Scottish Sheriffs - Tough Taskmasters or Pussycats
Discussion
The reason for the question is that I'm due in the Sheriffs court later this month (Sheriffs court, NOT District Court) for an alledged 104 on the A74(M) earlier this year.
What punishment can I expect? As its gone to Sheriffs court, am I likely to be hung out to dry?
Any help gratefully received - I've got the same question on Pepipoo and I need to decide whether to fight or hide on this one.
What punishment can I expect? As its gone to Sheriffs court, am I likely to be hung out to dry?
Any help gratefully received - I've got the same question on Pepipoo and I need to decide whether to fight or hide on this one.
mondeoman said:
The reason for the question is that I'm due in the Sheriffs court later this month (Sheriffs court, NOT District Court) for an alledged 104 on the A74(M) earlier this year.
What punishment can I expect? As its gone to Sheriffs court, am I likely to be hung out to dry?
Any help gratefully received - I've got the same question on Pepipoo and I need to decide whether to fight or hide on this one.
Sorry Dave, don't know the answer to your question, but my sincere commiserations to you all the same.
I wish you the best possible success in minimising, or preferably avoiding, punishment over such a trifling matter.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
mondeoman said:
The reason for the question is that I'm due in the Sheriffs court later this month (Sheriffs court, NOT District Court) for an alledged 104 on the A74(M) earlier this year.
What punishment can I expect? As its gone to Sheriffs court, am I likely to be hung out to dry?
Any help gratefully received - I've got the same question on Pepipoo and I need to decide whether to fight or hide on this one.
Hi Dave,
The main, but very significant difference between the District and Sheriff Court is that you will be facing a sheriff rather than a magistrate, which most of the time is a good thing.
Sheriffs are all legally qualified, quite a few of them are women, and they tend to be quite fair.
You can put a coherent argument across that will get a decent hearing unlike a magistrates court, which up here are absolutely appalling.
If you were stopped on the A74(M), you were stopped on one of the finest stretches of motorway in the country, it is a 150 mph road, and the police regularly drive at those speeds when training their drivers.
Can I assume they used VASCAR in a vehicle and if so, did they give you a copy of the video, this is very important if you want to fight it.
Can I tell you something right now Dave; there has been numerous comments on here from people, some of them BiBs saying if you go in cap in hand and admit you done it and be apologetic you will get a lighter sentence. Now I don't know if English courts have some sort of unwritten law, but that's just simply not the case up here.
What you have to do is remind the court, very politely but firmly, that the onus of proof is always on the crown, NOT the accused; i.e. the Fiscal has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence.
If you can cast any dispersions at all on the police evidence, you can get a not guilty verdict. You would be surprised at how easy this is to do sometimes, they frequently make mistakes when operating the equipment or don't bother testing it at the start of the shift.
Because you were doing over 100mph there is the chance that you will be disqualified; despite what many people think this is not written in law, it's simply a fashion that the courts have adopted.
What you have to do if you decide to go for guilty but with a plea in mitigation is to remind the court, again politely but firmly, that the laws of physics don't alter at 100mph, and that you were in full control of your vehicle at all times, and quite obviously the police vehicle that caught you was travelling at a much higher speed to do so, etc.
Another important thing to remember about Scotland is that there are always two officers in the car and their evidence must be corroborative for a conviction.
If you can demonstrate that there are significant differences between the two testimonies you can use that, or alternatively if the testimonies are word for word perfect then they are rehearsed and therefore inaccurate.
You need balls to do this Dave, but it very often works, so consider it seriously.
At the speed you were doing you have nothing to lose, because if you just stand there and do nothing they'll have your licence anyway.
If you want to e-mail me with more detail about the event I'll see what I can do.
Best of luck.
Yes. The Sherrif court has more power (bigger fine/sentence).
104 on the A/M74. Nah, you're nicked good and proper. They pull so many people over on that one that they'll have been through every loophole, and closed it, you can dream up. Not pessimistic just realistic.
Beg
>> Edited by naetype on Monday 8th November 14:56
104 on the A/M74. Nah, you're nicked good and proper. They pull so many people over on that one that they'll have been through every loophole, and closed it, you can dream up. Not pessimistic just realistic.
Beg
>> Edited by naetype on Monday 8th November 14:56
naetype said:
Yes. The Sherrif court has more power (bigger fine/sentence).
104 on the A/M74. Nah, you're nicked good and proper. They pull so many people over on that one that they'll have been through every loophole, and closed it, you can dream up. Not pessimistic just realistic.
Beg
>> Edited by naetype on Monday 8th November 14:56
That is why they get away with it.
If everyone keeps on taking a defeatist stance nothing will change.
I have defended numerous cases like this and won; it was undoubtedly hard work and took a great deal of effort, but I consider it worth it.
By the way, I'm not talking about exploiting loopholes here, I'm talking about a defence against procedural irregularities or inaccuracies; there is a big difference between the two.
IOLAIRE said:
What you have to do if you decide to go for guilty but with a plea in mitigation is to remind the court, again politely but firmly, that the laws of physics don't alter at 100mph, and that you were in full control of your vehicle at all times, and quite obviously the police vehicle that caught you was travelling at a much higher speed to do so, etc.
Couldn't disagree more. Mitigation? Forget it. If you come out with this at court they will bring back public flogging especially for you. It will rightly be seen as being smart arsed.
With a plea of mitigation you go cap in hand and ask for leniency; not waffling on about how you were in control of your car at 100mph+.
Don't take my word for it though, ask JK out of Jamiroquai (spelling?!).
DeMolay said:
What you have to do if you decide to go for guilty but with a plea in mitigation is to remind the court, again politely but firmly, that the laws of physics don't alter at 100mph, and that you were in full control of your vehicle at all times, and quite obviously the police vehicle that caught you was travelling at a much higher speed to do so, etc.
Couldn't disagree more. Mitigation? Forget it. If you come out with this at court they will bring back public flogging especially for you. It will rightly be seen as being smart arsed.
With a plea of mitigation you go cap in hand and ask for leniency; not waffling on about how you were in control of your car at 100mph+.
Don't take my word for it though, ask JK out of Jamiroquai (spelling?!).
Good God De Molay!! Could you have picked a worst person to stand up in Court than JK.
A multi millionaire rock star with form for assault and a seriously twisted mentality!!
If Dave doesn't convince the court that he was in full control of the car he stands to be heavily penalised for that very reason.
But you don't do it by "waffling", where on earth did I say that?
You do it with calm, reasonable argument, convince the court that you were doing nothing dangerous, you must show good reason for mitigation, you can't just ask for it as a favour!
I'm interested to know why you think it would "quite rightly be seen as smart arsed"?
IOLAIRE said:
But you don't do it by "waffling", where on earth did I say that?
You do it with calm, reasonable argument, convince the court that you were doing nothing dangerous, you must show good reason for mitigation, you can't just ask for it as a favour!
I'm interested to know why you think it would "quite rightly be seen as smart arsed"?
You correctly point out that you did not say "waffling"; that was my insertion. Having stood up in a Scottish court and represented myself, I can tell you that you doff your cap, say it was a mistake and plead for leniency if you want to go down the mitigation road. If you talk about being in control of your car at 100mph+ (and basically admitting you were flouting the speed limit with disregard) plus stating that the police would have to travel faster to catch you (obviously!) then you will be seen as a smart arse. No question.
Humility and acceptance of making a mistake are whats required in a court; not over confidence in your own ability.
DeMolay said:
But you don't do it by "waffling", where on earth did I say that?
You do it with calm, reasonable argument, convince the court that you were doing nothing dangerous, you must show good reason for mitigation, you can't just ask for it as a favour!
I'm interested to know why you think it would "quite rightly be seen as smart arsed"?
You correctly point out that you did not say "waffling"; that was my insertion. Having stood up in a Scottish court and represented myself, I can tell you that you doff your cap, say it was a mistake and plead for leniency if you want to go down the mitigation road. If you talk about being in control of your car at 100mph+ (and basically admitting you were flouting the speed limit with disregard) plus stating that the police would have to travel faster to catch you (obviously!) then you will be seen as a smart arse. No question.
Humility and acceptance of making a mistake are whats required in a court; not over confidence in your own ability.
DeMolay,
I am not talking about standing up and representing myself. I have represented accused and helped prepare defences for over twenty years, all of it in Scottish courts.
A fair resume would be that,
a) the police frequently make serious errors of judgement, especially in the use of VASCAR; on several occasions I have caught them lying in their teeth.
b) I have never, not on one single occasion, met a Fiscal who had the slightest clue about technical arguments, you can use this to your own advantage.
c) I hate to have to say this, and I don't want any lawyers taking offence, but most criminal lawyers I have met are useless at traffic cases, and I think it's for the same reason as the Fiscal, they seem incapable of understanding the technicalities and get too embroiled solely in the legal arguments. Most traffic cases are defensible on technical defects rather than legal.
d) A great many many failed defences are successful on appeal simply because of the lower courts seeming inability to recognise the concept of reasonable doubt.
You must never allow the law to intimidate you, you have to recognise the right every person has to stand up and state their case. This is not arrogance, it is simply a basic right.
DeMolay said:
But you don't do it by "waffling", where on earth did I say that?
You do it with calm, reasonable argument, convince the court that you were doing nothing dangerous, you must show good reason for mitigation, you can't just ask for it as a favour!
I'm interested to know why you think it would "quite rightly be seen as smart arsed"?
You correctly point out that you did not say "waffling"; that was my insertion. Having stood up in a Scottish court and represented myself, I can tell you that you doff your cap, say it was a mistake and plead for leniency if you want to go down the mitigation road. If you talk about being in control of your car at 100mph+ (and basically admitting you were flouting the speed limit with disregard) plus stating that the police would have to travel faster to catch you (obviously!) then you will be seen as a smart arse. No question.
Humility and acceptance of making a mistake are whats required in a court; not over confidence in your own ability.
By the way DeMolay, that's a helluva name you've got.
You don't live anywhere near Rosslyn do you?
Just let me clarify a bit here - I wasn't being followed, I was nabbed by plod at the side of the road with a laser thingummy, and I saw him as I came past a lorry in the middle lane, just on the brakes too late to get my speed down sufficiently. He was nicking everyone that day. My mum got done for 87 just an hour earlier, at exactly the same point. Traffic was fairly light, I wasn't the quickest on the road that day.
I was speeding, I'm not denying that at all, all I want to do is minimise the damage, and if that means investiagating all possible legal and technical avenues before taking it on the chin, then so be it. The longer I can drag it out before I end up in court, the better. BUT, I don't want to do anything that is likely to prejudice the court against me and I have a feeling that unless I can catch them bang-to-rights on a technicality, pleading NG would just wind them up. I need to be over 80% confident of a win before I plead NG.
I was speeding, I'm not denying that at all, all I want to do is minimise the damage, and if that means investiagating all possible legal and technical avenues before taking it on the chin, then so be it. The longer I can drag it out before I end up in court, the better. BUT, I don't want to do anything that is likely to prejudice the court against me and I have a feeling that unless I can catch them bang-to-rights on a technicality, pleading NG would just wind them up. I need to be over 80% confident of a win before I plead NG.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff