Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 21:33

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2015 13:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
BBC wrote:
Speeding driver David Pickup ordered to pay £11,000
14 May 2015

David Pickup was driving an Audi R8, similar to this new model, which went on show earlier this year

A speeding driver has to pay £11,000 for challenging his ticket after a prosecution expert hired an airfield and a sports car to prove him wrong.

David Pickup, 45, was clocked doing 101mph in his Audi R8 on the A55 at Lloc in Flintshire in April 2014.

Flintshire Magistrates' Court heard a police speed camera caught him and he asked officers: "Can we call it 98?".

Pickup, from Wilmslow, Cheshire, who has a holiday home in Abersoch, Gwynedd, was convicted of speeding.

He denied breaking the 70mph speed limit and said that a number of people from Cheshire had second homes in Abersoch, which he called a millionaire's paradise.

The defence questioned the accuracy of the in-car police speed camera so the prosecution hired an expert who rented an airfield and an Audi R8 to carry out tests, the results of which were presented to the court.

Pickup was fined £675, given six points on his licence and ordered to pay the full prosecution costs - which included the testing - of £10,384.
About time that there is a limit to spending on the Prosecution side as to how much any loosing defendant ought to pay out. How is this meant to help anything? It's intimidation and bully tactics. It does not bring about justice.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2015 14:46 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4362
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Do people found guilty of murder (after contesting the charge) have to pay the costs of the forensic tests used by the prosecution to prove their case?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2015 17:09 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3427
I doubt it Malcolm but murder isn't QUITE as serious as speeding is it?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 18:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
The prosecution don't and can't claim costs for an investigation. The investigation was completed and a prosecution brought.
The defendant then took further action and challenged the evidence. Any further response made by the crown to the technical defence are not considered necessary costs to be covered by the crown. The additional investigations are therefore claimed by the crown because they have been caused by the defendant. The defendant is able to carry out exactly the same tests as the crown did, after all he did have an Audi R8 at his disposal and Dr Clark (bless him) has laser speedometers at his disposal. So why didn't add Clark carry out the same test as the crown did when he saw the report of the expert for the crown? Maybe my answer can be considered cynical but it is in no way unreasonable. Is it because his results would be the same as those found by the crown? There are no reasons why his test would have been different so why didn't he perform the test? I'll leave that with you.
If you defend with unanswered speculation, don't be surprised if it is answered with a test of that speculation; it is after all perfectly reasonable to do so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 18:25 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
malcolmw wrote:
Do people found guilty of murder (after contesting the charge) have to pay the costs of the forensic tests used by the prosecution to prove their case?

In some circumstances they would


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 23:33 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
GreenShed wrote:
The prosecution don't and can't claim costs for an investigation. The investigation was completed and a prosecution brought.
The defendant then took further action and challenged the evidence. Any further response made by the crown to the technical defence are not considered necessary costs to be covered by the crown. The additional investigations are therefore claimed by the crown because they have been caused by the defendant. The defendant is able to carry out exactly the same tests as the crown did, after all he did have an Audi R8 at his disposal and Dr Clark (bless him) has laser speedometers at his disposal. So why didn't add Clark carry out the same test as the crown did when he saw the report of the expert for the crown? Maybe my answer can be considered cynical but it is in no way unreasonable. Is it because his results would be the same as those found by the crown? There are no reasons why his test would have been different so why didn't he perform the test? I'll leave that with you.
If you defend with unanswered speculation, don't be surprised if it is answered with a test of that speculation; it is after all perfectly reasonable to do so.

All this is saying to me - WE ,the SCP have decided you are guilty. We will spend whatever it takes to prove you wrong. and, yes, we will troll motoring sites to gather evidence , to ensure that in future anyone considering using their legal right under the UK legal system to defend them selves is made aware of how far we will go to prove our case. Money is no object to us. There is more chance in UK today of someone accused of murder getting a fair trail ,than a motorist charged/ condemned and sentenced under the SCP system .The idea is not to prove the workings of the UK legal system is fair, but to attempt to browbeat Joe Public into rolling over any time any speculative invoice arrives on his post mat, whether Joe is guilty /was there or was guilty of the crime, or even if all the signs etc conformed to those in the road signs handbook.
It smacks to me of a system so desperate to preserve their presence and the income stream that they will gamble any amount of money in an attempt to mount a show of force.
road safety -PAH- it's ALL about loss of face ,and more importantly keeping the income stream intact.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 08:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
botach wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
The prosecution don't and can't claim costs for an investigation. The investigation was completed and a prosecution brought.
The defendant then took further action and challenged the evidence. Any further response made by the crown to the technical defence are not considered necessary costs to be covered by the crown. The additional investigations are therefore claimed by the crown because they have been caused by the defendant. The defendant is able to carry out exactly the same tests as the crown did, after all he did have an Audi R8 at his disposal and Dr Clark (bless him) has laser speedometers at his disposal. So why didn't add Clark carry out the same test as the crown did when he saw the report of the expert for the crown? Maybe my answer can be considered cynical but it is in no way unreasonable. Is it because his results would be the same as those found by the crown? There are no reasons why his test would have been different so why didn't he perform the test? I'll leave that with you.
If you defend with unanswered speculation, don't be surprised if it is answered with a test of that speculation; it is after all perfectly reasonable to do so.

All this is saying to me - WE ,the SCP have decided you are guilty. We will spend whatever it takes to prove you wrong. and, yes, we will troll motoring sites to gather evidence , to ensure that in future anyone considering using their legal right under the UK legal system to defend them selves is made aware of how far we will go to prove our case. Money is no object to us. There is more chance in UK today of someone accused of murder getting a fair trail ,than a motorist charged/ condemned and sentenced under the SCP system .The idea is not to prove the workings of the UK legal system is fair, but to attempt to browbeat Joe Public into rolling over any time any speculative invoice arrives on his post mat, whether Joe is guilty /was there or was guilty of the crime, or even if all the signs etc conformed to those in the road signs handbook.
It smacks to me of a system so desperate to preserve their presence and the income stream that they will gamble any amount of money in an attempt to mount a show of force.
road safety -PAH- it's ALL about loss of face ,and more importantly keeping the income stream intact.

The evidence before experts became involved proved guilt, the evidence after experts were involved proved guilt, the trial therefore has convicted a guilty man.
Do you think it would be fair if this particular man was able to buy his way out of that guilt with his ability to buy a hired gun and the crown backed down because it was too expensive to match the defendant's investment? That can't be fair.
It is a separate issue to whether you think speed enforcement is necessary so that isn't a valid response to the question I have suggested.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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 : 0.198s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]