Safe Speed Forums

every time I take part in a trial I consider the evidence and come to a verdict in exactly the same way that a juror would. JPs have been doing this since 1361. Why is not our place to do so?




If that were the case there would never be a guilty verdict.
Evidence can consist of facts, expert opinion or an explanation of circumstances allowing the drawing of an inference. It always has to be more than "he is wrong" whether put forward for prosecution or defence.

My post about the duties of the CPS and reasonable doubt was taken from training material approved by the Judicial Studies Board, which in turn was probably based on this (bold emphasis mine)
Original can be found at http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/principles.html

No doubt, as usual the JSB and the CPS are wrong and you are right, but its parliament you need to convince - not me.

My point is that, if clerks and JPs are doing what is so often alleged here ie favouring the SCPs in spite of evidence to the contrary, some would be caught and end up on trial in exactly the same way that drink drivers do.

I haven't heard of any. If the wholesale collusion, accidental or deliberate, that has been alleged here was taking place surely we would have seen a few in court by now.

Indeed, it would seem, from what has been reported here and elsewhere about Ernest's case, that saying "He is wrong" does not create reasonable doubt.

However it would also seem that saying "I am right" proves the case beyond reasonable doubt, as long as it is the CPS witness saying it!

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

It is precisely what you should be doing not, as you posted previously, returning the verdict you believe a jury would. I hope you can see the difference.



I think you've misunderstood. If an SCP employee shows up to court and claims to be convinced they are correct, whilst the defendant claims to be convinced they are mistaken then, in the absence of further evidence, there must be reasonable doubt. I refer this directly to Ernest's case, where the only corroboration was an alleged 'magic' computer system 'back in their office', which was seemingly sufficient to convince the magistrates beyond a reasonable doubt, without it ever being examined, explained or entering any evidence it had produced, or even of it's existence!

As for your continued little jibes, just remember that the vast majority of the 'educated' world once thought the world was flat, and neither their expertise, nor their majority, gave any additional veracity to that notion!

I don't think anyone has alleged "wholesale collusion". The only thing I have alleged is that as long as HMCS are partners in the camera cash scheme, then the potential for a conflict of interests exists for their employees, who now have two clearly contradictory interests.

Whether this actually influences cases is another question entirely, but even if it does not then it is still a bad thing that the potential for such bias exists.

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

I agree - but should the clerk be suggesting amounts, rather than have the CPS provide their amount of what they feel represents their costs?

It appeared to me that the clerk was jumping the gun a little.

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

I was told by the clerk that the case could be decided ONLY on the evidence presented before the magistrates.
They admitted that they could not see the points of contact withthe road in the photographs supplied to me, or the ones brought to court by the prosecution.
So should they have accepted the assertion of the camera operator that the computer showed a better image, which was clearer? I HAVE the computer pictures - as do you, in my first post in this thread. It would be simple to bring this to court.
Finally, how do I ensure that the Home Office Type Aproval document is provided, which would take some reading, and use it to show the site is operating outside of type approval, AND the records to show the camera has been faulty, when they refuse to release the maintenance records by claiming they dont hold them?

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

The whole thing stinks like yesterday's diapers.

They obviously don't work to a British Standard ISO EN 9000 (another sort of BS perhaps?)

Everything should be regularly calibrated, checked, identified, traceable and provable!

It's rediculous, pathetic! I run out of superlatives...

Someone said it best in his/her sig "speed cameras - guilty until proven guilty"?

_________________
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.

In your evidence 'bundle' that you were supplied, there should have been a Section 20 certificate. If you did not object to this within the time scales given, then the Court is entitled to accept that the certificate 'proves' that the equipment was used within its type approval.

What a shame that there isn,t an organised central type fund that people could donate to.
to help fund some peoples fights.

Pat

Those itching to donate could instead fund the campaign that is trying to eliminate the need for all these individual and needless fights.


http://www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html

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

Surely a large factor here (whether it should be or not) is if a particular magistrate believes that cameras are there for the right reasons or not. I suspect that Fisherman largely rejects the Safe Speed argument, believes that cameras are there for road safety and doing a good job, believes that speeding really is dangerous, and consequently has very little sympathy towards the defendant in any speeding case.

I'm not remotely saying that magistrates disregard the law in favour of their personal beliefs, but I do think that their beliefs have an unavoidable influence on proceedings. It's not a case of them being unprofessional, it's a case of them being human.

Do magistrates, like juries, have a right to find a defendant not guilty if they believe a guilty verdict not to be in the public interest (or however it's worded)? If so this does tend to indicate that magistrates personally like speed cameras for whatever reason.

_________________
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)

I DID object.
It's a Redspeed, which works by strips in the road surface - so let us assume that some careless motorist bumps the pole, and it ends up lying on it's side - but is still flashing when vehicles pass over the detector - as long as the certificate says it WAS working when it was magically tested in March 2006, then it's good for the next 12 months, no matter WHAT happens to the camera, the electronics, or the detector strips because Redspeed, who earn millions of pounds every year from selling and maintaining speed cameras tell us so.
Oh, and it was NEVER tested by the Home Office on motorcycles when they approved it - but still issued hundreds of fines to motorcyclists who fell foul of them, and who just paid up rather than question the evidence.!

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

It shouldn't unless there is evidence to back up what is being asserted as truth.

When something is given as evidence under oath, the bench will consider whether it is credible. ie if it makes logical sense having regard to the rest of the evidence and if it was given in a consistent manner. If that is the case then its down to the defence to challenge.

I posted this
Which is clearly a statement of the level to which the CPS are expected to present their case. It says nothing at all about how JPs, or even juries, approach their deliberations. I hope you can see the difference.





I have said something on this subject in my reply to JT.

I am unable to comment on Ern's case as I wasn't there and any comments would be guesswork.

Herein lies the potential problem I think...

Magistrates see the CPS solicitors every single day, and along with their witnesses, who work for enforcement agencies, could foreseeably prejudge them to be honest, upstanding professionals.

On the other hand, the vast majority of defendants who pass through magistrates' courts really are little scrotes, so the person standing to the right could understandably be prejudged to have less credibility.

Whilst I make no allegations that this is always the case, I believe it will be in at least some circumstances, magistrates are only human after all, and have far less experience applying the law than judges. It would be almost forgivable as a human error if it wasn't for the fact that rectifying the situation, when it occurs, is so costly and time-consuming.

As I have stated clerks and JPs have guarantees of judicial immunity which safeguard their positions when taking a decision which goes against a SCP. They also have the threat of criminal sanction if they allow themselves to be swayed in favour of a SCP rather than taking a neutral and judicial view.

The "two clearly contradictory interests" just do not exist.

Feel free to suspect whatever you want. I don't suppose you will be bothered by the fact that your beliefs about me are based on guesswork.




At least you accept that we are human.
Any verdict or sentence imposed by JPs will be based on the opinions of at least 2 and usually 3 of us. We also have to give reasons for our decisions.

My personal view is that, because of the training we get, the appraisals we have to pass and the structured decision making system we use, any personal bias is known to us and can be put aside.



I don't know if juries do have a specific right to do as you suggest.
I do know that juries occasionally bring in what the legal profession call a "perverse verdict". In other words a verdict completely at variance with the law of the land and the evidence presented. The public at large has no idea why this happens because juries do not give reasons for their decisions and research into jury decision making processes is unlawful.

There was some research into juries in (i think) New Zealand a few years ago which showed that many juries had fundamental misunderstandings about the law that they were supposed to be applying. I can't find the reference at the moment, if I get time I will try to dig it out.

In the context of determining if a given body of evidence is, or is not, credible, judges do not make such decisions. Juries and JPs do.

So JPs - all carefully selected for an abilty to think judicially, trained, experienced, appraised ( and removed from office if not competent), backed by a legally qualified clerk, giving reasons for their decisons.

or

a jury - picked at random, could well be illiterate, innumerate, racist, rabidly pro camera (or anti camera for that matter), listening to pop music rather than the evidence, working a night shift and nodding off and not required to substantiate their decision by way of giving reasons.


Who is most likely to make a reasoned, unbiased assessment of a witness and the evidence he or she gives? I don't know but I suspect you wil have a definitive view on the subject.