Speeding case thrown out Teesside Crown Court

[Dwight Vandriver]

News just coming in speeding charge thrown out at Teesside (Middlesbrough) Crown Court am and reported implications immense going back 4 or 5 years. Full picture yet to emerge but Judge not a happy bunnies on a number of points, one of which appears to be that the NOIP/172 form showed no information sent by or on behalf of COP.

Signing Guru Richard Bentley involved.

Await Press report for further information.......unless you have ears....

dvd

[safespeed]

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 15:14 this afternoon:

PR331: Chaos in Cleveland

news: for immediate release

At Teeside Crown Court this morning, His Honour Judge Bowers acquitted Dr
William Dehany on appeal against speeding conviction. A critical defect in the
prosecution case was that the 'section 172' request (notice to owner requiring
him to identify the driver at the time of the alleged offence) could not be
determined to have been issued on behalf of the Chief Constable. This is a
fatal defect that renders prosecution impossible.

Evidence was given that the same form has been in use since 2000.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "Defects in prosecution cases are far too
commonplace. All those convicted in Cleveland since 2000 on the basis of faulty
procedure should now apply to have their fines refunded, licence points
removed, and in many cases to be compensated for consequential losses."

"The knock on effects are massive and will cost countless millions."

"As the authorities are enforcing technical regulations against the motorist,
motorists are fighting back and enforcing technical regulations against the
authorities. In this insane war of technical regulations, road safety has been
forgotten."

Richard Bentley, an expert witness in the case said: "This is one part of a
symphony of errors present in Cleveland enforcement. The Judge has ruled
correctly on a critical defect that has implications running into tens of
millions of pounds."

Dr Dehany said: "I did it for the common man and for justice for motorists
everywhere."

<ends>

[Flat in Fifth]

ooo eeer missuss!

Cue senior plod calling a press conference to "call the case "embarrassing", while appealing to drivers to accept their "moral and social responsibilities" rather than challenge their fines."

Yeah right.

We obey the letter so should TPTB. Another one up for the good guys, nice one Richard B.

[Dwight Vandriver]

Dont they listen?.

Isn't this the self and same defect that was succesfully aired a couple of years ago in Wales?

dvd

[justinp1]

Flat in Fifth said:

ooo eeer missuss!

Cue senior plod calling a press conference to "call the case "embarrassing", while appealing to drivers to accept their "moral and social responsibilities" rather than challenge their fines."

Yeah right.

We obey the letter so should TPTB. Another one up for the good guys, nice one Richard B.

I agree. I am afraid I feel that I have no moral or social responsibility to pay a fine for a 'crime' without a victim.

As much as the fining authorities hate it, it is *themselves* who have spawned the popularity of Nick Freeman. It is just he who is better at playing the game than them!

[Flat in Fifth]

Dwight Vandriver said:

Dont they listen?.

Isn't this the self and same defect that was succesfully aired a couple of years ago in Wales?

dvd

Pass, The Welsh one I remember is the case of the "statements by computer" unseen by the person 'making' the statement and unsigned and untouched by human hand. That was North Wales.

Have a feeling that the situation where S172 requests did not say they were on behalf of the/a? Chief ossifer was darn sarf. Or aws it a case of Normal for Norfolk?

But in a wider context back in 2002 there was disquiet about the continual number of procedural screw ups by TPTB. Not got any better from what I can see.

Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 4th July 17:19

[supermono]

I think it was Norfolk.

So these bozos are steamrollering fines/points for what amounts to basically a documentation error on the part of the motorist (ie driving with the wrong number displayed on the speedo) and then taking exception when the motorist finds ways of not paying up.

Hellooo?

SM

[vonhosen]

And where will the money come from to pay it back ?

[NugentS]

vonhosen said:

And where will the money come from to pay it back ?

Hopefully the Scamerati wages...

Sean

[Flat in Fifth]

But it's not about the money, or so we hear repeatedly.

[supermono]

vonhosen said:

And where will the money come from to pay it back ?

The taxpayers' pockets of course. So we paid them to enforce the law (that we* didn't want them to enforce), paid them to collect the fines (that we didn't want them to collect), paid them the fines and are now paying the muppets to give back their ill gotten gains.

What a debacle. And to think, if they weren't so greedy and instead did stuff that improved road safety, motorists would be lining up to shake their hands!

It's high time for a rethink on this nightmare.

SM
*Pretty much everyone except you

[Vesuvius 996]

safespeed said:

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 15:14 this afternoon:

PR331: Chaos in Cleveland

news: for immediate release

At Teeside Crown Court this morning, His Honour Judge Bowers acquitted Dr
William Dehany on appeal against speeding conviction. A critical defect in the
prosecution case was that the 'section 172' request (notice to owner requiring
him to identify the driver at the time of the alleged offence) could not be
determined to have been issued on behalf of the Chief Constable. This is a
fatal defect that renders prosecution impossible.

Evidence was given that the same form has been in use since 2000.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "Defects in prosecution cases are far too
commonplace. All those convicted in Cleveland since 2000 on the basis of faulty
procedure should now apply to have their fines refunded, licence points
removed, and in many cases to be compensated for consequential losses."

"The knock on effects are massive and will cost countless millions."

"As the authorities are enforcing technical regulations against the motorist,
motorists are fighting back and enforcing technical regulations against the
authorities. In this insane war of technical regulations, road safety has been
forgotten."

Richard Bentley, an expert witness in the case said: "This is one part of a
symphony of errors present in Cleveland enforcement. The Judge has ruled
correctly on a critical defect that has implications running into tens of
millions of pounds."

Dr Dehany said: "I did it for the common man and for justice for motorists
everywhere."

<ends>

SO HANG

EVERYONE DONE SINCE 2000 CAN NOW HAVE THEIR FINE AND POINTS REMOVED IF THEY USED THIS FORM....

SUPERB

[monkeyhanger]

Marvellous.

I look forward to some major munching of humble pie from that tosser of a PR man the local Highway Robbers employ. No names, no pack drill

[safespeed]

Here's an audio capture of the 5pm news broadcast by BBC Radio Cleveland:

www.safespeed.org.uk/clevelandchaos.mp3 (2.1MB)

[monkeyhanger]

It's just been carried as the headline story on Look North (BBC TV)

Up 150,000 tickets could be involved. Potential cost circa £8 million. Heads should roll, but they won't.

Of course this follows hot on the heels of the Red Light Cam that hasn't worked since it was installed 6 or 7 years ago, the off-duty North Yorks TrafPols who dodged a bullet because of incorrect signage and the dual carriageway with a 40 limit on 1 side and a 30 limit on the other.. All brought to us by the chaps & chapesses at Ladgate Lane, Cleveland Plod HQ.

[jith]

safespeed said:

Here's an audio capture of the 5pm news broadcast by BBC Radio Cleveland:

www.safespeed.org.uk/clevelandchaos.mp3 (2.1MB)

I am a bit long in the tooth to get excited about a great many of these cases because there is seldom any serious weight in the decisions that can have a knock on effect: but this is dynamite!
I wonder Paul if your archives contain any similar cases from other areas in the country that could start similar appeals.
If a snowball effect was started in many courts throughout the land in the shape of multiple appeals, it would almost certainly mean the death of the partnerships, and could have serious repercussions for the whole concept of automated speed enforcement.

[jasandjules]

Have the Crown appealed to the High Court?

[safespeed]

jasandjules said:

Have the Crown appealed to the High Court?

Apparently the judge said no appeal was possible. I have been trying to find out why.

[jith]

safespeed said:

jasandjules said:

Have the Crown appealed to the High Court?

Apparently the judge said no appeal was possible. I have been trying to find out why.

That's quite simple Paul, there are no grounds for appeal.
You cannot just appeal a judgement because you owe the general public 8 million quid!
The Crown has admitted the error, so no appeal possible.

[pwig]

Can someone explain this to me in laymans terms pleasE?