should i have hired a solicitor?
Discussion
MR2Mike said:
Having read the whole thread through again, I fail to see how you draw this conclusion. Shoodies case is based on lack of evidence, pure and simple. Without a camera on board the police car, there is nothing to tie in a vascar reading with the defendants vehicle, other than the same BIB that exercised judgement of the defendants speed in the first place.
For heaven's sake, a policeman doesn't need any other evidence than a speedometer and his opinion. Precedent was set for this during world war one and has never been successfully challenged.
Like it or not, Shoodie got his punishment reduced because he plea bargained (in effect) with the CPS. This allowed the CPS to do
all work on the case and STILL secure a guilty verdict. Let's not forget that.DeMolay said:
For heaven's sake, a policeman doesn't need any other evidence than a speedometer and his opinion. Precedent was set for this during world war one and has never been successfully challenged.
The police are assumed always to be telling the truth and that therefore any MoP disagreement is by definition a lie.
In the past the police didn't come after generally law-abiding MoPs. Criminals were "other people" and the police, who I think generally knew them, were left to get on with the job of handling them. Did they lie? Who knows but it wasn't an issue for normal MoPs.
Now everyone is a potential criminal, spotted by police hiding in bushes, hiding behind parapets, hiding on sliproads, hiding behind roadsigns (cameras). And occasionally in full view, as SC is rightly fond of pointing out.
So now it's very much an issue for everyone, because the police are onto us. If the DVLA doesn't do its job quickly enough we are guilty via ANPR until we can prove we are innocent. If two cars are flashed by a Gatso at the same time we are guilty until we can prove we are innocent. It's hardly surprising that we start to question, not the integrity of an individual officer, but that of the system as a whole.
And when the system imposes targets for detection, and provides revenue that pays your salary/overtime from the prosecution, that makes it a whole lot worse. There is a motivation for bending the story that was never there before.
The ideal is that the word of a single police officer is sacrosact. The reality is that there are many reasons why it might not be true. And to put an officer in the position of having no independent verification of his position is unfair on the officer.
For the future, will magistrates start to realise that, just because they favour the police, they can no longer take every police statement as gospel? Or will they continue to be influenced by the fact that, because they are now part of every camera partnership, there are incentives for them to support the police even more strongly?
Prosecution, judge and (no) jury all funded by the fines? Whose side are they on?
MR2Mike said:
Your entire case seemed to be based on police lies/inaccuracies.
Having read the whole thread through again, I fail to see how you draw this conclusion. Shoodies case is based on lack of evidence, pure and simple. Without a camera on board the police car, there is nothing to tie in a vascar reading with the defendants vehicle, other than the same BIB that exercised judgement of the defendants speed in the first place.
We are spinning round in circles on this. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. But they do NOT have to prove with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the driver is guilty. They have to prove it BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Now if plod stands up and says (a) in my opinion he was speeding and (b) I used my calibrated VASCAR that I know how to operate (waves bit of paper) and it indicated the driver was speeding ... the beaks have to ask themselves whether that is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
So what sources of doubt can they imagine? (1) The policeman is incompetent, (2) he is bent, (3) his vascar is buggered and he is too stupid to notice this, etc, etc
If there is an established principle that the word of a policeman alone can never be sufficient evidence to convict, then by all means use that defence. But if your case hinges on convincing the bench that there is reasonable doubt, you are taking a risk unless you have some evidence of your own that undermines the testimpony of the BiB.
philly said:
I'm very interested to hear the views on this outcome from FiF, DVD and DeMolay, especially DeMolay.
Regards all.
Phil.
De Molay and DVD much quicker on the draw than me, but seeing as nominated to reply here goes.
I refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier comment which included the following.
Flat in Fifth said:
Shoodie: if you feel this prosecution evidence is wrong, then fight for it, gather as much evidence as you can. If there are timing marks on the road, find the location and spend some time by visiting the site, get up onto the bridge in question and see it from plod’s eyes. You might just find something to your advantage.
It will not be easy, and you have a mountain to climb, but tell the truth, and it will never vary, because you will have lived it in real time, and the story will never vary, because that is what it is, the truth.
Interested to hear the outcome though, good luck. Plea bargaining is an interesting idea.
So Shoodie followed my advice in addition to that of Iolaire , fair enough.
I maintain that we still only have one side of the story, but all credit to shoodie for sticking to his guns, and credit to Iolaire for advising him accordingly.
CPS and plod got their conviction so they are winners, shoodie got a much reduced penalty compared to what could have been so he is a winner.
We can argue all day about evidence this, evidence that, CPS/plod dropping the ball, CPS/plod taking a pragmatic decision. All going round in circles.
Clearly one lesson to be learnt is the issue of the Newton hearing and plea bargaining about the facts of the degree of guilt. Still guilty though !
One question shoodie, same journey, same conditions, would you still travel at the same velocity? Just wondered.
FiF
No, Fif, absolutely not! Ever since that sunny August evening that turned into a disturbing nightmare, I have changed my whole mindset on driving.
The ordeal of living through this, even though the worst outcome wasn't a big deal, had become a cloud over the past 6 months.
Nobody who leads a normal simple life likes to live under a cloud of glooming uncertainty. It is human nature to fear the worst.
The point I'm making is that this is a form of punishment. A mentally antagonising form.
I thought about how I got caught. I also thought about reading this in an article: 'Consider yourself lucky each time you speed and don't get caught. The police only have to get lucky once to catch you.'
I had to get the lead out of my right foot. The car I drive is a 2.5ltr BMW. What I had been doing was driving it how it was 'meant' to be driven. Not recklessly though I might add.
The idea of 'breezing' down to Cornwall should NOT have been in my mind when planning my weekend break.
I now drive in a more 'chilled out' way. It is now ok to be cruising at 80mph. I allow myself more time on my journeys, stock a careful selection of cd's, and simply 'enjoy' the ride.
I no longer need to worry about BiBs and their various tricks and camouflages.
My fuel consumption is down, the service lights on the dash take their time to increment, and my tyres last longer.
I consider myself very lucky to have gotten away without a disqualification, with due credit to Iolaire, but I have to live up to the privilege, which I hope I'm now doing.
The ordeal of living through this, even though the worst outcome wasn't a big deal, had become a cloud over the past 6 months.
Nobody who leads a normal simple life likes to live under a cloud of glooming uncertainty. It is human nature to fear the worst.
The point I'm making is that this is a form of punishment. A mentally antagonising form.
I thought about how I got caught. I also thought about reading this in an article: 'Consider yourself lucky each time you speed and don't get caught. The police only have to get lucky once to catch you.'
I had to get the lead out of my right foot. The car I drive is a 2.5ltr BMW. What I had been doing was driving it how it was 'meant' to be driven. Not recklessly though I might add.
The idea of 'breezing' down to Cornwall should NOT have been in my mind when planning my weekend break.
I now drive in a more 'chilled out' way. It is now ok to be cruising at 80mph. I allow myself more time on my journeys, stock a careful selection of cd's, and simply 'enjoy' the ride.
I no longer need to worry about BiBs and their various tricks and camouflages.
My fuel consumption is down, the service lights on the dash take their time to increment, and my tyres last longer.
I consider myself very lucky to have gotten away without a disqualification, with due credit to Iolaire, but I have to live up to the privilege, which I hope I'm now doing.
[/quote]
See this is where even I have a problem.
The motorist has NO WAY OF PROVING EITHER way that he was or was not speeding, and plod know this.
It basically boils down to this:-
If I were done in a similar manner, and I KNEW I WAS GUILTY, then I would plead as such.
However, if I knew that I definately was NOT GUILTY, then I would perhaps take it further. But with what counter evidence. Eg I KNOW that I was doing, say 75mph, and hence exceeding the posted limit; but JUST HOW DO I PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that I most certainly wasnt doing 107.2 mph. I cant. So plod wins yet again. English people roll over perhaps too easily because the cost in solicitors fees etc is perhaps more than pleading guilty. This however means that it is all Sooooooo easy for plod to secure a conviction; because he is a trained copper and the dogs bollox. The motorist has absolutely no way of proving he was not speeding, even though, he positively knows he was not. This law needs changing so this sort of thing cannot happen. I am sorry DVD etc, but IOLAIRE is absolutely correct to contest this. In ANY OTHER CRIME, there has to be indisputable evidence leading to beyond all reasonable doubt. Speeding offenses it seems dont have to have to same burden of proof.
If shoodie knows he is guilty, then plead accordingly. If on the other hand, he knows he is not guilty, then by all means take it all the way. Not sure how it will turn out though, as the mags seem always to belive plod over the motorist. Good luck shoodie.
>> Edited by blademan on Monday 11th April 11:47
>> Edited by blademan on Monday 11th April 12:01
See this is where even I have a problem.
The motorist has NO WAY OF PROVING EITHER way that he was or was not speeding, and plod know this.
It basically boils down to this:-
If I were done in a similar manner, and I KNEW I WAS GUILTY, then I would plead as such.
However, if I knew that I definately was NOT GUILTY, then I would perhaps take it further. But with what counter evidence. Eg I KNOW that I was doing, say 75mph, and hence exceeding the posted limit; but JUST HOW DO I PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that I most certainly wasnt doing 107.2 mph. I cant. So plod wins yet again. English people roll over perhaps too easily because the cost in solicitors fees etc is perhaps more than pleading guilty. This however means that it is all Sooooooo easy for plod to secure a conviction; because he is a trained copper and the dogs bollox. The motorist has absolutely no way of proving he was not speeding, even though, he positively knows he was not. This law needs changing so this sort of thing cannot happen. I am sorry DVD etc, but IOLAIRE is absolutely correct to contest this. In ANY OTHER CRIME, there has to be indisputable evidence leading to beyond all reasonable doubt. Speeding offenses it seems dont have to have to same burden of proof.
If shoodie knows he is guilty, then plead accordingly. If on the other hand, he knows he is not guilty, then by all means take it all the way. Not sure how it will turn out though, as the mags seem always to belive plod over the motorist. Good luck shoodie.
>> Edited by blademan on Monday 11th April 11:47
>> Edited by blademan on Monday 11th April 12:01
Been away for a few days so just catching up with this.
My thanks to DVD and DeMolay for your gracious remarks gentlemen.
However, you might be interested to know this is the fifth result in the past three months in similar cases.
Three of them PHrs, two friends and family.
The case against my son I referred to in another post was dropped by the Fiscal last week, accompanied by a very polite letter explaining that whilst they could not enter into specifics, the quality of the evidence must be examined at all times, and they considered that there could be some questions over this.
I take that to mean they had civilians in the scameravan, and they know that I know this!!
One other case was dropped after the intermediate diet, when I requested, for the fourth time, the test certificates for the equipment and the police statements.
The other three, just like Shoodie's, were bargained down to very light sentences to keep everyone happy and save the prosecutions sense of honour and justice! (Just bit my tongue coz it was firmly in my cheek!!)
This is something that would never have been considered even five years ago by prosecutors, but is working now, and whilst I feel distinctly uncomfortable doing it, because I would far rather get a not guilty verdict, it does provide a solution for a great many people, and most importantly allows them to keep their licence.
For me the most important point about all of this is the consideration that the powers that be have no right to be prosecuting in the first place in most of these cases; they have the power, they don't have the right.
It does utterly nothing to improve road safety and is simply authority flexing it's muscles at the easy target of the motorist.
As I already stated I am off to the States shortly but I am working on an idea for a website to handle similar cases like these; as long as I have a terminal and a line I can keep in touch and try and do something that counters the current system.
My thanks to DVD and DeMolay for your gracious remarks gentlemen.
However, you might be interested to know this is the fifth result in the past three months in similar cases.
Three of them PHrs, two friends and family.
The case against my son I referred to in another post was dropped by the Fiscal last week, accompanied by a very polite letter explaining that whilst they could not enter into specifics, the quality of the evidence must be examined at all times, and they considered that there could be some questions over this.
I take that to mean they had civilians in the scameravan, and they know that I know this!!
One other case was dropped after the intermediate diet, when I requested, for the fourth time, the test certificates for the equipment and the police statements.
The other three, just like Shoodie's, were bargained down to very light sentences to keep everyone happy and save the prosecutions sense of honour and justice! (Just bit my tongue coz it was firmly in my cheek!!)
This is something that would never have been considered even five years ago by prosecutors, but is working now, and whilst I feel distinctly uncomfortable doing it, because I would far rather get a not guilty verdict, it does provide a solution for a great many people, and most importantly allows them to keep their licence.
For me the most important point about all of this is the consideration that the powers that be have no right to be prosecuting in the first place in most of these cases; they have the power, they don't have the right.
It does utterly nothing to improve road safety and is simply authority flexing it's muscles at the easy target of the motorist.
As I already stated I am off to the States shortly but I am working on an idea for a website to handle similar cases like these; as long as I have a terminal and a line I can keep in touch and try and do something that counters the current system.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff