Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:39

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Result
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 06:41 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 20:56
Posts: 57
bombus wrote:
mattyg wrote:
M friend was in court today took along the other possible driver and got let off. :D
Nice result no speeding and no failing to provide.

:clap:

That's great to hear. All too often people lose these cases even when it's staggeringly unfair. It's good to know that some magistrates won't go along with the general "encouragement" to convict those accused of speeding.


Is it really great to hear? :shock:

Shocking result as it sounded like your mate was bang to rights, what is the world coming to, howler by the Mags!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Result
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:38 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
mrstinchcombe wrote:
bombus wrote:
mattyg wrote:
M friend was in court today took along the other possible driver and got let off. :D
Nice result no speeding and no failing to provide.

:clap:

That's great to hear. All too often people lose these cases even when it's staggeringly unfair. It's good to know that some magistrates won't go along with the general "encouragement" to convict those accused of speeding.


Is it really great to hear? :shock:

Shocking result as it sounded like your mate was bang to rights, what is the world coming to, howler by the Mags!

Who was "bang to rights" then?

The whole point is that nobody knows, because the police couldn't be bothered to collect sufficient evidence in the first place.

What do you think should happen? Should they just prosecute "somebody" for speeding, even though they have no idea who did it? Should they prosecute somebody for failing to give information that he clearly demonstrated he was unable to provide?

Right result in the circumstances. If anything the original officer in charge should be answering a few awkward questions, such as:

1. Why did he put the wrong car colour on the witness statement?
2. Why did he falsely say the signage was present and correct when it has since been shown that this was not the case?

If you or I made things up in order to influence the decision of a court we'd be up for perverting the course of justice. Funny that when the Police do it they consider it just part of the game.

In a case a few years ago a police witness statement, in reference to a head on photo taken by an automated speed camera said "I examined the photograph and it showed a BMW 328..." which was a downright lie. What he meant was "I read the registration number and later enquiries with DVLA showed it to belong to a BMW 328". This sounds a meaningless distinction but it isn't. The original statement falsely created the impression that he had positively identified the vehicle, whereas in truth all he had done was read a registration plate, which could have been cloned, misread etc.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 19:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 20:56
Posts: 57
Red and brown aren't exactly chalk and cheese, simple mistake to make!

I am referring more to the failing to provide details part tho. Thats not an excuse for not providing details, the OP knows fool well whos driving, but has somehow got away with failing to provide details! Thats a dangerous precedent which anyone can use and not have to prove!!!

At the end of the day its not up to the suspect to decline to give their details because they think they are innocent, thats for the courts to decide.

Crazy world


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 19:49 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
mrstinchcombe wrote:
I am referring more to the failing to provide details part tho. Thats not an excuse for not providing details, the OP knows fool well whos driving...

Where does his post say that?

You may choose to believe that the poster knows, that doesn't make it fact.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 19:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 20:56
Posts: 57
JT wrote:
mrstinchcombe wrote:
I am referring more to the failing to provide details part tho. Thats not an excuse for not providing details, the OP knows fool well whos driving...

Where does his post say that?

You may choose to believe that the poster knows, that doesn't make it fact.


Of course not, but lets face it its a lot more likely he does know than he doesnt!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 01:02 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
mrstinchcombe wrote:
JT wrote:
mrstinchcombe wrote:
I am referring more to the failing to provide details part tho. Thats not an excuse for not providing details, the OP knows fool well whos driving...

Where does his post say that?

You may choose to believe that the poster knows, that doesn't make it fact.


Of course not, but lets face it its a lot more likely he does know than he doesnt!

The only thing you have to support that hypothesis is your own prejudice.

Thankfully the court (in this case at least), wasn't similarly afflicted.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 01:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 20:56
Posts: 57
JT wrote:
mrstinchcombe wrote:
JT wrote:
mrstinchcombe wrote:
I am referring more to the failing to provide details part tho. Thats not an excuse for not providing details, the OP knows fool well whos driving...

Where does his post say that?

You may choose to believe that the poster knows, that doesn't make it fact.


Of course not, but lets face it its a lot more likely he does know than he doesnt!

The only thing you have to support that hypothesis is your own prejudice.

Thankfully the court (in this case at least), wasn't similarly afflicted.


Its more common sense than prejudice, but its an absolute offence and hence the let off makes a mockery of the courts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 01:25 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
mrstinchcombe wrote:
JT wrote:
mrstinchcombe wrote:
JT wrote:
mrstinchcombe wrote:
I am referring more to the failing to provide details part tho. Thats not an excuse for not providing details, the OP knows fool well whos driving...

Where does his post say that?

You may choose to believe that the poster knows, that doesn't make it fact.


Of course not, but lets face it its a lot more likely he does know than he doesnt!

The only thing you have to support that hypothesis is your own prejudice.

Thankfully the court (in this case at least), wasn't similarly afflicted.


Its more common sense than prejudice, but its an absolute offence and hence the let off makes a mockery of the courts.

So far you've said "it's more likely", and "it's more common sense than..."; what you've not said is "beyond all reasonable doubt", which is the acid test that a court is expected to apply before convicting.

Yes it's an absolute offence, but it also has a specifically defined defence too, in that if the accused can demonstrate to the court that he has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the driver yet still been unable to do so then no offence of "failing to furnish" was committed. It seems that in this case this is exactly what has happened and therefore the court has quite properly acquitted the OP.

What would you prefer? A system where a court can convict if the accused "is likely to be guilty", instead of having to have actual evidence against them?

How would you feel if a summons arrived through your door for stealing office supplies, with a corresponding form for you to fill in detailing all the incidences of same that you have committed recently? You might answer that you don't do such a thing, only for the court to convict you anyway, on the basis that everybody steals office supplies so therefore it is likely that you must have done so too - after all you wouldn't have been accused if you weren't likely to be guilty. I mean, it's only a small fine and everyone has a criminal record these days, what are you worrying about?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 01:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 20:56
Posts: 57
JT wrote:
mrstinchcombe wrote:
JT wrote:
mrstinchcombe wrote:
JT wrote:
mrstinchcombe wrote:
I am referring more to the failing to provide details part tho. Thats not an excuse for not providing details, the OP knows fool well whos driving...

Where does his post say that?

You may choose to believe that the poster knows, that doesn't make it fact.


Of course not, but lets face it its a lot more likely he does know than he doesnt!

The only thing you have to support that hypothesis is your own prejudice.

Thankfully the court (in this case at least), wasn't similarly afflicted.


Its more common sense than prejudice, but its an absolute offence and hence the let off makes a mockery of the courts.

So far you've said "it's more likely", and "it's more common sense than..."; what you've not said is "beyond all reasonable doubt", which is the acid test that a court is expected to apply before convicting.

Yes it's an absolute offence, but it also has a specifically defined defence too, in that if the accused can demonstrate to the court that he has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the driver yet still been unable to do so then no offence of "failing to furnish" was committed. It seems that in this case this is exactly what has happened and therefore the court has quite properly acquitted the OP.

What would you prefer? A system where a court can convict if the accused "is likely to be guilty", instead of having to have actual evidence against them?

How would you feel if a summons arrived through your door for stealing office supplies, with a corresponding form for you to fill in detailing all the incidences of same that you have committed recently? You might answer that you don't do such a thing, only for the court to convict you anyway, on the basis that everybody steals office supplies so therefore it is likely that you must have done so too - after all you wouldn't have been accused if you weren't likely to be guilty. I mean, it's only a small fine and everyone has a criminal record these days, what are you worrying about?


As I said before it is an absolute offence so the "beyond all reasonable doubt" test does not apply.

It is up to the defendant to prove he has taken all reasonable steps which I dont believe he has done.

The office supplies example is garbage, you would need to prove I have stolen the office supplies beyond all reasonable doubt so its not like this example at all.

This website is good but posts like this make a mockery of this good site. This website shouldn't be about getting people off of offences where there are clearly guilty through daft loopholes (peipoos for that!)

This site should be all about highlighting speed limits that are there purely to make money and nothing to do with road safety, not getting people off of absolute offences!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 01:46 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
mrstinchcombe wrote:
As I said before it is an absolute offence so the "beyond all reasonable doubt" test does not apply.

I think you misunderstand what is meant by the term "absolute offence".

In law it means an offence which does not need proof of criminal intent, ie you don't have to be proved to have intentionally committed the offence in order to be found guilty.

But guilt still has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict, which in this case does not seem to have been the case.

Quote:
It is up to the defendant to prove he has taken all reasonable steps which I dont believe he has done.

What you believe has no bearing, it is what the court believes that matters. In this case the defendant was able to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that he had exercised due diligence in attempting to identify the driver.
Quote:
The office supplies example is garbage, you would need to prove I have stolen the office supplies beyond all reasonable doubt so its not like this example at all.

In terms of the burden of proof the two examples are exactly analagous.

Quote:
This website is good but posts like this make a mockery of this good site. This website shouldn't be about getting people off of offences where there are clearly guilty through daft loopholes (peipoos for that!)

It would seem that it was open to the Police to collect sufficient information to secure a prosecution in the first place, yet they did not do so. If insufficient evidence is placed before a court then it is not a "loophole" to defend the case on that basis.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:02 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
JT wrote:
mrstinchcombe wrote:
As I said before it is an absolute offence so the "beyond all reasonable doubt" test does not apply.

I think you misunderstand what is meant by the term "absolute offence".
The term "absolute offence" is open to misunderstanding. Which is not surprising as the term is an invention of the internet. The correct term is "an offence of strict liablity".


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:04 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
My previous post might have made more sense if I had spelt LIABILITY correctly.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:14 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
JT wrote:
It would seem that it was open to the Police to collect sufficient information to secure a prosecution in the first place, yet they did not do so. If insufficient evidence is placed before a court then it is not a "loophole" to defend the case on that basis.
I think you misunderstand part of this situation. The police did collect sufficient evidence for a prosecution. Had they not done so the CPS would have dropped the charge. However, this offence is one of those which provides, in the legislation itself (so not a loophole), a defence. That of using reasonable diligence to find out who was driving.

Current law does not allow the CPS or police to decide if that condition is met by the defendant. Only an independent tribunal can do that. In this case, as in many others, the court did agree that the defendant had exercised reasonable diligence and found him not guilty.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:43 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
fisherman wrote:
JT wrote:
It would seem that it was open to the Police to collect sufficient information to secure a prosecution in the first place, yet they did not do so. If insufficient evidence is placed before a court then it is not a "loophole" to defend the case on that basis.
I think you misunderstand part of this situation. The police did collect sufficient evidence for a prosecution. Had they not done so the CPS would have dropped the charge.

Actually I think you may have misunderstood what I meant in my post.

Firstly, it seems apparent that the strict liability offence of speeding was committed, but insufficient evidence was collected to support a prosecution. My meaning was that it was clearly open to the police at the time to stop and question the driver, whereupon there would almost certainly have been enough evidence to support a successful prosecution for speeding.

However they chose not to do so, instead relying on s172 to do this work for them, but this process failed for quite proper reasons.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 15:44 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
JT wrote:
My meaning was that it was clearly open to the police at the time to stop and question the driver, whereupon there would almost certainly have been enough evidence to support a successful prosecution for speeding.
I am sure you are right, but with no knowledge of the operational constraints that were in place at the time I based my comments on what actually happened.




JT wrote:
However they chose not to do so, instead relying on s172 to do this work for them, but this process failed for quite proper reasons.
Since the hugely over hyped challenge that was mounted against s172 in europe failed, there is a tendency for the powers that be to use s172 rather than stop drivers. I suppose that is because they catch more people that way and, in spite of not guilty verdicts being very common in s172 trials, end up with more convictions.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 14:46 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 14:35
Posts: 1
Quote:
What would you prefer? A system where a court can convict if the accused "is likely to be guilty", instead of having to have actual evidence against them?

How would you feel if a summons arrived through your door for stealing office supplies, with a corresponding form for you to fill in detailing all the incidences of same that you have committed recently? You might answer that you don't do such a thing, only for the court to convict you anyway, on the basis that everybody steals office supplies so therefore it is likely that you must have done so too - after all you wouldn't have been accused if you weren't likely to be guilty. I mean, it's only a small fine and everyone has a criminal record these days, what are you worrying about?

Under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 'Right of Subject Access' an individual is entitled to make a Subject Access request to an organisation for information which may be held about them.

If you wish to obtain up-to-date details of any criminal records in the UK, you will need to make a subject access request directly to the police force in the area where you currently or last resided in the UK.

This Subject Access Police Contacts (pdf, 20kb, new window) http://www.crb.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=417
document gives the contact details of each constabulary.
A Subject Access request to the CRB will cost in the region of £10 and can take up to 40 working days to be processed.
If you wish to apply for subject access,please contact the address below.
CRB Data Protection Officer
PO Box 165
Liverpool
L69 3JD
Tel: 0151 676 1422

In the USA it is much easier because criminal records are considered public information. Anyone can do a criminal background search on anyone else. Many State and city websites allow the public to run background searches for free or a small fee. Private companies provide nationwide criminal record checks over the internet for a fee. So in the USA, traffic crimes (but not just traffic tickets) can be known by anyone. This has a big impact on a criminals employability.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 00:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 15:19
Posts: 41
Just picked back up on this post.

My mate honestly didnt know who was driving the car at the time

Like he said in court can you remember what you had for dinner last thurs
probably not but you could probably remember what you ate on your birthday.

The speed trap must have been hidden as neither of them saw it. and as a result didnt remember who was driving.

They have been best mates for years and regulary borrow each others cars without even thinking just grab the nearest keys.

What else could they have done to identify the driver


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 13:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
mattyg wrote:
Just picked back up on this post.

My mate honestly didnt know who was driving the car at the time

Like he said in court can you remember what you had for dinner last thurs
probably not but you could probably remember what you ate on your birthday.

The speed trap must have been hidden as neither of them saw it. and as a result didnt remember who was driving.

They have been best mates for years and regulary borrow each others cars without even thinking just grab the nearest keys.


Passenger would not have been concentrating on road. Driver may or may not have been at full COAST :popcorn:

Even so - here we advertise where we will monitoring - we do have one van and all the cars are :twisted: equipped :popcorn:

I take it they live together or next door :scratchchin:

However...



First of all - unless the red car waas filthy - a police officer should not be able to confuse colours as we do not recruit colour blind folk for obvious sleuthing reasons :popcorn:

We usually stop the driver here so as to ensure we "get our man or woamn" :evil:

Yes - I think it quite possible on a long journey which involve members of the same family sharing the driving to ensure zero fatigue dangers - will not keep logs as to where they swopped seats and took over the drive. This is where this system of automation really fails - either to educate if guilty of the offence or delivers justice if the person genuinely was not driving the vehicle. Circumstances can be a soimple as the un-logged shared drive on a long journey or if the car was stolen and pinged shortly after its theft - usually before the hapless driver has woken up to find his car has disappeeared. (Please note burglars go "fishing" - and a fave of theirs is to place a long stickj with a hook on the end to get the keys you left on the table in the hallways :shock: :roll:)


:popcorn: when automation started (per the Road Traffic Act 1991) - it created the need for the fixed penalty offer.

RTA 1988 therefore was amended

Under the RTA 1988 - S54



Do note the "reason to believe" - but be assured that this area will have the irrefutable evidence to back up and will have explained everything carefully and tried to help avoid such nasty shocks in future :popcorn: - but if the person really has cause to claim they were not speeding - then they still have the right to put forth their reasons for this belief to a court of law in any case - for the benefit of "mrsinchcomb".
:popcorn:



Under S54

S54 applicable when the driver is present and who should really be stopped if copped by said constables in uniform wrote:

1.The section only applies in England and Wales on any occasion when a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person he finds is committing a fixed penalty offence.

2. Subject to satisfaction - a constable may give the a fixed penalty notice in respect of the offence.

3. Where the offence appears to the constable to carry an obligatory endorsement - teh constable may obnly give the fixed penalty under the subsection (2 of the above) if the

a) the driver produces his licence and counterpart to the constable
b) the constable is satisfied that the licence is genuine and that the driver would not be disqualified on tot-ups (under s35 of the Act) and
c) the driver then surrenders the licence and counterpart to the officer to be dealt with in accordance with the Act if we are at tot -up



Err. we do use discretion on this last one and usually require the normal production of documents within 7 day. :popcorn:

And this is covered by paragaphs 4 & 5 of S54 anyway


S62 driver not present wrote:

Under S62

Where on occasion a constable has reason to believe in the case of a stationary vehicle that a fixed penalty offfence or has on that occasion been committed in respect of it, he may fix a fixed penalty in respect of that offence to the vehicle unless the offence appears to him to involve obligatory endorsement


:popcorn:

Defences are driver/owner did not know of the FPN until notified by the clerk - was not the owner at the time of the alleged offence or received the FPN and exercised riht to fight in the court :popcorn:

Person served with the notice will not be liable if he or she can prove they were not the owner of the defective vehicle.


As said the RTA 1991 created a need for issuiing fixed penalties where neither of the previous circumstances applied - presence of defendant or vehicle as seen by a constable in uniform.

Led to amendments to the 1988 RTA Act - and this is how come the OP received the NIP :roll: :popcorn:


Under S75 of RTA 1988 -

S75 of above Act wrote:

1 (a) A constable has reason to believe that a fixed penalty offence has been committed and

(b) no fixed penalty has been given in respect of the offence under S54 of this Act or under S62 of this Act, a notice under this section may be sent to the ALLEGED offender on behalf of the Chief Constable


;;;;;;;


7) A conditional offer MUST

give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence to which it relates as are necessary for giving reasonable information about the alleged offence



Getting the colour of the car wrong would undermine - if this "offence" was seen by the constable - though I do wonder given ANPR data gives us make/model/colour/MOT /insurance/VED details :scratchchin:

S75 RTA 1988 wrote:

7b) the conditional offer must state the amount of the fixed penalty for the offence and
c) state that proceedings agaisnt the alleged offender cannot commence in respect of that offence untill# the end of the period of 28 days following the date on which the conditional offer was issued - or longer as may be specified in the offer



Naturally - if on 9 points - it will go to court :popcron:


In this case - the defendant satisfied the court that he had tried to work out which person was driving. There appears, per details given in OP's post, to have been some confusion over the signage which will have counted in his favour as well. :popcorn:


Whether of not these drivers knew who had been driving at the time - I cannot comment on the basis I do not know them personally :popcorn:

However, it does prove that our personal tough :twisted: wins hand over fist against automated means :wink:

We have below average KSI statistic each year but an above average showing for nailing uninsured and careless/undue care road users - including rogue cyclists :wink: ;shock:

:scratchchin: Perhaps we are worth a huge pay-rise after all :boxedin: :popcorn:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.034s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]