Safe Speed Forums

I'm not aware of the law having been 'tightened up'. I am aware of certain judgements in the High Court that have been based upon an interpretation of law and language that would disgrace a first year law student. I have only contempt for the judges who passed such judgments. They have prostituted themselves to their establishment paymasters on the altar of expediency.

BTW, I am a regular contributor on the forum you refer to. It is a citizens advice bureau which provides facts and advice for victims of the speed enforcement system. The information dispensed is not invariably correct but is is better than most people are able/willing to work out for themselves and, in many cases, better than the advice one could pay a lot of money for from the legal profession.

This speed enforcement system that you uphold in your court is unique in that its existence depends upon the propensity of its victims to plead guilty/accept the fixed penalty. By wit or luck, the penalties are pitched at a level which makes it difficult for offenders to justify the cost of defending the charge in court, even though the prosecution will be unable, in a significant number of cases, to secure a conviction.

You might think I'm angry about this ... corruption of our legal system. I am. I am incandescent with fury and I will continue to do everything I can to bring it down.

I had never given any thought to where fines cash goes after all I have no say in how it is spent. Its not covered in magistrate training. If you are correct (and I have no reason to doubt what you say) then the future could be interesting.



I am sure you are right. Perhaps I should have made it more clear that I write only from the court point of view.




There has been a distinct tightening resulting from practice directions and results of appeals.
I am not qualified to comment on the quality of work done by High Court judges or first year law students.



An unofficial "citizens advice bureau" presumeably, or is there a connection with the real thing?




In common with everyone who has taken the Judicial Oath I have two options :-
1) Uphold the laws passed by an elected government OR
2) Resign.
I choose option 1)

I'm sorry that you have let one aspect (thats assuming it is only motoring law that has upset you) of the law colour the way you view the whole system.

Perhaps I could thank all those who have replied so politely in this thread, even when you clearly don't see things my way. This is a huge contrast to the abuse that greets magistrates on many other sites.

That's a very interesting point. We've mentioned on many occasions how over-zealous and perhaps inappropriate policing of speed limits has tainted many people's view of the Police Force with the view that they are now little more than revenue collectors.

I have to admit that I'd never really stopped to consider the fact that the same applies to the Court System, but I supposed it must affect your service too.

This actually strengthens my belief that the Courts being Speed Camera Partners is a bad thing, when you consider the wider picture. When Joe Public ponders over his speeding ticket, he is very likely to form the opinion that the courts are "in on the racket", whatever the truth of the situation. Far from adding credence to the Camera Partnership I would suspect it has the opposite effect, ie of dragging the erstwhile good name of the Courts Service down to the low level of esteem in which the Camera Operators are held.


I hope I speak for most SafeSpeed members when I say that we are by and large the kind of citizens who hold the principles of the British justice system in high regard. For myself, I was brought up to have a high degree of deference and respect for authority, and it grieves me to see this hard earned position of respect abused in the way that it has been over the last few years, by the whole Speed Camera Industry.

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

Thanks. We're making serious efforts to improve road safety and one of the fundamentals is reasoned and reasonable debate.

And since I've not said so before...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I am not unhappy with the entire legal system and I am not generally unhappy with motoring law. The bit that offends me is s.12 RTOA because it acts as a bypass to "due process".

Due process is the elastic that provides the tension to balance the competing interests throughout the legal system - in civil law as well as criminal law. It is not a perfect mechanism but it works reasonably well.

In a civil law case, an applicant must weigh against the potential gain to be secured from winning his case the difficulty of securing a favourable outcome and the cost of losing. That tends to ensure that legal proceedings are not commenced lightly and that both parties to a dispute are motivated to explore other ways of curing the harm complained of.

Similarly, in criminal law, the investigating authorities (police) initially and the prosecuting authority (CPS) have to weigh the evidence (available or likely to become available) and consider whether the difficulty and cost of securing a guilty verdict is in the public interest, given the nature of the offence under investigation. Evidence must be collected and sifted, disclosures must be made and every case has to be taken to trial before independent judiciary and, in more serious cases, a jury. Prosecutors may hope for a guilty plea if the evidence they have collected is sufficiently strong, but they must always be prepared to prove the case, at trial, to the required criminal standard. There are, generally, no shortcuts. Rules of evidence and disclosure must be observed strictly. Every case has to be constructed to stand up to the rigour of scrutiny at trial. The burden that this places on investigation and prosecution resources acts as a natural tensioner that tends to ensure that those resources are applied proportionately to the relative harm caused by the offences detected. The demands of due process provide the motivation for review and reform of criminal law as necessary in the wider public interest and lead to consideration of measures other than the use of criminal law to achieve the desired objective. This is analogous to the civil law alternatives of dispute resolution.

In criminal law, speeding is a singular exception. First, there is a vast reservoir of offences to aim at (~ 3.5 billion per annum). Detection by automatic or semi-automatic fixed and mobile systems is easy and, given the netting off scheme, can be done at zero marginal cost. Once the offence is detected, the offender can be identified relatively easily by the use of s.172 and enforced self-incrimination. Again, this can be done at zero marginal cost. Finally, acceptance of a fixed penalty can be assured in the vast majority of cases by the threat (implicit or explicit) that the compelled self-incriminatimg evidence of identity, collected at zero marginal cost and without use of scarce investigation resources that are necessarily applied to other criminal offences, will be used at trial if the offender has the temerity to put to the test the ability of the prosecution to prove its case.

This enforcement relies on the propensity of offenders to accept the fixed penalty. It would be unsustainable if any significant proportion of offenders refused the fixed penalty and elected to 'have their day in court'. Unsustainable not only, and not primarily, in terms of court time but in the time and care needed to pull evidence together and construct a case that meets criminal standards.

Thus the state has constructed a system of applying criminal sanctions that bypasses 'due process' and is criminalising citizens in numbers that would be simply impossble to achieve if due process was required to be followed. That is simply a form of oppression and is wholly morally repugnant.

Section 12 RTOA is the single piece of law that supports the entire, rotten speed enforcement edifice. We cannot get rid of s.172 because it is reasonably necessary that it exists as a tool to combat the extremes of driver behaviour. We can and must get rid of s.12. Without s.12, speed enforcement would instantly become proportionate to the harm caused by speeding because evidence would have to be collected in the traditional way, by direct interview, and the resources allocated to it would have to be matched to the genuine road safety need.

I hope this explains better why I am so vehemently opposed to this speed enforcement system. You did not respond directly to the arguments expressed in my previous posts. Do you have cogent arguments against these ones?

Yes, Fisherman, we're all such nice people on here and it really is good to have someone in your position. Most on here are not 'boy-racers' or 'would-be kings-of-the-road'. For example, I'm a 64 year-old businessman, former pilot and flying instructor, former works-level rally driver, father and grandfather (no, I don't want a medal!). JT won't mind my telling you, but he is family man and a software engineer with a very responsible position.
Having the Magistrate Court Service (or whatever it's called) listed as a Camera Partner really is, IMHO, about as big a mistake as can be imagined. If infers collusion, even though your explanation makes it clear that those in your position make your own judgements.
Imagine Mr. Average who receives an NIP or even a summons and feels himself to be innocent. He will feel that he may as well accept the penalty and pay up as he can't win if he is arguing his case with a Cash-Camera Partner. That's not the case, but he won't perceive it as not being the case. Thus the legal system is not perceived as being fair to defendants in camera cases, which are seen as a 'rip-off' with no real road safety advantage anyway. It's all so unnecessary.

Observer,

I have reposted the above ( with some added bold emphasis) to clarify my position. As a magistrate I am bound to uphold the law as it is and not as I or others might like it to be. For that reason it is not possible for me to enter into debate about the merits, or lack of merit, of any particular piece of legislation.

In this country politicians make laws. This (in my opinion at least) is the way it should be, because they are accountable to the public for the way in which they shape our society.
The courts then uphold the law, with each court liable to have its decision challenged in the court above.

You long post is not wasted. Even though it has not produced the response you wanted it has given me an insight into the way other people view the law. Unless you have any objections I would like to print out your post and put it on the magistrates notice board next time I am in court.

You are a gentleman, and a diplomat, Fisherman!

Is the agreement (oath?) that binds you precisely expressed in a publically available document? I'd be really interested in examining it...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

From here

Judicial oath

I, ..........................................................., do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of Justice of the Peace for the City of ..........................................................., and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.

So help me God.

The Judicial Oath
I (name goes here) do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of Justice of the Peace for the City (or county or district) of ????????????? , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.

This can be sworn on whatever holy book you prefer or taken as an affirmation.

It can be found at www.magistrates-association.org.uk/
just look in the "about magistrates" section.

Thanks both of you.

That word 'right' is a powerful word and wide open to judgement. Are there notes limiting the interpretation of the word 'right'?

'Right after the law' implies (to me) a layer of interpretation on top of the law, and an opportunity for a moral judgement.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The meaning of the oath was covered in basic training. As far I as I can remember nothing on the specific legal interpretation of "doing right", more an attempt to guide us into a way of thinking and acting about the law and our own behaviour and ALL those affected by it in any particular case.

Lots of stuff warning us NOT to try to impose our own moral code (if any) in place of the law.

Why the great interest?

Because I'd like to see magistrates handing out justice.

A few magistrates refusing to convict in cases of 'unwarranted' speed enforcement would be very good indeed for British justice. I know of one case where it very nearly happened. 'We'd very much like to acquit, but our hands are tied' (after a great deal of deliberation).

I'd certainly like to understand the precise legal limits that apply - there's room in the oath. What else is there?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

fisherman,

I'm working on a response to your last post responding to mine. I have no objection to you using the post you referred to as you see fit. But I would like to add some further analysis for you to consider. I understand you may feel unable to comment on it directly but if it gives pause for thought, I would consider it worthwhile. I'll put it up as soon as I have put the arguments in a coherent form.

My understanding of justice (in a democracy at least) is an independent judiciary carrying out the will of parliament. If (when?) enough people see things your way then the law will change and the judiciary will uphold the new version.

I am sure you are aware that juries sometimes appear to do this. Juries are unique in that , alone among those who make judicial decisions, they do not have to give reasons for their verdict. This may well change in the near future. I wait with great interest to see if juries will still render perverse/common sense (pick whichever word you find most appropriate) verdicts if they have to say why they voted as they did.

"A few magistrates refusing to convict" because they have allowed their personal feelings to override the law is as far from from justice as I can imagine.





Thank you for that. I will wait for the new version and put it on the magistrates room notice board, where it will (eventually) be seen by about 70 magistrates and a dozen or so clerks. I can't guarantee that anything will happen as a result, but at least you will know that your thoughts have reached people who not otherwise have read them.

Everyone knows that the purposes of the speed limit laws are

a) To stop people driving too fast
b) To make the roads safer

They are good intentions and the laws are reasonable. But modern enforcement practice is NOT carrying out the will of the legislators. Obsessional speed limit enforcement is distracting to the point where excessive speed crashes and road deaths are actually increasing.

The argument, therefore, is that enforcement practice is undermining the will of the legislators and the spirit of the law is being violated by those that purport to enforce it.

I can prove this case on a 'balance of probabilities' argument. The question then becomes: Is there a reasonable doubt in the case of speeding that the behaviour of the driver, while outside the letter of the law was closer to the spirit and intention of the law than the behaviour of the prosecution?



Quite. If speeding cases went to jury trial we'd see some of these anomolies exposed quite quickly.



The misapplication (i.e. overzealous enforcement) of well intended laws is causing death and hardship amongst responsible people. Clearly that's not justice. You should read this: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/magistrate.html

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Paul, we seem to be blending with the discussion in the 'Does Speed Kill' thread here.
Let me just take a second to outline a scenario here. In the early 1980s as a young RAF NCO, I was sent to Greenham Common on guard duty at the height of the Cruise Missile protests. The women outside the wire would constantly berate us over our support for these weapons of death (blah, blah) and ask why we didn't have the courage to abandon our duties. They were looking at the issue purely from their own perspective, they were utterly incapable of accepting that, even if we'd had the will we were not in the convenient position of having no responsibility with regards our duties and to act as they wished.
Isn't this the same thing? No matter how convinced you are of the 'correctness' of your case, no magistrates are obligated to give it a second look, even if they were in a position to use your work as a basis for refusal to convict.
Until things get changed, it's what we're stuck with.

I think you're blurring the issues here. In the Greenham common case the conflict is in moral perspectives. (We need these weapons to preserve the peace -v- these weapons threaten the peace because they are aggressive and dangerous)

The legal argument that I'd like to see magistrates accepting is essentially that misapplication of the law is not serving safety, justice or the public interest, and that this must be against the will of the legislators. Moral judgement isn't required.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I'm sorry Paul but I don't agree at all. It's a question of whether those charged with responsibility have the remit to act outwith the bounds of their duty. Magistrates don't necessarily have to accept that the law is being misapplied, that is just what you believe, any more than I had to accept what a peace protestor screamed at me.