Safe Speed Forums

I thought magistrates were permitted to listen to the case put by both the CPS and the defendant. Otherwise there would be no point in a hearing. My point is that the CPS solicitor who was incidentally a contract solicitor drafted in for that morning seemed to be trotting out the party line which from my knowledge of small business practice is divorced from reality and represents official wishful thinking to support S172 6)



But in this case the form of words a=used by Clerk and CPS brife were near identical. Some of us with suspicious minds who do know about the jsutice system might conclude....





I'm sure you conduct your court in an exemplary and fair manner. However there are others who do not or cannot see that they are being manipulated.

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

Nah, Surely our 'Justice' system could never be swayed or manipulated, that would be like stating that the Police having to make ludicrous policing decisions due to meeting targets. oops

Not only permitted but actually required to listen to all sides.
I don't know the individual circumstances of your case but there is an obligation on all participants to assist the court in coming to appropriate conclusions. That often takes the form of supposedly helpful comments. I mentioned earlier that CPS prosecutors will frequently add the words "it was a company car". Such comments are not part of the official case but part of the assisting the court requirement.
It had not occured to me that a defendant, who was not aware of the assisting the court duty, might see such comments as part of a grand conspiracy. I am grateful for your comments on this and will raise the point with my local Judicial Issues Group.


that they were telling the truth. Why else would people from different agencies, with a well known rivalry, come up with the same story?


In common with all other JPs I do my best. In common with all other JPs I undertake regular compulsory training. In common with all other JPs I am subject to regular appraisals, failure of which would see me removed from office. In common with all other JPs I don't get it right all the time.

Given the fact that no JP has anything to gain by forcing an unsafe conviction and that a long jail sentence awaits any JP who does deliberately force an unsafe conviction you can rest assured that anything untoward is overwhelmingly more likely to be cockup than conspiracy.

Its not only the police that are set targets, courts have them too.

But even this government has had to respect judicial independence and the targets have mostly been to reduce the time taken to get from charge to sentence.

Much of this has been done by improving the behind the scenes administrative process. Some has been in court by resisting weak pleas to adjourn and insisting on making progress on the day where this is possible without affecting the interests of justice.

In my experience we reject adjournment requests from the CPS much more often than we do for defendants, frequently resulting in cases being dropped.

Have to give you credit in part. The adjournments used to take up much time and the CPS were as guilty of it as were defendants. A defendant would turn up only to have the CPS lawyer state that the 'file had been lost', in other words, hope that the defendant wouldn't show and have a decision by default . Both predicaments serve no purpose other than to delay justice.

I have to say however, that targets should not be part within the judicial process. I am not convinced that the Government has respected Judicial independence at all, minimum sentences and the Council tax restrictions are prime examples.

Seems a good idea. But most people don't think of it as a grand conspiracy instead rather a tawdry incidental one where political pressure and the common financial trough have been brought into what previously was manifestly independent.




Same broad explanation is one thing, same words describing the same contrived scenario spells out " same briefing paper" to some of us.


In common with all other JPs I do my best. In common with all other JPs I undertake regular compulsory training. In common with all other JPs I am subject to regular appraisals, failure of which would see me removed from office. In common with all other JPs I don't get it right all the time.

Given the fact that no JP has anything to gain by forcing an unsafe conviction and that a long jail sentence awaits any JP who does deliberately force an unsafe conviction you can rest assured that anything untoward is overwhelmingly more likely to be cockup than conspiracy.[/quote]

I also find that investigations into all sorts of things reveal far far more cock-ups than conspiracies and human failings play the greater part in these. But thanks to automated traffic enforcement and its trappings far far more decent and normal citizens are getting to see judicial process from the receiving end than ever before. And who can blame them for concluding what they do.

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

I think what he meant was what if another employee wrote your name in the log when he was driving, and then set off a speed camera. The employer would then have to supply your name with no way of knowing for sure if the information is correct. This opens the employer up to legal problems with both the court and with you. Therefore it might be more than reasonable not to use that system.

I hadn't read it that way.

Its a print and sign form, so the handwriting can be checked. In all cases the names of people who were driving can be checked against duty rosters. Some will also show on overtime claims.

In lots of cases the driver will have visited a hospital or clinic to either service equipment or treat a patient, in both those scenarios there will be sigantures with date and time in the relevant records.

For us a few points and few quid would be far preferable to having to use own transport - for reasons previously explained. Failing to fill in the form properly would result in having to use own car. Filling in someone else's name would probably also result in a gross misconduct hearing, with potential loss of employment.

Its part of the human psyche to always feel a need to be right.
So its a real shock for a "decent and normal citizen" to find that his excellent driving skills are actually so poor that he was 20 miles over the limit without realising it and that he had failed to see a huge camera at the side of the road.

In such circumstances many drivers will draw any conclusion they can to "prove" that they weren't at fault. A conspiracy, unfairness of cameras, stealth taxes etc are so much more psychologically palatable than admitting that they made a mistake or that their driving is not up to standard.

Quite where this is going is hard to see.
There are many magistrates who are, indeed, unhappy with the entire S172 situation inasmuch as it's the first time in English law where there is a legal requirement to self-incriminate. Are these Magistrates a small minority? They shouldn't be, but who knows?
Then there is the situation in which the Magistrates Courts Service is a 'Partner' in the 'Speed Camera Partnership' scheme. The term 'Partner' indicates that the 'Partners', acting together in 'Partnership' will obtain a result which is beneficial to all 'Partners'. So, even if it is proclaimed that the Magistrates themselves are not part of the 'Partnership', it is difficult for Mr. Average to see the subtle difference, especially when the Clerks to the Justices have influence, overt or covert, with the Magistrates individually and/or as a 'bench'. A large number of ordinary members of the public perceive the speed camera 'Partnerships' as nothing more than 'cash-cameras', so for the Magistrates courts themselves and for the overall perception of the public it is certainly a public relations disaster, even if not the 'conspiracy' that some see it as. There is little doubt that certain Magistrates don't listen to the salient facts or, of they do, they choose to ignore them. The number of successful appeals in speed camera cases have shown this.
With regard to Richard's point about the legal requirement for a company to keep records as to the driver(s) of company cars, I know for a fact that there is no legal requirement to do so. Nowhere does the law state that a company is required to ensure that a driver signs for a vehicle, or that a company official must log vehicles in and out at all times. It may be prudent so to do, but that is not the same as it being required by law. Where is there a law which mandates against not being 'prudent'? It's not the same as a legal 'Duty of Care' as defined in law under, say, employment legislation. That being the case it's difficult to see how it is fair for a company to be disadvantaged for not complying with something they are not legally required to do. If this is the case, as Richard says (and I'm sure he is to be believed), then the Magistrates are making it up as they go along or as 'encouraged' to do by the government of the day.
What all this shows is the total 'pettyness' of the speed-camera schemes, where such minor offences are dealt with in such a spiteful and unnecessary way, such as to cause anger, derision, cynicism and, in some cases, great hardship. This is especially true when shoplifters are likely to get a 'caution' for a minor offence. Why no cautions for minor speed-camera offences. Ah, yes, the money, of course!
Cynical, moi? Mais Oui.

Not at all Fisherman , Cooperman above has made some points elequently put with which many of us will concur.

It may well be that in your area prosecution thresholds are set at 20 mile/h over the limit or that only 'huge' obvious cameras are used. But most of us are used to encountering well-concealed mobile cameras deployed in inappropriately low and recently lowered speed limit zones catching people a few mile/h over such limits . You will appreciate that your assertions about trying to put the blame on drivers whose driving you suggest is not up to some perceived standard sound like the propaganda employed by so many SCPs and detracts from your solidly argued stance of impartiality.

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

Good point but if I was an employee possibly pinged I would be reluctant to sign the log and might 'forget' knowing that in a busy company it might take 2 or 3 weeks or more for the person responsible to make enquiries and by that time no-one would be able to remember. On at least 2 occasions ( both mentioned here ) mags have deemed that that is not good enough and the employer as RK is found guilty of S172 offence.

To me and most people that is contrary to natural justice and objectionable.

Fisherman offers no justification for keeping records other than in response to a NIP or a complaint from a member of the public about poor driving standards makes it necessary to ID the driver. As regards the latter there is absolutely no duty on the RK to ID the driver against an MoP's complaint and Cooperman has covered the NIP issue well.

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

Some drivers intend to obey all posted limits and are confident that they can do so.

Some drivers set their own limit above the posted one because they feel they have good reason for so doing. They are confident that they have the skill - and probably some kind of alerting device - to avoid being detected while speeding.

Every day drivers in both categories have it brought home to them, by way of points, that they have failed to meet the driving standards they set for themselves.

It would be a sad world indeed if we all took the view that we would do nothing unless compelled by law.

It would certainly seem so!

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

And, of course the motorist will pay the £15 surcharge also for the victims of crime - unlike the cautioned thief. Oh sorry, I made the assumption that a shoplifter is a thief. There was no evidence of that the shoplifter intended to permanently deprive the shopkeeper of the goods.



No, not nothing unless compelled to. We just don't want to do pointless things that are of no value to us and waste time. In the absence of legal compulsion we must all make our own decision as to what these are.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Interesting to see what lies beneath, on the occasions when your veil of impartiality slips!

Perhaps now would be a great moment to have a go at JT's fun multiple choice quiz. It's dead easy - there's just one question:

Q. Do you exceed the speed limit more than once a year?
(A) No,
(B) Yes, intentionally
(C) Yes, unintentionally

Remember that if we apply the moral standards outlined in your post then all drivers who don't answer A will end up banned from driving within 3 years. Can you answer A?

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

How does that work then? If our Clerk to the Justices is influencing me by some covert means, it is so covert I am not aware of it.



Do you have any figures to show the percentage of succesful appeals? I don't know what the % is and would like to know.
Given that the overall appeal rate for all magistrates courts verdicts is under 1% its not going to be very high

You also need to bear in mind that an appeal often contains information that was not put before the original trial bench.



Some shoplifters are cautioned, some are prosecuted. I am not aware of any cases, other than those involving very young children, where the offender is allowed to go with no penalty at all.

Every time a driver passes a camera at a speed above the legal limit but below the trigger speed he or she is allowed to go with no penalty at all.


So, in order to even things up do you want to see the law on shoplifting slackened to allow some offenders to escape totally unpunished, as is the case with drivers. Or do you want to see cautions for drivers above the limit but below the trigger speed?

Motorists above the limit and below the trigger speed will pay no surcharge.
Motorists who accept a fixed penalty will pay no surcharge.



There is no offence of shoplifting. Stealing frorm a shop is charged as theft. So the elements of the offence must be proved. Including the permanently deprive one.


Which is exactly what my employers have done with regard to record keeping. With the support of the unions and professional bodies representing those who drive the vehicles.

Even more interesting to see what you manage to read into things. How have I demonstrated a lack of impartiality?

RichardC had interpreted a post of mine as blaming drivers for failing to meet some nebulous driving standard set by government via speed cameras. Understandable given the general viewpoint on this site and my poorly expressed post.
I posted a correction making it clear that we all try to drive to our own standards. One target we all set for ourselves is to keep a clean licence and we are upset with ourselves when we fail to do so. Human nature than kicks in and we blame everybody but ourselves.



I would answer C.
But I have held a clean licence for almost 40 years. All my accidental speeding must have either been within the "tolerance" zone or away from any kind of detection device.