Nick Freeman - Gatso advice?
Discussion
So in last nights Fifth Gear, Nick Freeman (the Lawyer to the stars) purports to be able to offer legal advice which would make a potential Gatso conviction redundant. Does anybody have a "heads up" on the advice that he might be referring to? I'm intrigued and even more intrigued as to his proposed defence to this new forward facing Gatso camera position. 
Anyone?
Anyone?
Symbolica said:
Most of his ideas seemed to revolve around discrediting the officers involved in the case, which could really apply to any type of conviction. I too though, would be interested to head what he's got to say
There aren't any Officers in Gatso case - I assumed that he was really talking about laser jobs.
Gatso defences seem to revolve around the completion of the S172.
deva link said:
Most of his ideas seemed to revolve around discrediting the officers involved in the case, which could really apply to any type of conviction. I too though, would be interested to head what he's got to say
There aren't any Officers in Gatso case - I assumed that he was really talking about laser jobs.
Gatso defences seem to revolve around the completion of the S172.
Agreed. ost of the cases I have heard of revolve around the CPS case not being 100% and the officers testimony not being 100%. For example, if the officer does not state that the device used is Home Office approved then it is game over. If the CPS brief reminds the officer then it is game over for asking a leading question...
It basically would come down to the fact that if the CPS briefs were as good as him they too would be getting four grand a day instead of four grand a month!
I would think that any court argument against the gatso itself would have to be supported by an independant engineer (and NOT the gatso manufacturer or their puppies who are often used), as follows:
1) any proof of the actual timing between flashes to the millisecond should be brought up, to be cheked by a mathematician in court (no assumption that the machine is correct!)
2) any proof of the correct and current (at the time of the offence) calibration of the Gatso (vibration from a passing truck can render them totally inacurrate, that's why they are being phased out in Germany)
3) proof of the cars registration on a FILM ORIGINAL not a digital copy or modified or enhanced picture....and BOTH original pictures (negative film AT COURT!!!)
4) proof of the drivers identity
5) and of course all original evidence being placed minimum 7 days before trial with the defendant
If the cnuts back out shortly before or at thr court (no evidence etc) after threatening I would assume that a court case against them for false accusation /threatening behaviour/ extortion could be on the cards?
Whatever legal insurance is the way to go (thus paying for a Freeman or other), and use fully against these almost criminal actions of the so-called "safety" creeps!!!
1) any proof of the actual timing between flashes to the millisecond should be brought up, to be cheked by a mathematician in court (no assumption that the machine is correct!)
2) any proof of the correct and current (at the time of the offence) calibration of the Gatso (vibration from a passing truck can render them totally inacurrate, that's why they are being phased out in Germany)
3) proof of the cars registration on a FILM ORIGINAL not a digital copy or modified or enhanced picture....and BOTH original pictures (negative film AT COURT!!!)
4) proof of the drivers identity
5) and of course all original evidence being placed minimum 7 days before trial with the defendant
If the cnuts back out shortly before or at thr court (no evidence etc) after threatening I would assume that a court case against them for false accusation /threatening behaviour/ extortion could be on the cards?
Whatever legal insurance is the way to go (thus paying for a Freeman or other), and use fully against these almost criminal actions of the so-called "safety" creeps!!!
[quote=justinp1]
For example, if the officer does not state that the device used is Home Office approved then it is game over. If the CPS brief reminds the officer then it is game over for asking a leading question...
[quote]
Hardly. Asking the question 'does the device have any official approval?' is no more leading than 'are you a serving Police officer'. Further, leading questions are frequently asked in order to expedite proceedings, such as 'were you operating a speed check on the 1st of May'?
>> Edited by kenp on Wednesday 31st May 10:00
For example, if the officer does not state that the device used is Home Office approved then it is game over. If the CPS brief reminds the officer then it is game over for asking a leading question...
[quote]
Hardly. Asking the question 'does the device have any official approval?' is no more leading than 'are you a serving Police officer'. Further, leading questions are frequently asked in order to expedite proceedings, such as 'were you operating a speed check on the 1st of May'?
>> Edited by kenp on Wednesday 31st May 10:00
Some of his tactics are that the CPS often does not issue the correct evidence the correct amount of time before the case. Asking for a phote is a big NO NO in his opinion.
Another one is that it is arguable that all camera operators should be police men, not some civvy, because they have not the training/exp to judge speed.
Another is that a mobile camera operator MUST be suspicious of you speeding, WITHOUT using any device, just his eyes, before he zaps you. If you look at the tiny gap they aim through, and the distance they nick you at this is often impossible.
It seems, from an article I read about him, that the cps shoot themselves in the foot, but so many get nicked they dont care much as the revenue is still massive.
Sorry, I meant to say they are still punishing lots and lots of murderers and rapists who speed all the time.
>> Edited by unobtainum on Wednesday 31st May 13:36
Another one is that it is arguable that all camera operators should be police men, not some civvy, because they have not the training/exp to judge speed.
Another is that a mobile camera operator MUST be suspicious of you speeding, WITHOUT using any device, just his eyes, before he zaps you. If you look at the tiny gap they aim through, and the distance they nick you at this is often impossible.
It seems, from an article I read about him, that the cps shoot themselves in the foot, but so many get nicked they dont care much as the revenue is still massive.
Sorry, I meant to say they are still punishing lots and lots of murderers and rapists who speed all the time.
>> Edited by unobtainum on Wednesday 31st May 13:36
unobtainum said:
Another is that a mobile camera operator MUST be suspicious of you speeding, WITHOUT using any device, just his eyes, before he zaps you.
Is that actually true? Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I can imagine a scamera operator coming to the conclusion that since most drivers routinely exceed the speed limit, any given driver is quite likely to be exceeding the speed limit. I can imagine them coming to this conclusion without making any assessment at all of the actual speed. If the speed camera then shows that they were wrong, they just move on to the next car on the same basis.
GreenV8S said:
Another is that a mobile camera operator MUST be suspicious of you speeding, WITHOUT using any device, just his eyes, before he zaps you.
Is that actually true? Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I can imagine a scamera operator coming to the conclusion that since most drivers routinely exceed the speed limit, any given driver is quite likely to be exceeding the speed limit. I can imagine them coming to this conclusion without making any assessment at all of the actual speed. If the speed camera then shows that they were wrong, they just move on to the next car on the same basis.
The observation of speeding is crucial ("prior opinion"
. The 'speed gun' merely corroborates this prior opinion. If there was no prior opinion then then there was no offence committed.
I can only assume the Police Officers who get caught out in court like this must either be pretty dumb or staggeringly honest.
Why would they stand up in court and say "No, I didn't form a prior opinion of the cars speed, I just zapped it anyway" - when they could simply say "in my opinion it was exceeding the speed limit so I zapped it"?
Why would they stand up in court and say "No, I didn't form a prior opinion of the cars speed, I just zapped it anyway" - when they could simply say "in my opinion it was exceeding the speed limit so I zapped it"?
kenp said:
[quote=justinp1]
For example, if the officer does not state that the device used is Home Office approved then it is game over. If the CPS brief reminds the officer then it is game over for asking a leading question...
[quote]
Hardly. Asking the question 'does the device have any official approval?' is no more leading than 'are you a serving Police officer'. Further, leading questions are frequently asked in order to expedite proceedings, such as 'were you operating a speed check on the 1st of May'?
>> Edited by kenp on Wednesday 31st May 10:00
I did actually use this example, as this was the exact reason why a previous Nick Freeman case was dropped. He explained his case that the statement was leading the witness through his testimony and the court accepted that and the testimony nullified so that there was no more evidence for the Crown to submit.
deva link said:
I can only assume the Police Officers who get caught out in court like this must either be pretty dumb or staggeringly honest.
Why would they stand up in court and say "No, I didn't form a prior opinion of the cars speed, I just zapped it anyway" - when they could simply say "in my opinion it was exceeding the speed limit so I zapped it"?
That is exactly what happens in court. It makes the system a farce and the opinion can literally be based on a 'hunch'. When I cross-examined the officer in my case, he logically musty have made the opinion of excess speed at a distance of half a mile away. He did this on the basis of a 'hunch' without the use of any kind of reference point, way markers or even noticing the difference in speed between different vehicles. If the primary evidence in all cases could be accepted in court on the basis of a hunch it would make the legal system a farce.
"My thirty years experience in the force gave me the hunch that I know the defendant committed the murder m'lud! I knew if as soon as I saw his face he was a dodgy b'stard!"
During the Sharon Tate murder trial, Charles Manson was initially defended by a newly qualified lawyer.
The first prosecution witness was a Police Officer, who after being sworn in was asked how old he was. As he replied, Manson's brief jumped up and shouted 'hearsay!'.
Strictly speaking he was correct, since the Police Officer would have been told by somebody else when he was born and therfore how old he was. Point being, rules such as 'leading witnesses' and 'hearsay' have to be viewed in the light of their likely prejudicial effect.
The first prosecution witness was a Police Officer, who after being sworn in was asked how old he was. As he replied, Manson's brief jumped up and shouted 'hearsay!'.
Strictly speaking he was correct, since the Police Officer would have been told by somebody else when he was born and therfore how old he was. Point being, rules such as 'leading witnesses' and 'hearsay' have to be viewed in the light of their likely prejudicial effect.
justinp1 said:
I can only assume the Police Officers who get caught out in court like this must either be pretty dumb or staggeringly honest.
Why would they stand up in court and say "No, I didn't form a prior opinion of the cars speed, I just zapped it anyway" - when they could simply say "in my opinion it was exceeding the speed limit so I zapped it"?
That is exactly what happens in court. It makes the system a farce and the opinion can literally be based on a 'hunch'. When I cross-examined the officer in my case, he logically musty have made the opinion of excess speed at a distance of half a mile away. He did this on the basis of a 'hunch' without the use of any kind of reference point, way markers or even noticing the difference in speed between different vehicles. If the primary evidence in all cases could be accepted in court on the basis of a hunch it would make the legal system a farce.
I guess many people would argue that prior opinion doesn't really matter anyway - there's no prior opinion with a Gatso. The proof is the laser reading.
justinp1 said:
"My thirty years experience in the force gave me the hunch that I know the defendant committed the murder m'lud! I knew if as soon as I saw his face he was a dodgy b'stard!"
I imagine that's how many murders (at least the ones on TV!) are solved. Again, there needs to be proof to back up the hunch.
deva link said:
I can only assume the Police Officers who get caught out in court like this must either be pretty dumb or staggeringly honest.
Why would they stand up in court and say "No, I didn't form a prior opinion of the cars speed, I just zapped it anyway" - when they could simply say "in my opinion it was exceeding the speed limit so I zapped it"?
That is exactly what happens in court. It makes the system a farce and the opinion can literally be based on a 'hunch'. When I cross-examined the officer in my case, he logically musty have made the opinion of excess speed at a distance of half a mile away. He did this on the basis of a 'hunch' without the use of any kind of reference point, way markers or even noticing the difference in speed between different vehicles. If the primary evidence in all cases could be accepted in court on the basis of a hunch it would make the legal system a farce.
I guess many people would argue that prior opinion doesn't really matter anyway - there's no prior opinion with a Gatso. The proof is the laser reading.justinp1 said:
"My thirty years experience in the force gave me the hunch that I know the defendant committed the murder m'lud! I knew if as soon as I saw his face he was a dodgy b'stard!"
I imagine that's how many murders (at least the ones on TV!) are solved. Again, there needs to be proof to back up the hunch.
Ah yes, the proof in the murder case would be that the 'hunch' would be backed up by the use of a 'murderer detector laser'. It will be calibrated annually on burglars (as actually testing the device on actual murderers is unecessary), and there will be a set of 'Guidelines' issed so that as long as the operator has been trained at some time in the past then this is proof that it is operated correctly.
So Sonny Jim, either accept that you committed the murder and take your punishment like a man, or if you want your day in court to get the case proved then expect at least three times the punishment!
It sounds rediculous when you make the simile with a murder case, but the concept is identical for a lot of people who have been accused of speeding.
justinp1 said:
It sounds rediculous when you make the simile with a murder case, but the concept is identical for a lot of people who have been accused of speeding.
Oh I don't know - what about the people who are arrested for some minor thing, a DNA sample is taken, and next thing they're in jail for that murder they did 30yrs ago that they thought they'd got away with?
I'm really miffed about both the times I got done for speeding, but I do think you (well me, anyway) can get too hung about it.
For a murder conviction, there's (hopefully) an altogether more exhaustive process to go through before a conviction. For speeding, unless you're significantly over the limit, you get a penalty, it's not even a conviction. My insurance company (Liverpool Victoria/Fizzell) doesn't even want to know anymore. It's a bit like playing football, only you can get 3 yellow cards before you get a red one.
deva link said:
It sounds rediculous when you make the simile with a murder case, but the concept is identical for a lot of people who have been accused of speeding.
Oh I don't know - what about the people who are arrested for some minor thing, a DNA sample is taken, and next thing they're in jail for that murder they did 30yrs ago that they thought they'd got away with?
I'm really miffed about both the times I got done for speeding, but I do think you (well me, anyway) can get too hung about it.
For a murder conviction, there's (hopefully) an altogether more exhaustive process to go through before a conviction. For speeding, unless you're significantly over the limit, you get a penalty, it's not even a conviction. My insurance company (Liverpool Victoria/Fizzell) doesn't even want to know anymore. It's a bit like playing football, only you can get 3 yellow cards before you get a red one.
I agree, you can get too hung up about it. The other contributary factor is that solely due to the fact that I would not accept my guilt for something I didnt do by the roadside, and took time to represent myself in court my fine quadrupled and the points doubled.
It was from that experience I found out how underhand the CPS was in ensuring it was imposible for me to defend myself properly, and how the system is set to default to guilty until proven innocent, and the only way to break this cycle seems to be to discredit the whole system.
It becomes a bit more soul destroying when you also lose the appeal and the total cost for defending your innocence amounts to about £1500 plus increased insurance costs of about £400 over the next few years.
You are right though that next time I wont be as hung up. It simply was not worth the hassle and personal stress and time taken to try and beat the system. Guilty or not I will just hand over £60 cash by the side of the road. Its not right and does not sit well with me morally but I have learnt my lesson. I still try and advise others though from my hours upon hours spent on the case. I helped a guy from PH who contacted me about his case where he would lose his job and licence as he has 9 points and was accused of doing over a ton. After being messed around for a few court dates he defended himself and won, and got his report in the Mail.
That was satisfaction enough for me in that my money was well spent. Good luck anyone else and if you can afford the guy who is the subject of this thread then all the better. From what happened in court he would have ripped apart the witness and the CPS and perhaps I wouldnt have been as bitter now!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff