Balance of probabilities at a mags Court?
Discussion
flashbang said:
Very likely reported incorectly. Faulty speedo is never a defence.kestral said:
flashbang said:
Very likely reported incorectly. Faulty speedo is never a defence.A long time ago (in 1980) I was prosecuted for doing 42 mph in a 30 limit in a car which I had bought new just two weeks before.
It was discovered then that it had a speedometer which was under-reading by up to 16 mph.
I received letters from the main dealer who sold me the car and a senior person at the importer (BMW) confirming this inaccuracy and apologising to me. I appeared with my solicitor who presented the letters. The letters confirmed that the car had a new-type electronic speedometer and a replacement had been ordered from the manufacturer for immediate delivery and that I had been loaned a car in the meantime
The prosecution asked me a couple of questions, then said that, surely, the main dealers check speedos before delivering a car. My reply was that that was the £64,000 question, but I felt sure we all knew what the real answer was. The Chief Mag smiled at that and said that he felt no more questions were relevant.
The magistrates imposed no points and a nominal £10 fine since I had pleaded guilty with mitigation. A good result I thought and quite fair.
It was discovered then that it had a speedometer which was under-reading by up to 16 mph.
I received letters from the main dealer who sold me the car and a senior person at the importer (BMW) confirming this inaccuracy and apologising to me. I appeared with my solicitor who presented the letters. The letters confirmed that the car had a new-type electronic speedometer and a replacement had been ordered from the manufacturer for immediate delivery and that I had been loaned a car in the meantime
The prosecution asked me a couple of questions, then said that, surely, the main dealers check speedos before delivering a car. My reply was that that was the £64,000 question, but I felt sure we all knew what the real answer was. The Chief Mag smiled at that and said that he felt no more questions were relevant.
The magistrates imposed no points and a nominal £10 fine since I had pleaded guilty with mitigation. A good result I thought and quite fair.
agtlaw said:
Burden of proof on prosecution = criminal standard of proof applies.
Burden of proof on defendant = civil standard of proof applies.
Also see Special Reasons.
I have been in contact with the reporter about this case and it does appear to be correctly reported that a magistrate sitting alone with a clerk to advice has in fact allowed this faulty speedo as a special reason for not endorsing.Burden of proof on defendant = civil standard of proof applies.
Also see Special Reasons.
Edited by agtlaw on Friday 3rd January 20:28
Do you know if the police (as it will be them that chose SJP) can appeal this?
It appears pervers in law to allow the offence of driving with a faulty speedometer to be a 'special reason' not to endorse!
Incredible that Special Reasons were found without reference to a proper court hearing. I’ve never heard of that happening. Where SR are raised then the case is normally adjourned for the prosecution to prepare a response. On the face of it, it would be a perverse decision to listen to and allow SR without reference to the prosecuting authority. Live evidence isn’t heard at the SJ stage. Everything is done on the papers.
There is a very limited right of appeal against sentence for the prosecution. They can’t appeal to the crown court - as is the right of a defendant. Their only avenue to appeal would be to the High Court, either case stated or judicial review.
I don’t know enough about the case to comment whether a finding of SR would have been justified. A single event might, in certain circumstances, be enough to constitute SR (if the failure can be properly evidenced) - but the defendant here drove on 4 or 5 separate occasions over a number of weeks!?
There is a very limited right of appeal against sentence for the prosecution. They can’t appeal to the crown court - as is the right of a defendant. Their only avenue to appeal would be to the High Court, either case stated or judicial review.
I don’t know enough about the case to comment whether a finding of SR would have been justified. A single event might, in certain circumstances, be enough to constitute SR (if the failure can be properly evidenced) - but the defendant here drove on 4 or 5 separate occasions over a number of weeks!?
Edited by agtlaw on Tuesday 7th January 17:29
agtlaw said:
Incredible that Special Reasons were found without reference to a proper court hearing. I’ve never heard of that happening. Where SR are raised then the case is normally adjourned for the prosecution to prepare a response. On the face of it, it would be a perverse decision to listen to and allow SR without reference to the prosecuting authority. Live evidence isn’t heard at the SJ stage. Everything is done on the papers.
There is a very limited right of appeal against sentence for the prosecution. They can’t appeal to the crown court - as is the right of a defendant. Their only avenue to appeal would be to the High Court, either case stated or judicial review.
I don’t know enough about the case to comment whether a finding of SR would have been justified. A single event might, in certain circumstances, be enough to constitute SR (if the failure can be properly evidenced) - but the defendant here drove on 4 or 5 separate occasions over a number of weeks!?
In this SJP situation correct me if I am wrong but the police elect to have the matter delt by way of SJP as apposed to a court summons? with 5 speeding offences in one month! There is a very limited right of appeal against sentence for the prosecution. They can’t appeal to the crown court - as is the right of a defendant. Their only avenue to appeal would be to the High Court, either case stated or judicial review.
I don’t know enough about the case to comment whether a finding of SR would have been justified. A single event might, in certain circumstances, be enough to constitute SR (if the failure can be properly evidenced) - but the defendant here drove on 4 or 5 separate occasions over a number of weeks!?
Edited by agtlaw on Tuesday 7th January 17:29
I would have thought that would have consituted a situation where open court was required.
It’s their choice to commence proceedings using the Single Justice Procedure.
I haven’t seen a case commenced by summons for a while. A Postal Requisition is the usual method of commencing proceedings if a SJPN isn’t used. The SJP is only for adults charged with non-imprisonable summary only offences.
They don’t appear to spend much, if any, time reviewing cases before issuing SJPNs. Many of my cases are obviously not suitable for the Single Justice Procedure - but they use it anyway.
I haven’t seen a case commenced by summons for a while. A Postal Requisition is the usual method of commencing proceedings if a SJPN isn’t used. The SJP is only for adults charged with non-imprisonable summary only offences.
They don’t appear to spend much, if any, time reviewing cases before issuing SJPNs. Many of my cases are obviously not suitable for the Single Justice Procedure - but they use it anyway.
flashbang said:
5 times and 3 different camera's! f
k living around there 
TX.
Terminator X said:
flashbang said:
5 times and 3 different camera's! fk living around there TX.
Both roads are barriered dual-carriageways. Despite the cameras being very apparent, they catch loads of drivers - many, it seems, who can't believe those roads are 30mph limits.
SS2. said:
Terminator X said:
flashbang said:
5 times and 3 different camera's! fk living around there TX.
Both roads are barriered dual-carriageways. Despite the cameras being very apparent, they catch loads of drivers - many, it seems, who can't believe those roads are 30mph limits.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff