Stiffer speeding penalties for leading rideout. or not.
Discussion
Some of you may remember this: http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults...
I had an interesting trial today. The police/prosecution tried to rely on the Chichester case as some kind of precedent. The MCN report was actually served with the crown's case. I told the CPS by email to get the proper case report if they intended to rely on it but they didn't. The Chichester case is a crown court case and therefore not a binding precedent; as any law undergraduate knows.
Brief facts of my case are these. Police officer is doing speed checks (pro laser 3) at a rural location. 60 mph road. Two bikers pass him. He checks the 1st (and furthest from him) with the PL. -96 mph at 570 feet. He doesn't check the 2nd biker's speed with the PL. There are 50 yards or so between the bikers. The 2nd biker is apparently attempting to catch up with the 1st at the same or a faster speed. Along the same road, but out of sight over a crest, a 2nd officer is waiting. First officer sends a radio message to stop the two bikers and she does so. Second officer doesn't allege either was speeding when she saw them. Neither bikers admit to speeding at the roadside. One biker intimates that he was catching up with the other and this is noted in a PNB entry. Unsigned by the biker. CPS prosecute both bikers for speeding.
Trial. Prosecution purport to identify biker 1 as defendant 1 in their opening. Facts as outlined above put in evidence by police officers. Description of biker 1 - "blue bike, blue helmet". Description of biker 2 - "blue bike". Police officers can't say who biker 1 at the time of the check or whether their positions changed when they reached officer 2. Neither can they say which biker was on which bike. Neither biker gives evidence at trial as we're not keen to help the prosecution prove its case.
Magistrates decide that the individuals alleged to be speeding are the two defendants. Both officers saw no other traffic on the road. However, the officers were unable to identify the lead biker. This gave the court cause for concern and where there is doubt that would be resolved in favour of the defendants. Not guilty x2.
A good result but it didn't allow me to take the case to the High Court (which would have been my intention). Speeding requires corroboration. The prosecution case was essentially that it doesn't matter which biker was the lead biker. His speed was corroborated by the Pro Laser and the 2nd biker's speed was corroborated by the 1st biker's speed. I referred to this in my closing as secondary corroboration of a type not normally accepted by the courts. However, it was open to the court to convict on the basis outlined and following from that I would have been keen to set a precedent in the High Court. Thankfully, for my two clients, we don't need to do that and similar cases will continue to be dealt with on a case by case basis.
I had an interesting trial today. The police/prosecution tried to rely on the Chichester case as some kind of precedent. The MCN report was actually served with the crown's case. I told the CPS by email to get the proper case report if they intended to rely on it but they didn't. The Chichester case is a crown court case and therefore not a binding precedent; as any law undergraduate knows.
Brief facts of my case are these. Police officer is doing speed checks (pro laser 3) at a rural location. 60 mph road. Two bikers pass him. He checks the 1st (and furthest from him) with the PL. -96 mph at 570 feet. He doesn't check the 2nd biker's speed with the PL. There are 50 yards or so between the bikers. The 2nd biker is apparently attempting to catch up with the 1st at the same or a faster speed. Along the same road, but out of sight over a crest, a 2nd officer is waiting. First officer sends a radio message to stop the two bikers and she does so. Second officer doesn't allege either was speeding when she saw them. Neither bikers admit to speeding at the roadside. One biker intimates that he was catching up with the other and this is noted in a PNB entry. Unsigned by the biker. CPS prosecute both bikers for speeding.
Trial. Prosecution purport to identify biker 1 as defendant 1 in their opening. Facts as outlined above put in evidence by police officers. Description of biker 1 - "blue bike, blue helmet". Description of biker 2 - "blue bike". Police officers can't say who biker 1 at the time of the check or whether their positions changed when they reached officer 2. Neither can they say which biker was on which bike. Neither biker gives evidence at trial as we're not keen to help the prosecution prove its case.
Magistrates decide that the individuals alleged to be speeding are the two defendants. Both officers saw no other traffic on the road. However, the officers were unable to identify the lead biker. This gave the court cause for concern and where there is doubt that would be resolved in favour of the defendants. Not guilty x2.
A good result but it didn't allow me to take the case to the High Court (which would have been my intention). Speeding requires corroboration. The prosecution case was essentially that it doesn't matter which biker was the lead biker. His speed was corroborated by the Pro Laser and the 2nd biker's speed was corroborated by the 1st biker's speed. I referred to this in my closing as secondary corroboration of a type not normally accepted by the courts. However, it was open to the court to convict on the basis outlined and following from that I would have been keen to set a precedent in the High Court. Thankfully, for my two clients, we don't need to do that and similar cases will continue to be dealt with on a case by case basis.
pitmansboots said:
The officer's opinion is that bike 2 is travelling in excess of the speed limit; he has corroborated that by comparing it to the speed of a vehicle at a known speed. That is corroboration. You may not like that idea however it is corroboration none-the-less.
what's your authority for that? i couldn't find one. the authorities in non-motorway cases all point to the laser speed meter (or radar/vascar/speedometer) being the corroborative 'witness' as required by s. 89.btw, the CPS doesn't have the option to appeal an acquittal to the crown court.
the reason given by the officer as to why he took one speed reading was that if he took a reading from the second biker then the 1st speed reading would be 'lost'. i.e. the Pro laser machine displays only the last reading taken.
Breadvan72 said:
You might also be thinking of Derek Bentley, who was not the last person hanged in the UK.
Bentley , you may recall, was involved in a botched burglary. He was under arrest when he said to the other burglar, who had a gun. "let him have it".
vonhosen said:
There have been convictions on the evidence provided by one person.
correct, but not for speeding on an A road where corroboration is required. n.b. corroboration can come from a machine."89(2)A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit."
daz3210 said:
And therefore if the first rider could have been identified, he would have been convicted of the speeding offence?
yes and if they identified the 1st then by default the 2nd would be identified. 
but if the prosecution made the court sure of guilt of the 1st then it wouldn't necessarily follow that the 2nd was also guilty.
theoretical scenario. we have a convoy of 6 cars on an A road. the first is identified and moving at 90 mph (as confirmed by a traffic officer's opinion and a laser speed meter). the other cars are not checked using the machine. the other cars are apparently matching the speed of the first but how far back should corroboration go? car 2, car 3, car 6? is the officer's opinion corroborated by the machine or is the machine corroborated by the officer's opinion? (this is more relevant to the following cars).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff