Wednesday 5th July 2006

Man acquitted of speeding

Officials make costly, far-reaching mistake

---

If you must flash, get it right

A man has been acquitted of speeding on the grounds that the form used by the police couldn't be guaranteed to have been issued by the police. It's a technicality that could affect a huge number of cases.

At Teeside Crown Court yesterday, Judge Bowers acquitted Dr William Dehany on appeal against a 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 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."

More camera problems

Meanwhile, a speed camera in Cleveland that's been issuing duff tickets, having wrongly reported motorists driving past as speeding, is to be ticked off. The local partnership said the camera was faulty and that it wouldn't prosecute those accused. The distributor RedSpeed claimed it had certified that the device, which is on the A591 at Ings, as 100 per cent accurate.

• www.safespeed.org.uk
• Haywire speed camera flashes the innocent

[aston67]

sweeet

[splatspeed]

shame that misreading something leads to this and ends it

[mk1fan]

I don't believe he did this for 'the common man' at all. The appeal was granted on a procedure tecnicallity not based on any evidence that he didnot break the law.

Just more ridiculous waste of time and ressources caused by the scameras and p*ss poor road safety measures/policy.

So Cleveland Police will need to find 10's of millions to recify this? Good luck with you Council Tax bill next year my Smog Monster associates.

[hendry]

The law often mess up. I got done doing 118mph on the M6 a few years back by a laser on a bridge. I was straight onto Nick Freemen who pointed out that the letter of summons from the Chief Constable has not been signed. He argued in court that therefore there was no real proof that the letter had come from Cheshire Constabulary at all, as the signature was missing.

The judge stated that clearly it HAD come from plod, but that they hadn't followed procedure correctly, so I was handed a lenient penalty of a 2 week ban. I spent the first week on Las Vegas... ;-)

[nightmare]

mk1fan said:

I don't believe he did this for 'the common man' at all. The appeal was granted on a procedure tecnicallity not based on any evidence that he didnot break the law.

Just more ridiculous waste of time and ressources caused by the scameras and p*ss poor road safety measures/policy.

So Cleveland Police will need to find 10's of millions to recify this? Good luck with you Council Tax bill next year my Smog Monster associates.

Agreed. I don't see why this is seen as a triumph for motorists. For all i know the tosser was in court for doing 80 in a 30. Sometimes people DO need doing for speeding - technicalities just make another smug lawyer richer somewhere

There was something in the paper yesterday about loads of DD drivers getting off because 'the blood sample was taken by a nurse and not a police officer as dictated in the procdure' oh f**k off. This doesn't help anyone.

[tigger1]

press release said:

Meanwhile, a speed camera in Cleveland that's been issuing duff tickets, having wrongly reported motorists driving past as speeding, is to be ticked off. The local partnership said the camera was faulty and that it wouldn't prosecute those accused. The distributor RedSpeed claimed it had certified that the device, which is on the A591 at Ings, as 100 per cent accurate.

So, this device was certified 100% accurate by RedSpeed, but was not accurate at all? Does this not cast doubt on ALL devices they've certified, and therefore all speeding convictions issued as a result of said devices?

[FastShow]

nightmare said:

Agreed. I don't see why this is seen as a triumph for motorists. For all i know the tosser was in court for doing 80 in a 30.

35mph in a (very badly, possibly illegally, signed) 30 zone actually. Of course the signing arguments weren't even brought up because the SCP were hugely incompetent and practically won the case for the guy. I'd have fought it and I hope the average motorist would too, good on the bloke, whatever he did it for.

Edited by FastShow on Wednesday 5th July 13:09

[cooperman]

nightmare said:

mk1fan said:

I don't believe he did this for 'the common man' at all. The appeal was granted on a procedure tecnicallity not based on any evidence that he didnot break the law.

Just more ridiculous waste of time and ressources caused by the scameras and p*ss poor road safety measures/policy.

So Cleveland Police will need to find 10's of millions to recify this? Good luck with you Council Tax bill next year my Smog Monster associates.

Agreed. I don't see why this is seen as a triumph for motorists. For all i know the tosser was in court for doing 80 in a 30. Sometimes people DO need doing for speeding - technicalities just make another smug lawyer richer somewhere

There was something in the paper yesterday about loads of DD drivers getting off because 'the blood sample was taken by a nurse and not a police officer as dictated in the procdure' oh f**k off. This doesn't help anyone.

It's not a triumph for motorists at all. It is, however, a sharp reminder that those who wish to play by the no-tolerance rules and use no discretion (in the way that police officers of yesteryear have always shown discretion) must abide by the rules as laid down in law. How can one type of absolute law be addressed by persons ignoring the very rules which set out the specific procedures required to proceed legally with that? If the Inland Revenue issued incorrect tax return forms then they would have a problem collecting the tax. Why should the collection of the 'speeding tax' not also require correct paperwork.

[apache]

cooperman said:

If the Inland Revenue issued incorrect tax return forms then they would have a problem collecting the tax. Why should the collection of the 'speeding tax' not also require correct paperwork.

Indeed, live by the sword, die by the sword

[7db]

apache said:

cooperman said:

If the Inland Revenue issued incorrect tax return forms then they would have a problem collecting the tax. Why should the collection of the 'speeding tax' not also require correct paperwork.

Indeed, live by the sword, die by the sword

It is the individual's responsibility to ensure that they pay the right amount of tax. If the Revenue and Customs issued the wrong forms, then the onus would be on you to correct them and send in the right amount of tax.

[esselte]

7db said:

apache said:

cooperman said:

If the Inland Revenue issued incorrect tax return forms then they would have a problem collecting the tax. Why should the collection of the 'speeding tax' not also require correct paperwork.

Indeed, live by the sword, die by the sword

It is the individual's responsibility to ensure that they pay the right amount of tax. If the Revenue and Customs issued the wrong forms, then the onus would be on you to correct them and send in the right amount of tax.

So we're now all supposed to be tax experts as well as legal document experts?

[mk1fan]

7db said:

apache said:

cooperman said:

If the Inland Revenue issued incorrect tax return forms then they would have a problem collecting the tax. Why should the collection of the 'speeding tax' not also require correct paperwork.

Indeed, live by the sword, die by the sword

It is the individual's responsibility to ensure that they pay the right amount of tax. If the Revenue and Customs issued the wrong forms, then the onus would be on you to correct them and send in the right amount of tax.

And failure to do so would lead to automatic fines and interest charged.

[Mr Whippy]

7db said:

apache said:

cooperman said:

If the Inland Revenue issued incorrect tax return forms then they would have a problem collecting the tax. Why should the collection of the 'speeding tax' not also require correct paperwork.

Indeed, live by the sword, die by the sword

It is the individual's responsibility to ensure that they pay the right amount of tax. If the Revenue and Customs issued the wrong forms, then the onus would be on you to correct them and send in the right amount of tax.

There is a big difference between checking and correcting your PAYE tax code or self-assement form and an S172 though.

One is self incriminating!

Dave

[james p]

7db said:

apache said:

cooperman said:

If the Inland Revenue issued incorrect tax return forms then they would have a problem collecting the tax. Why should the collection of the 'speeding tax' not also require correct paperwork.

Indeed, live by the sword, die by the sword

It is the individual's responsibility to ensure that they pay the right amount of tax. If the Revenue and Customs issued the wrong forms, then the onus would be on you to correct them and send in the right amount of tax.

Is this not exactly what the motorist did? He simply noticed that a procedural error had been made and did what was necessary to correct it

[mondeoman]

nightmare said:

mk1fan said:

I don't believe he did this for 'the common man' at all. The appeal was granted on a procedure tecnicallity not based on any evidence that he didnot break the law.

Just more ridiculous waste of time and ressources caused by the scameras and p*ss poor road safety measures/policy.

So Cleveland Police will need to find 10's of millions to recify this? Good luck with you Council Tax bill next year my Smog Monster associates.

Agreed. I don't see why this is seen as a triumph for motorists. For all i know the tosser was in court for doing 31 in a 30. Sometimes people DO need doing for speeding - technicalities just make another smug lawyer richer somewhere

Just as likely as your first assumption ......

[Andy_L]

tigger1 said:

press release said:

Meanwhile, a speed camera in Cleveland that's been issuing duff tickets, having wrongly reported motorists driving past as speeding, is to be ticked off. The local partnership said the camera was faulty and that it wouldn't prosecute those accused. The distributor RedSpeed claimed it had certified that the device, which is on the A591 at Ings, as 100 per cent accurate.

So, this device was certified 100% accurate by RedSpeed, but was not accurate at all? Does this not cast doubt on ALL devices they've certified, and therefore all speeding convictions issued as a result of said devices?

Yes it does, have alway said and stand by this, that the certificate is meaningless the only true way for a defendant/court to have a hope of knowing the serviciability is to get access to the equipments FULL maintenance records (before and after the alleged offence). Much more should be made of this in my opinion.

Andy

[Slowlane]

aston67 said:

sweeet

1992 - lets rush the installation of these new speed cameras in they will make us loads of money, we will hit our targets and as a side product they may save lives they must have thought and look 14 years later the simple matter of sending a correct form has not been spotted, I think this is a typical of the safety partnerships simplistic approach, its now time to dissolve theses group and return to what a working prior to this interference, any professional business acting in this manner would have crashed years ago or at least been fined by some jobs worth for not getting their documention correct

[Slowlane]

7db said:

apache said:

cooperman said:

If the Inland Revenue issued incorrect tax return forms then they would have a problem collecting the tax. Why should the collection of the 'speeding tax' not also require correct paperwork.

Indeed, live by the sword, die by the sword

It is the individual's responsibility to ensure that they pay the right amount of tax. If the Revenue and Customs issued the wrong forms, then the onus would be on you to correct them and send in the right amount of tax.

nice comment but there responcibilty to supply he correct forms as a collector of taxes...but like so many labour run departments I expect we may be asking to much

[Slowlane]

esselte said:

7db said:

apache said:

cooperman said:

If the Inland Revenue issued incorrect tax return forms then they would have a problem collecting the tax. Why should the collection of the 'speeding tax' not also require correct paperwork.

Indeed, live by the sword, die by the sword

It is the individual's responsibility to ensure that they pay the right amount of tax. If the Revenue and Customs issued the wrong forms, then the onus would be on you to correct them and send in the right amount of tax.

So we're now all supposed to be tax experts as well as legal document experts?

exactly he must be a tax collector

[nightmare]

mondeoman said:

nightmare said:

mk1fan said:

I don't believe he did this for 'the common man' at all. The appeal was granted on a procedure tecnicallity not based on any evidence that he didnot break the law.

Just more ridiculous waste of time and ressources caused by the scameras and p*ss poor road safety measures/policy.

So Cleveland Police will need to find 10's of millions to recify this? Good luck with you Council Tax bill next year my Smog Monster associates.

Agreed. I don't see why this is seen as a triumph for motorists. For all i know the tosser was in court for doing 31 in a 30. Sometimes people DO need doing for speeding - technicalities just make another smug lawyer richer somewhere

Just as likely as your first assumption ......

erm. I didnt make an assumption. I presented a possible suggestion before everyone went off the normal 'hurrah we've beaten the scamera scum' bandwagon AGAIN.

Slowlane has presented more information on the case. As such I am much happier with this approach....and sadly Coopermans response also made very good sense.

Nonetheless. I dont see myself living in a 'me against them' world (the them being police from some peoples comments here). I am concerned that technicalities do not make for good law enforcement - whoever uses them. that's all.