Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:57

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 05:03 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
I am late to this party. However, fwiw I also can vouch for Steve's and Geoff Luxford's technical knowledge in this fied.

A chap called Roger isn't lagging too far behind them either if you can ever pin him down... :bunker:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:47
Posts: 59
To the Magistrate. Thanks for your reply. But the Police do state "The cameras are accepted as accurate by the courts." This mantra has been repeated thousands of times. So you seem to be suggesting it's not that hard to win a speeding case? If I can suggest that there was contamination present, eg a reflective surface which might have interfered with a radar beam?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 17:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
zulu wrote:
To the Magistrate. Thanks for your reply. But the Police do state "The cameras are accepted as accurate by the courts." This mantra has been repeated thousands of times. So you seem to be suggesting it's not that hard to win a speeding case? If I can suggest that there was contamination present, eg a reflective surface which might have interfered with a radar beam?

"suggesting" it will not be sufficient.
You would need to say it has, show it has then explain how it had made the effect and by how much it had altered the reading.
Many have made suggestions but that is simply not enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 08:41 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
GreenShed wrote:
"suggesting" it will not be sufficient.
You would need to say it has, show it has then explain how it had made the effect and by how much it had altered the reading.
Many have made suggestions but that is simply not enough.


Haven't you come across the concept of "reasonable doubt" which applies in proper law?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 09:49 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Yeah, that's "proper law" though.

You also don't have to incriminate yourself or pay costs when you are proved innocent in "proper law".

This is something else entirely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:12 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
"suggesting" it will not be sufficient.
You would need to say it has, show it has then explain how it had made the effect and by how much it had altered the reading.
Many have made suggestions but that is simply not enough.


Haven't you come across the concept of "reasonable doubt" which applies in proper law?

I think I'm being fair here.

Merely "suggesting" that something could interfere with a reading isn't enough for reasonable doubt; in that respect (alone) I think GS is correct.
Explaining how something nearby can interfere is enough for reasonable doubt; this would need to be disproved if there is no adequate rebuttal against that explanation.

For some strange reason, GS goes further by saying "show that it has" which would actually kill off the case as opposed to casting reasonable doubt, even if there is no known explanation of the effect or the expected scale of it (in contradiction to the rest of GS's claim)

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 13:56 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
I've just had a realisation.

Steve wrote:
For some strange reason, GS goes further by saying "show that it has" which would actually kill off the case as opposed to casting reasonable doubt, even if there is no known explanation of the effect or the expected scale of it (in contradiction to the rest of GS's claim)


There there's the this post that has gone unacknowledged:
viewtopic.php?p=217792#p217792

Some might think it strange that Greenshed would try to give the impression that one must to go through unreasonable, unnecessary and logically insurmountable hurdles in order to dispute a charge against them.

Others, who believe they know what Greenshed currently does for a living, could view his behaviour as utterly shameful.


Greenshed,
I think your desire to make (what I suspect is) your job easy for you is causing you to give questionable and misleading statements. It's not like that wasn't the case with your previous profession.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 02:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
The Courts are governed by the Laws of the Land, so when the Government (& it's Lab associates) approve equipment to be applied to enforce the Laws, the Courts abide by that action.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 14:19 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
GreenShed wrote:
"suggesting" it will not be sufficient.
You would need to say it has, show it has then explain how it had made the effect and by how much it had altered the reading.
Many have made suggestions but that is simply not enough.

The only bit I would not agree with is about showing by how much the reading had been altered. Although individual cases may call for that level of response, I would think that showing that a variation that would take the speed below the limit is possible in the circumstances should be enough to raise a reasonable doubt.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 14:32 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
Johnnytheboy wrote:
You also don't have to incriminate yourself or pay costs when you are proved innocent in "proper law".
There is no requirement that I am aware of for anybody to incriminate themselves in UK law. The nearest it gets is that S172 requires you to name the driver. The prosecution still have to prove whatever offence they are alleging and you suffer no penalty for failing to name the driver if you were unable, despite reasonable diligence, to ascertain his or her identity.
I understand that in Scotland you have to pay all your own costs even if found not guilty. In England and Wales you can claim your costs if found not guilty.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 13:45 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
fisherman wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
"suggesting" it will not be sufficient.
You would need to say it has, show it has then explain how it had made the effect and by how much it had altered the reading.
Many have made suggestions but that is simply not enough.

The only bit I would not agree with is about showing by how much the reading had been altered. Although individual cases may call for that level of response, I would think that showing that a variation that would take the speed below the limit is possible in the circumstances should be enough to raise a reasonable doubt.

Your legal advisor would point you to SCHEINER v DPP (2006) to explain that a "suggestion" is insufficient and perhaps Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372 to explain the difference between reasonable doubt and absolute proof.
Reasonable doubt is not shown by "showing that a variation that would take the speed below the limit is possible in the circumstances", the case law is very much against that. Hopefully the L.A. would be aware of these and explain them to you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 13:20 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
Your legal advisor would point you to SCHEINER v DPP (2006) to explain that a "suggestion" is insufficient and perhaps Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372 to explain the difference between reasonable doubt and absolute proof.
Reasonable doubt is not shown by "showing that a variation that would take the speed below the limit is possible in the circumstances", the case law is very much against that. Hopefully the L.A. would be aware of these and explain them to you.

I don't see how this addresses what I said here.

Could you explain your claim, giving a link to the full text and quoting the relevant parts?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 17:09 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
GreenShed wrote:
Your legal advisor would point you to SCHEINER v DPP (2006) to explain that a "suggestion" is insufficient
No she wouldn't. For the simple reason that in Scheiner the court decided that there were no grounds on which to base an appeal. For the benefit of those who are not familiar with the case, it was an appeal against a breathalyser reading on the grounds that a police radio might have caused an inaccurate reading. However the appellant was not able to show that any radios were in use at the relevant time or that there is any proof that radios are capable of causing an incorrect reading.
Compare that with the relevant part of my post
Quote:
I would think that showing that a variation that would take the speed below the limit is possible in the circumstances should be enough to raise a reasonable doubt.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 16:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 14:14
Posts: 131
There is no justice for the working person in the UK. If one is charged and contests any case they have to fund their own legal costs, but if they are employed in Westminster and found to have been "playing the fiddle" with their expenses then they can, and have, applied for legal aid. This is after being charged of breaking regulations (just like driving) with expenses and cheating the public of funds which have been generated from taxes and also fines from motorists. However anyone can claim an independent system to be in operation is beyond comprehension. What a load of bu----it we have to contend with. Being controlled by a load of hypercrits and liers. We would be better off with the Taliban in control than the thieves which we have now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 17:02 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
ollie wrote:
If one is charged and contests any case they have to fund their own legal costs,
Almost right. In England and Wales legal aid is available for offences which carry custody as a possible sentence. Even if the individual case in question is so minor that custody is not remotely likely. There is a means test which takes the defendants income into account and you don't have to be all that well off to be earning too much. In any event, if your case results in a not guilty verdict you can claim costs.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 18:56 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
fisherman wrote:
There is a means test which takes the defendants income into account and you don't have to be all that well off to be earning too much. In any event, if your case results in a not guilty verdict you can claim costs.


So why are the errant MPs able to get legal aid. An MP's salary is something like £60K which is, by most peoples's standards, reasonably well off.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 19:56 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
I don't know for sure but it might be because they are currently unemployed and have no income. A point which I didn't mention before as it only rarely applies to motoring cases is that there is an interests of justice test which may well apply here.
In short, if you have a case which may hinge on a complex point of law that requires specialist expertise to explore properly you may well be eligible for legal aid even if you fail to meet the other criteria.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 09:00 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
fisherman wrote:
In short, if you have a case which may hinge on a complex point of law that requires specialist expertise to explore properly you may well be eligible for legal aid even if you fail to meet the other criteria.


That is probably the case with the MPs. They are attempting to extent the scope of Parliamentary Privilege beyond what many jurists think reasonably. That certainly requires thorough exploration.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 17:16 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 20:51
Posts: 8
Quote:
But the gun is ALWAYS fully loaded before entering the court. We now have to support the benevelent fund for "victims of crime" with a £15 additional cost to any fines. Its now £75 and points. "Thank you sir, and the next defendent please." Justice has long gone in this Country. OLLIE PS NOt only that but if one wins their case they still have to pay ALL COSTS


Exactly, drivers are cash cows for our bloated soviet-style super state. The number plate on your car is just like a gapping open wallet. The state has its hands in our wallets, whilst ironically the true lawless underclass steal any other assets we might have left over!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 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 cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.443s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]