tuesday 7th December 17:49
shoodie said:
One dry sunny August evening, driving down to Cornwall with my wife, I was caught doing 107.2mph on the A30 dual-carriageway near Exeter. The police officer was parked half-visible on one of the crossing bridges and clocked me using his VASCAR 5000 covering two white marks on the road 0.4 miles apart in 13.42 seconds i.e. 107.2 mph!
Court case is on Monday but I decided not to hire a solicitor in the view that I have no claims for a reduction in the length of any ban they're intending to impose. Also I couldn't afford one!
I know they don't have any video evidence because the patrol car was not equipped with any video recording equipment.
Could I be wrong in not hiring a solicitor? If so, is it too late to get an adjournment at this eleventh hour?
No Shoodie, it's not too late, but you have to ask yourself why you would do this.
You could simply say that you are changing your plea to not guilty after seeking some legal advice.
If the copper was on his own and there is no video evidence you do realise that you are in a fairly strong position; it's simply his word against yours.
He has absolutely no corroborative evidence whatsoever.
This makes it entirely different from the run of the mill case.
If you contest it the best he can do is to show a test certificate for the VASCAR, which of course still doesn't prove you were speeding.
You have nothing to lose from the point of view that you will almost certainly be banned if you plead guilty, if you go to trial remember the crown has to prove you were speeding beyond all reasonable doubt.
If you don't want to go for a full blown trial, I would plead not guilty, ask the CPS for the test certificate and let them see you mean business, and with a bit of luck they'll drop the charges.
If they don't, contact them and say you're willing to entertain a Fixed Penalty for a speed well under 100MPH, with three points and a fine.
They'd then be crazy not to entertain that.
Good luck.
Shoodie. Ask yourself was this about the speed you were doing? If you confirm thats about right then you have committed the offence my son. Period. Doing 55 and accused of over a ton is another matter and your post would have been full of idignation if this had been the case.
Now IOLAIRE, hates Cameras and is of the opinion that Traffic Cars are staffed by Officers whose claim to fame are to be frugal with the truth and can fiddle better that Jimmy Shand (sorry I but that's how you come across) which IS NOT THE CASE.
Evidence will be presented of your time over a distance giving your average speed. Further that certain tests made to confirm Vascar working OK. What evidence do you have to dispute?
May I suggest that you get to Court early and seek out the Court Duty Solicitor for advice on your plea and perhaps he may well act as Advocate in mitigating any possible ban.
DVD
Now IOLAIRE, hates Cameras and is of the opinion that Traffic Cars are staffed by Officers whose claim to fame are to be frugal with the truth and can fiddle better that Jimmy Shand (sorry I but that's how you come across) which IS NOT THE CASE.
Evidence will be presented of your time over a distance giving your average speed. Further that certain tests made to confirm Vascar working OK. What evidence do you have to dispute?
May I suggest that you get to Court early and seek out the Court Duty Solicitor for advice on your plea and perhaps he may well act as Advocate in mitigating any possible ban.
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:
Shoodie. Ask yourself was this about the speed you were doing? If you confirm thats about right then you have committed the offence my son. Period. Doing 55 and accused of over a ton is another matter and your post would have been full of idignation if this had been the case.
Now IOLAIRE, hates Cameras and is of the opinion that Traffic Cars are staffed by Officers whose claim to fame are to be frugal with the truth and can fiddle better that Jimmy Shand (sorry I but that's how you come across) which IS NOT THE CASE.
Evidence will be presented of your time over a distance giving your average speed. Further that certain tests made to confirm Vascar working OK. What evidence do you have to dispute?
May I suggest that you get to Court early and seek out the Court Duty Solicitor for advice on your plea and perhaps he may well act as Advocate in mitigating any possible ban.
DVD
Really DVD, your ignorance in all things Scottish, apart from single malts, knows no bounds.
Jimmy Shand was an accordian player!!
If you read my post you will see that the very first sentence actually states that he should ask himself why he should want to change his plea.
Whether you like it or not DVD, I don't "think" that there are coppers in the traffic police who lie or exaggerate, I have caught them red handed, bang to rights doing it. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.
I did not however suggest anything of the sort here, I merely gave this guy a detail of the alternatives if he wants to try and save his licence.
You see DVD, at the end of the day you can talk about guilt or innocence or who's lying and who's not, but for me the whole issue is what bloody right does the law have to take the licences from people who are frequently first class drivers, who are not involved in accidents or even an incident that could in any way be construed as dangerous: particularly, and this is a classic case, when they are the victims of police entrapment, no warnings, no visible presence, just there to catch people, NOT deter them.
That's immoral, offensive and does absolutely nothing to improve road safety.
And I refuse to believe you don't appreciate that argument DVD; you're far too bright not to.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Shoodie.
Evidence will be presented of your time over a distance giving your average speed. Further that certain tests made to confirm Vascar working OK. What evidence do you have to dispute?
DVD
BY the way DVD, exactly what evidence is it you expect this officer to show in court?
Not only is there no video evidence, the police vehicle did not even have a camera.
In other words there IS NO evidence.
I'm sorry if this is coming across strongly, but I've dealt with years of this crap about test certificates on VASCAR and calibrated speedometers; it is totally irrelevant because without video evidence to corroborate the police can stand up and say whatever they please.
THEY operate the VASCAR manually, THEY can make it show any reading they want, it is manually operated.
They can stand up and say what reading is on a speedo, they have utterly no way of proving it.
This is not acceptable in this day and age of high tech equipment; it is quite clearly a standard of evidence that is NOT beyond reasonable doubt.
Just so that the concept of this is crystal clear to everyone; DVD is called out to a stabbing in a pub.
He arrives in time to see Wild Jimmy standing over a victim with a knife in his hand.
He arrests Wild Jimmy and his fingerprints are found on the knife; forensics lead scientific evidence that the shape of the wound is specific to the blade of the knife and, although no one actually saw the guy being stabbed, both men were arguing violently just moments before the stabbing.
DVDs testimony along with the scientific stuff and the witnesses that saw the argument all are corroborative and the Crown, quite correctly can put a first class case together.
In this traffic case the copper stands up and says, "I saw him do it".
What other evidence does the Crown have; none, not a sausage. NOT acceptable!!
IOLAIRE said:Not acceptable to you perhaps, but more than likely it will be entirely acceptable to the bench. Why, they would ask, would the policeman bother to make it up? You can deny, wriggle, etc. but you may well just suceed in winding the magistrates up and removing any chance at all of them taking pity on you.
What other evidence does the Crown have; none, not a sausage. NOT acceptable!!
ATG said:
What other evidence does the Crown have; none, not a sausage. NOT acceptable!!
Not acceptable to you perhaps, but more than likely it will be entirely acceptable to the bench. Why, they would ask, would the policeman bother to make it up? You can deny, wriggle, etc. but you may well just suceed in winding the magistrates up and removing any chance at all of them taking pity on you.
Wrong, the acceptability or otherwise has nothing whtever to do with me.
It has to do with what is acceptable in law.
The crown has to lead the evidence and the defence doesn't have to prove a thing; but in order to win it has to show that the crown's evidence is weak or wrong or insufficient.
In this case there is no evidence other than the copper stating what he saw, and that is wide open to criticism because it is VASCAR, manually operated and susceptible to error.
You are not winding the magistrates or anyone up; you are simply saying the evidence is not of an acceptable standard.
The question of the policeman "making it up" is totally irrelevant; you don't have to prove he's making it up, he has to prove he isn't.
How is he going to do that? He has no physical evidence.
I will tell you right now that there are certain magistrates that would accept this as enough evidence to convict, but going to appeal with this sort of evidence is an almost certain winner.
The High Court want to see correct, corroborative evidence, this is most definitely not acceptable as there is no corroboration.
This question has come up several times and there is a distinct reluctance to accept the principle outlined here; I suspect it comes from the intimidating atmosphere that surrounds the whole business of the process of law through the magistrates courts and their (the magistrates) historical record of the acceptance of police evidence without question to convict motorists; they wouldn't dream of doing it in a real criminal case involving the prosecution of a villain, but they consider motorists fair game.
Do you consider that acceptable also?
destroyer said:
Unlike in scotland, in England and Wales, the opinion of the Police Officer (singular) plus the corroboration of the VASCAR result is sufficient.
Why would the Police Officer make it up.
I won't go into details but I have first hand experience of a Police Officer "making it up".
And even if he didn't make it up, he is human. Humans make mistakes.
'King Deadly said:
I won't go into details but I have first hand experience of a Police Officer "making it up".
And even if he didn't make it up, he is human. Humans make mistakes.
All true, but will the magistrates consider it is reasonable to doubt the word of the Police Officer or his competencs to operate the equipment? My guess is that many would think it was not reasonable to do so. The duty solicitor may be able to give a steer on the attitude of the bench.
destroyer said:
Unlike in scotland, in England and Wales, the opinion of the Police Officer (singular) plus the corroboration of the VASCAR result is sufficient.
Why would the Police Officer make it up.
By the way, Jimmy Shand played the accordion like a fiddle.
You're still not grasping this Destroyer.
There is no corroboration of the VASCAR result without video evidence; the officer can't show or prove anything to the court without a video.
Why is this so difficult for some of you to accept, or are you simply trying to wind me up?
It doesn't matter about him lying, making it up, being mistaken, it is about the quality of the evidence.
Without the tape the VASCAR evidence doesn't exist because there is no material evidence.
If you're implying that it is acceptable to convict someone just on the spoken statement of one policeman and nothing else then I'm sorry, that's not how the law was designed.
It might go on in certain magistrate's courts, that doesn't make it right or legal.
IOLAIRE said:
Unlike in scotland, in England and Wales, the opinion of the Police Officer (singular) plus the corroboration of the VASCAR result is sufficient.
Why would the Police Officer make it up.
By the way, Jimmy Shand played the accordion like a fiddle.
You're still not grasping this Destroyer.
There is no corroboration of the VASCAR result without video evidence; the officer can't show or prove anything to the court without a video.
Why is this so difficult for some of you to accept, or are you simply trying to wind me up?
It doesn't matter about him lying, making it up, being mistaken, it is about the quality of the evidence.
Without the tape the VASCAR evidence doesn't exist because there is no material evidence.
If you're implying that it is acceptable to convict someone just on the spoken statement of one policeman and nothing else then I'm sorry, that's not how the law was designed.
It might go on in certain magistrate's courts, that doesn't make it right or legal.
Police Officer picks out the speeding vehicle.
Police Officer then uses VASCAR to measure said vehicle speed.
Police officer makes a note of said resuly in pocket book.
Corroboration and evidence exists.
Give it a try in court, you will find it is accepted time and again.
destroyer said:
destroyer said:
Unlike in scotland, in England and Wales, the opinion of the Police Officer (singular) plus the corroboration of the VASCAR result is sufficient.
Why would the Police Officer make it up.
By the way, Jimmy Shand played the accordion like a fiddle.
You're still not grasping this Destroyer.
There is no corroboration of the VASCAR result without video evidence; the officer can't show or prove anything to the court without a video.
Why is this so difficult for some of you to accept, or are you simply trying to wind me up?
It doesn't matter about him lying, making it up, being mistaken, it is about the quality of the evidence.
Without the tape the VASCAR evidence doesn't exist because there is no material evidence.
If you're implying that it is acceptable to convict someone just on the spoken statement of one policeman and nothing else then I'm sorry, that's not how the law was designed.
It might go on in certain magistrate's courts, that doesn't make it right or legal.
Police Officer picks out the speeding vehicle.
Police Officer then uses VASCAR to measure said vehicle speed.
Police officer makes a note of said resuly in pocket book.
Corroboration and evidence exists.
Give it a try in court, you will find it is accepted time and again.
Only because it is infrequently challenged, still doesn't make it right.
On almost every occasion I have challenged this I have won, albeit on appeal.
This is my last word; this is very basic legal principles here, those who refuse to accept or acknowledge this do so because it is in their interest, not because it is correct.
Just got back from court.
I took IOLAIRE's advice, well at the moment just some of it...
Got to court and asked for the Crown Prosecution Service. Was told they were too busy to come out before the court hearing.
In court, turns out CPS was not there but instead there was a clerk and three magistrates. The clerk already had all the details to present to the court because I already had pleaded guilty in writing.
So, as IOLAIRE suggested, I pleaded not guilty there and then. Not to the offence of speeding but to doing a speed of 107mph on the basis there was no photographic evidence.
The clerk suggested 'it seems you are contesting the accuracy of the vascar'.
I responded 'I'm simply questioning the accuracy of the whole clocking process including the scope for human error'.
The magistrates decided to adjourn the case to a later date for me to seek legal advice. (Hey at least I can now drive down to my parents' for Christmas!!)
I'm next gonna take IOLAIRE's next piece of advice: to contact the CPS and try and entertain a lesser penalty outside the court.
Problem is I did plead guilty to speeding so I don't see why CPS will see any benefit settling outside court??
Thanks to everyone for the valuable feedback.
BUT SPECIAL THANKS TO IOLAIRE FOR THE SUPERB TECHNICAL ADVICE!!!
Court retrial date set to 19th January so I'll keep you all posted...
I took IOLAIRE's advice, well at the moment just some of it...
Got to court and asked for the Crown Prosecution Service. Was told they were too busy to come out before the court hearing.
In court, turns out CPS was not there but instead there was a clerk and three magistrates. The clerk already had all the details to present to the court because I already had pleaded guilty in writing.
So, as IOLAIRE suggested, I pleaded not guilty there and then. Not to the offence of speeding but to doing a speed of 107mph on the basis there was no photographic evidence.
The clerk suggested 'it seems you are contesting the accuracy of the vascar'.
I responded 'I'm simply questioning the accuracy of the whole clocking process including the scope for human error'.
The magistrates decided to adjourn the case to a later date for me to seek legal advice. (Hey at least I can now drive down to my parents' for Christmas!!)
I'm next gonna take IOLAIRE's next piece of advice: to contact the CPS and try and entertain a lesser penalty outside the court.
Problem is I did plead guilty to speeding so I don't see why CPS will see any benefit settling outside court??
Thanks to everyone for the valuable feedback.
BUT SPECIAL THANKS TO IOLAIRE FOR THE SUPERB TECHNICAL ADVICE!!!
Court retrial date set to 19th January so I'll keep you all posted...
shoodie said:
Just got back from court.
I took IOLAIRE's advice, well at the moment just some of it...
Got to court and asked for the Crown Prosecution Service. Was told they were too busy to come out before the court hearing.
In court, turns out CPS was not there but instead there was a clerk and three magistrates. The clerk already had all the details to present to the court because I already had pleaded guilty in writing.
So, as IOLAIRE suggested, I pleaded not guilty there and then. Not to the offence of speeding but to doing a speed of 107mph on the basis there was no photographic evidence.
The clerk suggested 'it seems you are contesting the accuracy of the vascar'.
I responded 'I'm simply questioning the accuracy of the whole clocking process including the scope for human error'.
The magistrates decided to adjourn the case to a later date for me to seek legal advice. (Hey at least I can now drive down to my parents' for Christmas!!)
I'm next gonna take IOLAIRE's next piece of advice: to contact the CPS and try and entertain a lesser penalty outside the court.
Problem is I did plead guilty to speeding so I don't see why CPS will see any benefit settling outside court??
Thanks to everyone for the valuable feedback.
BUT SPECIAL THANKS TO IOLAIRE FOR THE SUPERB TECHNICAL ADVICE!!!
Court retrial date set to 19th January so I'll keep you all posted...
That's great news so far Shoodie.
You have probably realised from the experience that a cool head and sticking to your guns without being pushy or offensive gets you a lot of respect in a court.
The reason the CPS will entertain you now is that they can still get a result from this, get a fine from you, and save them the time of not going to a full blown trial; the fact that you have been honest and held up your hands and admitted to speeding will go along way.
But the CPS I can guarantee you, know damn fine they have a hard job proving your speed, very much easier to accept your offer of a fine and some points and finalise the matter.
Let us all know how it goes.
Dwight VanDriver said:
..... very interesting.
So it is not the fact that you are Not Guilty but wangling for a lesser penalty?
I see....or do I.
DVD
Thats how I read it DVD.. afterall trying to say you're doing 65 instead of 105 is one thing (and ain't going to go down well) but trying to say "you can't prove what speed I was doing" is another..
most interesting
Matt.
Dwight VanDriver said:
..... very interesting.
So it is not the fact that you are Not Guilty but wangling for a lesser penalty?
I see....or do I.
DVD
There is a precedent for this (lesser penalty) you know.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3605446.stm
DeMolay said:
..... very interesting.
So it is not the fact that you are Not Guilty but wangling for a lesser penalty?
I see....or do I.
DVD
There is a precedent for this (lesser penalty) you know.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3605446.stm
I remember this case De Molay and it was quite interesting, but you have to exercise a great deal of caution with precedents because sometimes they can bite you on the arse very hard.
The minute you introduce a precedent then that whole judgement is available to the prosecution as well, not just the juicy bit that you want to use and sometimes it can be turned against you.
The above case was slightly different in that the accused was alleging that it was physically impossible for his car to attain that speed, regardless of what type of detection equipment had been used, so the assumption must be therefore that he HAS to be not guilty.
He could still be guilty of exceeding the 70MPH limit but the introduction of this evidence discredits the integrity of the police procedure so much that the court will usually dismiss to be on the safe side.
There is a possibility of course that this could happen to Shoodie, because the court has now placed the onus back on the Crown to prove his speed and if they fail to do so, the court has the right to dismiss the case through lack of pertinent evidence.
This is also an interesting scenario that I have had personal experience of in a very straightforward case where a friend of mine simply asked me to enter a plea of mitigation for him because he was terrified of addressing the court.
I just simply stood up and said that he had suffered a flat tyre and was desperately late for an important meeting which was the truth, and he apologised profusely and had a clean licence, etc.
The sheriff was slightly concerned about the fumblings of the Fiscal when asking for the police reports and discovered that they were missing from the file.
The case was continued until after lunch when it was discovered that they couldn't lay their hands on the report. I decided to seize the day as they say, and simply stated that it would be an almost impossible task for the court to impose a penalty on an accused person without details of the offence and the nature of it; particulalry in the light of the accused pleading guilty on the assumption that he must be, due to the content of the report; without that report he would be most uncomfortable sustaining a guilty plea.
Case dismissed due to the prosecution being fatally flawed due to no evidence.
We had a wee dram that night!!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff