Safe Speed Forums

You don't need to guess. Can you not answer the question based on what you already know? If not, what else do you need to know? Would you ever be prepared to offer an opinion on a case that you hadn't attended?

Every day, you make decisions on people's guilt based purely on what you've been told, despite not being there at the time. So surely you can similarly tell us whether you think the court proceedings were fair without having been there. That's the main part of your job: to ascertain what happened from people's accounts (possibly together with evidence etc). Don't go all coy on us now.

You know, and we know you know, that based on what Ernest has divulged, proceedings were not fair and Ernest was not speeding beyond reasonable doubt. It does you no favours at all to refuse to disagree with someone else just because they're another magistrate. All it does is lend to the perception that those administering justice (magistrates, CPS, police etc) are in cahoots and will always back each other up no matter what (you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours; very cosy but also very wrong). A true professional would not allow themselves to be swayed by such "deals".

Based on what you know, was Ernest speeding beyond reasonable doubt?

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Actually, what you're asking is unreasonable - we've only heard one side of the story (the "prosecution" alleging wrongdoing, if you will). It's therefore totally unfair to attack Fisherman for a perfectly reasonable refusal to draw conclusions from an entirely one-sided argument. In Court, it's the Magistrates' job to make a decision by applying the law as explained by the Clerk (assuming a "lay" rather than Stipendiary Bench), to the facts as they determine them to be based on the cases put by the Prosecution and the Defence.

I make no comment on the merit or otherwise of the allegations made by Ernest - I, like everyone else here, do not have sufficient evidence to decide that since we have neither heard, nor been able to test, the evidence for both sides of the argument.

Please respect Fishermans right to reserve judgement - I was there, and the way things work is nowhere near as simple as you might suspect.
Fisherman would need ALL THE FACTS plus a chance to study the demeanour of the defendant, and body language of the other participants.

As I was representing myself through circumstance, I did not have the benefit of experience, and the magistrates are not allowed to offer it.
My main complaint is that while I would not swear on the bible lightly, the magistrates are no where near technically prepared to judge the case, but appear to be prepared to accept the prosecution evidence above mine.
Fair enough they dont know me from Adam but are too quick to dismiss evidence without examining it.
Fisherman would really need to dig out a copy of the Type Approval, and personally witness evidence of Redspeed's wrong-doing to make a verdict - we on the other hand make up our minds based on suspicion - which is the basis of OUR reasonable doubt.
In my case I have more than just a passing acquaintance with calibration regimes, and Redspeeds certificate is laughable.

Computerised weapons systems supplied to the military are robust and rigorously tested, and still not as reliable as Redspeed and the camera partnerships claim theirs are! The European Airbus has 5x redundancy computer systems, and they still occasionally fall out of the sky when pilots try to do too much, or override the systems - as happened at the Paris Airshow when one ploughed into a forest!

My case rested on the testament of the Camera Technician, who claimed on his computer he could see where my wheel was in relation to the distance marks - and a piece of software which told him how far I had travelled between photographs.
The photographic evidence in court, did NOT show this, and he could not demonstrate the computer software either so it came down to his word against mine. He earns a living at giving his word - I dont. At least I am not troubled by my conscience!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Sorry - that last post took over an hour to finish!
Thank you FB for your timely post!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

When you have a bias ( either way) its easy to guess. I don't have a bias about speed enforcement so I can't guess. I would need to have been there and listened carefully to all the evidence. There are occasions when enough evidence is available for me to offer an opinion about a specific point but I can't imagine a case where I would dispute a verdict without haveing seen all the evidence at first hand.



There is a difference between not seeing the actual offence and not having all the evidence. Any decision I make MUST be based on the evidence put forward and I have to give reasons for that decision.



I only have one side of the story, and that from someone who is honest enough to admit a lack of experience.
If a court found you guilty on the CPS case alone and refused to hear your defence I am sure you would consider that to be unfair. Why do you think it fair for me to pronounce judgement on this case with only one side of the story?




I don't know and you are guessing.




I haven't refused to disagree. I have refused to comment either way.




In this instance I am refusing to be swayed by your opinion.




I don't have enough information to make a judgement one way or the other and neither do you.

I have thought long and hard before making this post, and I have decided that I will make little comment on all the wrongness thus far conveyed in this thread; frankly I haven't the inclination, and we are already well aware that Fisherman chooses not to reply to my posts, based on a very wise, and ancient, principle of only picking the fights you can win. Ignore away mon brave.

Suffice to say, the Airbus that ploughed into the forest actually did so because its clever computer systems were not overridden. Essentially the pilot tried to pull up with such urgency that the flight control system decided that to obey the human captain would jeopardise the safety of the aircraft, and so proceeded to mix thin alloy fuselage with ancient timber.

The various misrepresentations of justice will have to wait for another night when I am more motivated and 'fighty'.

Fair enough. Thankfully I haven't had any first-hand experience of court proceedings, and I accept that things are a good deal more complicated than they might seem.

I still think the case was an injustice, and that we seem to get an awful lot of injustices with speeding cases, but others are of course entitled to make their own judgments (or not).

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Err...have I missed something here, or is this some clever analogy?

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Yes, see Ernest's previous post.

But this isn't about justice - it's about the law and cash generation.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Just go and look at the list of 'Partners' in the Cumbria 'Partnership' if you want to see why the courts find in favour of the CSCP despite a lack of robustness in the Prosecution's case. The Court Service is a 'Partner' and it's in their interest to convict.

I think that is a little simplistic - the real problem is that the Magistrates dont have the technical knowledge to understand they are being manipulated by the partnerships.
The Court Service, which is signed up to the partnership is the administrative arm, which seeks to recover the costs of the FPN's, not the cases like mine which are contested.

Fisherman might be able to confirm my understanding of this - or shoot me down in flames!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

My observations of the courts would be that in non speed camera cases they are trying to be fair and follow the processes and law with all the usual day to day churn of the courts. Then occasionally the get a bit fed up with someone who has failed to attend and just find them guilty. The weight of the fines however is often linked to the grumpiness of the bench and the amount of non productive time that session.

Speed camera cases often involve section 8 requests for evidence and wasted trips to court because the prosecution has failed to produce the evidence ordered. time after time this is excused, however if the defendant fails to attend 1 of 12 hearings he is just found guilty!
This chas case is a mess. It took a year to find out where he was caught and by that time the entire road signs had all been replaced yet the council have no records of them being changed. They were new because they were made after the date of offence.

After 3 1/2 year case the district judge came in grumpy, decided to review all the cases, growled at a few cps people and then launched an attack on the oldest case for time wasting. yet it took a year to get the video tape after three court directions to supply it, then they bundled 17 cases behind it. It took another two years for those cases to get their tapes and reports by the expert witnesses. One expert witness went on holiday for two months and as a result the defendant in the lead case gets an year full of grief from the district judge!

I am sure the district judge is under extreme pressure from the powers that be to conclude these cases. I fear that there is unofficial pressure from the camera partnership on the single cps lawyer and on the court to curtail the preparation time and to exclude expert witnesses using the rules in an un-even way.

This is just one case (and 17 clingons) one district judge but it has been an eye opener. The one week court case is scheduled for October. Will all the reports be in on time? will it be adjourned again or blunder through without all the evidence? Will it be a fair trial? At the moment I recon the chances of a fair trial at less than 40%.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Imagine if you were able to wait until the '11th hour', then write to the CPC, with a cc to the Pratnership, saying something to the effect that 'please note that from next Monday my address will be 1171 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Please address all future correspondence to that address as it will be my permanent residence'.
What would/could they do about that? Would they drop it or require you to fly back for the hearing, and back again if the hearing was adjourned? Think of the costs against them if you eventually won.

I'm very sorry to hear the news Ernest, my heart goes out to you. When it comes to British justice I have some experience too, sadly.

Back in 1978 I had an accident on my motorbike. I was travelling down a lane which at the time had a NSL, 60mph. I was doing about 45-50mph when my front wheel went over some crud on a bend.

I didn't know there was a farm on this lane and some stuff had spilled onto the road not far from the entrance on the main road. The front end went down in an instant and both me and my bike slid into someone's fence. Luckily for me nothing was coming in the opposite direction otherwise I wouldn't be here today.

In truth, as old and experienced as I am, it's the sort of thing that could conceivably happen to me again and it's part of the risk we take, as motorcyclists, along with oil or fuel spills and gravel etc. I constantly look out for such hazards but it's very difficult, especially in the rain.

To cut a long story short, I went to court to defend myself; me verses the police. I may as well have been invisible! I was prosecuted for driving without due care and attention with three points and a heavy fine for 'wasting their time'.

Talk about adding insult to injury! I was just 19 years old at the time and that was my first taste of British justice, but not the last.

Could not agree more with "the real problem is that the Magistrates dont have the technical knowledge to understand they are being manipulated by the partnerships."

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

It's an awful place. I wouldn't go there voluntarily - even to avoid a speeding fine

Sorry to hear, Ernest. Everyone - I recommend this at a mere £249.95. Now has all the van locations.

Commiserations Ern.

_________________
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.

Sorry to hear about all this, Ernest.

I've no patience with the entire system, and the sooner it's all brought crashing down about the operators' ears, the better. Then perhaps some of these deadbeats can be found useful work to do - that's if they have any relevant capabilities.

Best wishes all,
Dave.