Brunstrom say 6500 speed convictions may be flawed
Discussion
TV report today says North Wales police have sent letters to 6500 drivers warning that their speeding convictions may be flawed and suggesting they may wish to appeal.
It seems Brunstrom has approved the letters.
It says Brunstom is known as, "the godfather of the speed camera" and was given the epithet by 'Police' magazine.
That's not one of the names I have often heard him called.
Anyone know what the problem might be with the convictions?
It seems Brunstrom has approved the letters.
It says Brunstom is known as, "the godfather of the speed camera" and was given the epithet by 'Police' magazine.
That's not one of the names I have often heard him called.
Anyone know what the problem might be with the convictions?
Flat in Fifth said:
Tafia said:
Anyone know what the problem might be with the convictions?
It concerns the automatic production of signed witness statements by computer that the signatory had never written or even seen, let alone actually signed.
Ah, that's the one we discussed some time ago. Gary saw no problem with it, if I recall.
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&h=0&t=136148
Cheers
>> Edited by Tafia on Friday 26th November 11:22
Bollocks to writing to the police.
Does this require their involvement.
I would get myself to court and attempt to have it overturned on the basis the conviction is unsafe having been based upon a inadmissable statement.
The police appear to be trying to control and limit damage.
Dont let them.
Does this require their involvement.
I would get myself to court and attempt to have it overturned on the basis the conviction is unsafe having been based upon a inadmissable statement.
The police appear to be trying to control and limit damage.
Dont let them.
lunarscope said:
I received my letter this morning.
It says that I have to write to the Police within 28 days and my case will be investigated to see whether is should be 'set-aside'.
However, even if this happens, the case may be reopened.
Sounds like "double jeopardy" to me.
I hope Dick personally signed these letters. I quite like the image of him suffering from writer's cramp
I think they have to re-open the case to investigate whether or not they can set it aside.
If they set it aside .... then I guess they refund your fine... und cleanse your licence. One would hope that they would offer compensation... but I think this ist their attempt to wheedle out of paying out money ....
I would write back ... to see if it can be set aside ... but make sure you quote the cheque number paying your fine und all related stuff to ensure they do not do you a second time for same offence. Und should they try this on ... no second chance for them ... straight to the StUN for maximum impact ...as this would be gross incompetence ... which may finish him off once und for all.....
But somehow... I do not think even Dick Ed ist that daft....
If my experience of the appeals procedure is to be trusted then 'Setting aside' a verdict means precisely that - the results of any original trial are cast aside.
Given the fact that the MG11s (Witness statements) in these cases are in fact nothing of the sort (scanned signatures most definitely don't count - if you read the paragraph at the top of one it does say "signed by me") it should be fairly easy to argue that there is no case to answer
I don't think double jeopardy applies if your verdict is set aside, but it would be down to the Court's to decide what the next course of action is. They could order a retrial with correct evidence (although it might be debatable whether any correct evidence exists in the first place). Failing that, and provided less than six months have elapsed, then the CPS could lay another information before magistrates and start the whole process all over again.
Given the fact that the MG11s (Witness statements) in these cases are in fact nothing of the sort (scanned signatures most definitely don't count - if you read the paragraph at the top of one it does say "signed by me") it should be fairly easy to argue that there is no case to answer
I don't think double jeopardy applies if your verdict is set aside, but it would be down to the Court's to decide what the next course of action is. They could order a retrial with correct evidence (although it might be debatable whether any correct evidence exists in the first place). Failing that, and provided less than six months have elapsed, then the CPS could lay another information before magistrates and start the whole process all over again.
Ideally, all the relevant cases will be set-aside and the Courts won't order retrials.
It makes a mockery of those occasional Police claims that the Scamera Partnerships are "nothing to do with us".
FFS, the Police are running them, producing the evidence, helping the CPS and now have been caught "Perverting the Course of Justice". Brunstrom and all the Police Officers involved should go to prison for this behaviour.
If a verdict is set-aside, I wonder who will be paying for the costs incurred by the Prosecution ?
I reckon this is going to be a complete whitewash with the Courts either ruling that the verdicts stand or simply ordering retrials and allowing new statements to be produced.
It makes a mockery of those occasional Police claims that the Scamera Partnerships are "nothing to do with us".
FFS, the Police are running them, producing the evidence, helping the CPS and now have been caught "Perverting the Course of Justice". Brunstrom and all the Police Officers involved should go to prison for this behaviour.
If a verdict is set-aside, I wonder who will be paying for the costs incurred by the Prosecution ?
I reckon this is going to be a complete whitewash with the Courts either ruling that the verdicts stand or simply ordering retrials and allowing new statements to be produced.
Why isnt that a crime?Are we saying that the signautures fell foul of the Electronic Communications Act 2000......
PART II
FACILITATION OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, DATA STORAGE, ETC.
Electronic signatures and related certificates. 7. - (1) In any legal proceedings-
(a) an electronic signature incorporated into or logically associated with a particular electronic communication or particular electronic data, and
(b) the certification by any person of such a signature,
shall each be admissible in evidence in relation to any question as to the authenticity of the communication or data or as to the integrity of the communication or data.
(2) For the purposes of this section an electronic signature is so much of anything in electronic form as-
(a) is incorporated into or otherwise logically associated with any electronic communication or electronic data; and
(b) purports to be so incorporated or associated for the purpose of being used in establishing the authenticity of the communication or data, the integrity of the communication or data, or both.
(3) For the purposes of this section an electronic signature incorporated into or associated with a particular electronic communication or particular electronic data is certified by any person if that person (whether before or after the making of the communication) has made a statement confirming that-
(a) the signature,
(b) a means of producing, communicating or verifying the signature, or
(c) a procedure applied to the signature,
is (either alone or in combination with other factors) a valid means of establishing the authenticity of the communication or data, the integrity of the communication or data, or both.
I ask because I've just done a fax to my MP via
www.faxyourmp.com/ and on the bottom of the fax is the note:
2574418d49d5da47cbbc74969942b22d (Signed with an electronic signature in accordance with subsection 7(3) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000.)
Or is this something else?
Piccy
PART II
FACILITATION OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, DATA STORAGE, ETC.
Electronic signatures and related certificates. 7. - (1) In any legal proceedings-
(a) an electronic signature incorporated into or logically associated with a particular electronic communication or particular electronic data, and
(b) the certification by any person of such a signature,
shall each be admissible in evidence in relation to any question as to the authenticity of the communication or data or as to the integrity of the communication or data.
(2) For the purposes of this section an electronic signature is so much of anything in electronic form as-
(a) is incorporated into or otherwise logically associated with any electronic communication or electronic data; and
(b) purports to be so incorporated or associated for the purpose of being used in establishing the authenticity of the communication or data, the integrity of the communication or data, or both.
(3) For the purposes of this section an electronic signature incorporated into or associated with a particular electronic communication or particular electronic data is certified by any person if that person (whether before or after the making of the communication) has made a statement confirming that-
(a) the signature,
(b) a means of producing, communicating or verifying the signature, or
(c) a procedure applied to the signature,
is (either alone or in combination with other factors) a valid means of establishing the authenticity of the communication or data, the integrity of the communication or data, or both.
I ask because I've just done a fax to my MP via
www.faxyourmp.com/ and on the bottom of the fax is the note:
2574418d49d5da47cbbc74969942b22d (Signed with an electronic signature in accordance with subsection 7(3) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000.)
Or is this something else?
Piccy
No, the signatures were supposed to be an affirmation from the Police Officer that the statement presented was true.
However, the statements were printed and signed by the computer and never seen by the Police Officer.
Therefore, thousands of statements were presented in Court when the Police knew them to be invalid.
From my limited knowledge this sounds like Perversion of the Course of Justice.
Any defendant caught doing this would be jailed !
However, the statements were printed and signed by the computer and never seen by the Police Officer.
Therefore, thousands of statements were presented in Court when the Police knew them to be invalid.
From my limited knowledge this sounds like Perversion of the Course of Justice.
Any defendant caught doing this would be jailed !
This was a guy from www.pepipoo.com if I remember correctly.
I'm amazed at the information that place has. What a goldmine.
I'm amazed at the information that place has. What a goldmine.
Peter Ward said:
Surely they know who the 6500 are? Why don't they just do it rather than force 6500 people to appeal?
That is a very good point indeed. Like the south Wales roadworks foul up.
Are we really to believe the computerised records are so bad that a public appeal is the only way. Thinking about govt computer track record maybe so.
They are relying on the premise that people who have already put their hands up and paid up have effectively admitted the offence.
Conveniently ignoring the proportion who think, I really don't think this is right but find it easier to pay up and accept the points than all that entails in fighting their corner.
Tafia said:
Ah, that's the one we discussed some time ago. Gary saw no problem with it, if I recall.
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&h=0&t=136148
You don't mean that a PH BiB gave PH a bum steer?
Repeatedly?
Next you'll be telling me he knew it was wrong all along.
How many more times has something like this happened?
1/ ESSENTIAL that ALL police forces in the country are asked whether they too have been doing this or similar - my letter to Hampshire shown below, please would everyone write to their own police forces and advise me at irfrancis@onetel.com (not .net.uk_ (a) they have written and(b) the reply - I will collate the replies.
2/ I would like to get a head of steam behind a campaign to have all those involved prosecuted, fined, jailed and/or dismissed for this appalling conduct. Any lawyers out there?
Idris Francis
Daily Mail pg 41 friday nov 26
(precis)
Thousands of convictions could be overturned after Brunstom admitted cutting corners. He was blasted by a judge after "sworn statements" found to be produced, including facsimile signatures, by computers. Taxpayers will incur costs of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Documents were (mostly) accurate but contained scanned police signatures
Tory vice chairman Nigel Evans said "It is a complete and utter scandal that this was allowed to happen in the first place. In their determination to kick the motorist at every turn they were allowed to turn a blind eye to justice"
end precis
My comment.
The purpose of a signature on any document is to confirm that the person who signed is aware of any stands by the statements on that document.
A document which includes what is purported to be a person's signature but was actually signed by someone else, imitating that person's signature is a forgery - just as much as Hitler's Diaries.
That the other person, instead of using pen and ink and copying the handwriting of the supposed signatory uses a computer to apply a scanned signature makes no difference - its is still a forgery as one signed in pen and ink.
Anyone who uses forged documents for any purpose - to obtain money, to deceive others or any other criminal or nefarious purpose is a forger, and commits a criminal offence.
When the forgery is used as evidence in a court case, that is not only forgery, but an attempt to pervert the course of justice, in effect perjury (it may be that the term "perjury" refers stricly only to the spoken word under oath, but the effect is the same), a breach of the policeman's oath, and misprision in public office.
The judge who "slammed" Brunstrom told him that if such a document appeared before him again, he would be in touch with the Director of Public Prosecutions. We now know that this offence had already been committed six and a half thousand times!
It defies belief that any police force would have set up a computer system to mass produce forged documents. But this is clearly what North Wales Police have done.
--------------------------------
Questions that demand answers:
How many other police forces have been doing this, and how many other cases will now have to be reviewed at vast public expense?
Why did the judge who became aware that forged documents had been submitted to his court say that "if this happens again" he would be in touch with the DPP. WHY NOT NOW?
If you or I submitted forged documents to a court our feet would not touch the ground - but Brunstrom's lot have done it 6,500 times! Will they now be prosecuted? IF NOT WHY NOT?
Will Brunstrom - and all those involved in this crackpot scheme now be fired? IF NOT WHY NOT?
I would be pleased to hear from anyone - especially anyone with legal or political clout, who is prepared to work with me and others to force a public inquiry, followed by criminal charges, or otherwise take out private prosecution of those involved. They really cannot be allowed to get away with this!
Finally - wherever you are - please write, by recorded delivery, to the chief constable in your area, along the lines of my letter (below) to Hampshire,. Please let me know if and when you write, so that I can keep track of the forces covered.
Dear sir,
You will no doubt be aware that North Wales Police have been heavily criticised by a judge for submitting to his court documents on which police officers' signatures had been forged by means of computer scanning. You may also be aware (eg Daily Mail Nov 26th) that some 6,500 convictions will now have to be reviewed at a cost to the taxpayer of several hundred thousand pounds.
Submission of documents bearing forged signatures to a court, in an attempt to impose fines, penalty points and in many cases driving bans, involves a litany of offences, including but not restricted to forgery, attempting to pervert the course of justice, attempting to secure pecuniary advantage by deception, contempt of court, breach of the policeman's oath, misprision in public office, and conspiracy to defraud.
Please tell me whether Hampshire police procedures, or those of the Safey (sic) Camera Partnership, Hampshire Crown Prosecution service or others, similarly breach the basic principles of fair and proper investigation, prosecution and trial. If you find that such breaches have occured, whether in relation to road traffic offences or others, please provide an indication of the scale of the problem and the names and positions of those involved.
You should be aware that similar letters will be sent by others to every chief constable in the country, and that, with others, I intend to press for criminal charges to be laid either by the Director of Public Prosecutions, or otherwise in private prosecutions, and for the dismissal of those involved, at least in respect of North Wales, and also in any other forces found to have behaved in this way.
It defies belied that even one police force should have set up a computer system to mass produce forged documents for submission to courts. What worries greatly is not only that this grotesque procedure may be happening elsewhere but also what other illegal and/or improper procedures remain to be discovered.
I await your reply with interest.
2/ I would like to get a head of steam behind a campaign to have all those involved prosecuted, fined, jailed and/or dismissed for this appalling conduct. Any lawyers out there?
Idris Francis
Daily Mail pg 41 friday nov 26
(precis)
Thousands of convictions could be overturned after Brunstom admitted cutting corners. He was blasted by a judge after "sworn statements" found to be produced, including facsimile signatures, by computers. Taxpayers will incur costs of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Documents were (mostly) accurate but contained scanned police signatures
Tory vice chairman Nigel Evans said "It is a complete and utter scandal that this was allowed to happen in the first place. In their determination to kick the motorist at every turn they were allowed to turn a blind eye to justice"
end precis
My comment.
The purpose of a signature on any document is to confirm that the person who signed is aware of any stands by the statements on that document.
A document which includes what is purported to be a person's signature but was actually signed by someone else, imitating that person's signature is a forgery - just as much as Hitler's Diaries.
That the other person, instead of using pen and ink and copying the handwriting of the supposed signatory uses a computer to apply a scanned signature makes no difference - its is still a forgery as one signed in pen and ink.
Anyone who uses forged documents for any purpose - to obtain money, to deceive others or any other criminal or nefarious purpose is a forger, and commits a criminal offence.
When the forgery is used as evidence in a court case, that is not only forgery, but an attempt to pervert the course of justice, in effect perjury (it may be that the term "perjury" refers stricly only to the spoken word under oath, but the effect is the same), a breach of the policeman's oath, and misprision in public office.
The judge who "slammed" Brunstrom told him that if such a document appeared before him again, he would be in touch with the Director of Public Prosecutions. We now know that this offence had already been committed six and a half thousand times!
It defies belief that any police force would have set up a computer system to mass produce forged documents. But this is clearly what North Wales Police have done.
--------------------------------
Questions that demand answers:
How many other police forces have been doing this, and how many other cases will now have to be reviewed at vast public expense?
Why did the judge who became aware that forged documents had been submitted to his court say that "if this happens again" he would be in touch with the DPP. WHY NOT NOW?
If you or I submitted forged documents to a court our feet would not touch the ground - but Brunstrom's lot have done it 6,500 times! Will they now be prosecuted? IF NOT WHY NOT?
Will Brunstrom - and all those involved in this crackpot scheme now be fired? IF NOT WHY NOT?
I would be pleased to hear from anyone - especially anyone with legal or political clout, who is prepared to work with me and others to force a public inquiry, followed by criminal charges, or otherwise take out private prosecution of those involved. They really cannot be allowed to get away with this!
Finally - wherever you are - please write, by recorded delivery, to the chief constable in your area, along the lines of my letter (below) to Hampshire,. Please let me know if and when you write, so that I can keep track of the forces covered.
Dear sir,
You will no doubt be aware that North Wales Police have been heavily criticised by a judge for submitting to his court documents on which police officers' signatures had been forged by means of computer scanning. You may also be aware (eg Daily Mail Nov 26th) that some 6,500 convictions will now have to be reviewed at a cost to the taxpayer of several hundred thousand pounds.
Submission of documents bearing forged signatures to a court, in an attempt to impose fines, penalty points and in many cases driving bans, involves a litany of offences, including but not restricted to forgery, attempting to pervert the course of justice, attempting to secure pecuniary advantage by deception, contempt of court, breach of the policeman's oath, misprision in public office, and conspiracy to defraud.
Please tell me whether Hampshire police procedures, or those of the Safey (sic) Camera Partnership, Hampshire Crown Prosecution service or others, similarly breach the basic principles of fair and proper investigation, prosecution and trial. If you find that such breaches have occured, whether in relation to road traffic offences or others, please provide an indication of the scale of the problem and the names and positions of those involved.
You should be aware that similar letters will be sent by others to every chief constable in the country, and that, with others, I intend to press for criminal charges to be laid either by the Director of Public Prosecutions, or otherwise in private prosecutions, and for the dismissal of those involved, at least in respect of North Wales, and also in any other forces found to have behaved in this way.
It defies belied that even one police force should have set up a computer system to mass produce forged documents for submission to courts. What worries greatly is not only that this grotesque procedure may be happening elsewhere but also what other illegal and/or improper procedures remain to be discovered.
I await your reply with interest.
Idris said:
1/ ESSENTIAL that ALL police forces in the country are asked whether they too have been doing this or similar - my letter to Hampshire shown below, please would everyone write to their own police forces and advise me at irfrancis@onetel.com (not .net.uk_ (a) they have written and(b) the reply - I will collate the replies.
2/ I would like to get a head of steam behind a campaign to have all those involved prosecuted, fined, jailed and/or dismissed for this appalling conduct. Any lawyers out there?
Idris Francis
Daily Mail pg 41 friday nov 26
(precis)
Thousands of convictions could be overturned after Brunstom admitted cutting corners. He was blasted by a judge after "sworn statements" found to be produced, including facsimile signatures, by computers. Taxpayers will incur costs of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Documents were (mostly) accurate but contained scanned police signatures
Tory vice chairman Nigel Evans said "It is a complete and utter scandal that this was allowed to happen in the first place. In their determination to kick the motorist at every turn they were allowed to turn a blind eye to justice"
end precis
My comment.
The purpose of a signature on any document is to confirm that the person who signed is aware of any stands by the statements on that document.
A document which includes what is purported to be a person's signature but was actually signed by someone else, imitating that person's signature is a forgery - just as much as Hitler's Diaries.
That the other person, instead of using pen and ink and copying the handwriting of the supposed signatory uses a computer to apply a scanned signature makes no difference - its is still a forgery as one signed in pen and ink.
Anyone who uses forged documents for any purpose - to obtain money, to deceive others or any other criminal or nefarious purpose is a forger, and commits a criminal offence.
When the forgery is used as evidence in a court case, that is not only forgery, but an attempt to pervert the course of justice, in effect perjury (it may be that the term "perjury" refers stricly only to the spoken word under oath, but the effect is the same), a breach of the policeman's oath, and misprision in public office.
The judge who "slammed" Brunstrom told him that if such a document appeared before him again, he would be in touch with the Director of Public Prosecutions. We now know that this offence had already been committed six and a half thousand times!
It defies belief that any police force would have set up a computer system to mass produce forged documents. But this is clearly what North Wales Police have done.
--------------------------------
Questions that demand answers:
How many other police forces have been doing this, and how many other cases will now have to be reviewed at vast public expense?
Why did the judge who became aware that forged documents had been submitted to his court say that "if this happens again" he would be in touch with the DPP. WHY NOT NOW?
If you or I submitted forged documents to a court our feet would not touch the ground - but Brunstrom's lot have done it 6,500 times! Will they now be prosecuted? IF NOT WHY NOT?
Will Brunstrom - and all those involved in this crackpot scheme now be fired? IF NOT WHY NOT?
I would be pleased to hear from anyone - especially anyone with legal or political clout, who is prepared to work with me and others to force a public inquiry, followed by criminal charges, or otherwise take out private prosecution of those involved. They really cannot be allowed to get away with this!
Finally - wherever you are - please write, by recorded delivery, to the chief constable in your area, along the lines of my letter (below) to Hampshire,. Please let me know if and when you write, so that I can keep track of the forces covered.
Dear sir,
You will no doubt be aware that North Wales Police have been heavily criticised by a judge for submitting to his court documents on which police officers' signatures had been forged by means of computer scanning. You may also be aware (eg Daily Mail Nov 26th) that some 6,500 convictions will now have to be reviewed at a cost to the taxpayer of several hundred thousand pounds.
Submission of documents bearing forged signatures to a court, in an attempt to impose fines, penalty points and in many cases driving bans, involves a litany of offences, including but not restricted to forgery, attempting to pervert the course of justice, attempting to secure pecuniary advantage by deception, contempt of court, breach of the policeman's oath, misprision in public office, and conspiracy to defraud.
Please tell me whether Hampshire police procedures, or those of the Safey (sic) Camera Partnership, Hampshire Crown Prosecution service or others, similarly breach the basic principles of fair and proper investigation, prosecution and trial. If you find that such breaches have occured, whether in relation to road traffic offences or others, please provide an indication of the scale of the problem and the names and positions of those involved.
You should be aware that similar letters will be sent by others to every chief constable in the country, and that, with others, I intend to press for criminal charges to be laid either by the Director of Public Prosecutions, or otherwise in private prosecutions, and for the dismissal of those involved, at least in respect of North Wales, and also in any other forces found to have behaved in this way.
It defies belied that even one police force should have set up a computer system to mass produce forged documents for submission to courts. What worries greatly is not only that this grotesque procedure may be happening elsewhere but also what other illegal and/or improper procedures remain to be discovered.
I await your reply with interest.
idris,
I have sent you a scanned piece on this issue together with the name and address of the defendant in the case where the scanned signature was first noticed.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff