Safe Speed Forums

I thought Court Clerks received their salaries from the Magistrates Court Service. Are you saying that's wrong? Who pays the Clerks?

There's also the 'lying down with dogs' problem, which I personally regard as pretty severe.

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

no problem mate, i never felt that, was just making a point. Cheers.

It does involve honest people in more paperwork and possible court appearances than was previously the case.

If you genuinely can't remember who was driving and have exercised reasonable diligence in trying to find out, then go to court and put your case.

Trials for s172 are usually short. Its just a case of standing up and setting out what steps you have taken.

The clerk will guide you as to procedure and the bench may well ask questions to clarify anything you haven't explained clearly enough.

All courts are now part of Her majesty's Courts Service (HMCS). The old division between magistrates courts and the rest has been done away with.

Clerks are paid from the same source as Judges, and for that matter where my mileage payments come from. Which is one of the reasons why judicial independence is guaranteed in law for all judicial office holders, whether clerks, judges or JPs.


As far as court clerks are concerned their judicial independence is guaranteed in law. A clerk who fails to maintain that independence puts his or her job and pension at risk. There would also be the very real prospect of a custodial sentence.

I have never met a clerk who would risk that just to secure a conviction for any offence let alone a minor motoring one.








Although an outsider could be forgiven for thinking that I live with dogs, in point of fact my dogs lay down in a kennel in the garden, whereas I lay down indoors.

My dogs and I have a good working relationship. I feed them, exercise them and provide them with a place to live. They, in turn, protect me and my family from disgruntled court users who have found out where I live. So we have a relationship which works for both us with no need - or in my case desire - to get too close.

I need to make clear that I do NOT in any sense equate clerks with dogs but use the example to show how easy it is for outsiders to make incorrect assumptions.

For years the Magistrates Court Service have been a significant partner in camera partnerships. And the Magistrates Court Service has been responsible for Court Clerks' salaries.

1) Do you really believe that this is a healthy relationship?
2) Do you really believe that this is an entirely lawful relationship, when the independence of the judiciary and its advisers has to be above the possibility of suspicion?
3) What's the relationship (if any) between HMCS and the partnerships?



Joking aside, I was referring to the old saying 'if you lie down with dogs, expect to get fleas'. You might also call it 'canteen influence' and similar.

I am extremely concerned that the financial, administrative and informational link from camera partnerships into the administrative side of courts compromises (let's call it) independence of trust. The problem here is that Clerks and others, possibly including Magistrates, can be influenced to believe that camera partnerships are doing 'good work' via canteen gossip, notice boards, salary payments and so on.

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

They were responsible for salaries for decades before SCPs came in to being.

HMCS now pays all clerks and judges, as far as I am aware that includes the Law Lords. Are you suggesting that every legal decision is unreliable because a percentage of SCP cash finds its way into a part of HMCS that the judiciary have no control over?
I have no knowledge of how much cash my part of HMCS gets from SCPs or what that cash is spent on. I have no control over how any cash is spent or influence over anyone who does decide that sort of thing. Just as they have no control over my judicial decision making.



Its an entirely administrative relationship which has no input into, or control over the judicial side of things.


I assume it to be lawful because it came from parliament and they make the laws.
I know from the day job that it is not possible to prevent a small percentage of people from assuming conspiracy where none exists.



Entirely administrative as far as I am aware.


In my county the court buildings are entirely separate from admin.

The courts are next door to police stations near town centres. The magistrates courts offices are on an industrial estate where the rent and/or taxes are less.
I don't know where the ticket office is - other than its in a specific town.

Although all our courts are next door to police stations we are not allowed to share the police canteen. JPs eat sandwiches in the court retiring rooms, the clerks eat theirs in the clerks room. Or we go out to a pub or cafe. Never to the same one as the clerks, CPS or defence lawyers.

This situation exists in every court I have ever served in.


A huge effort goes into avoiding any appearance of bias or partiality however remote the chance of that suspicion arising.
Its common during the course of a day to swap with a colleague from another court because 1 of us doesn't want to deal with someone who lives in the same street, even if we have never met them.

Until a couple of years ago we were not allowed to wear poppies in court in case it was thought that we might favour ex-service people or be unfair to those not wearing poppies.

Steady Eddie, I was listening to Steve Berry (the TV bike man) on Talksport radio last night. A case was brought up ...... Funk (honest) versus North Wales police. Funk, won the case claiming that he hadn't been read his rights at the time of the offence.

I haven't checked it.........but see pepipoo.com!

No doubt Fisherman is unbiased and treats each case fairly and properly, but it certainly does not seem that way to me in general with the magistracy.


In all speeding cases, everybody on the prosecution side are automatically believed without challenge, and the defense is automatically assumed to be lying, or at least telling a 'Cock and Bull' story. The principle of guilt having to be proved 'beyond all reasonable doubt' has been dropped. The innocent must now prove they are innocent. I return to the speeding case where a GPS log was produced by the defense to show no speeding, which seems to throw some reasonable doubt on the prosecution case to me, and another driver showed his tachograph record, a legal document, but no, Guilty as charged , fine and points, next case please !!

The LTI20-20 is now proven as a deeply flawed device, giving stationary objects a speed and can easily be 'fiddled'by the operator in any cash-hungry SCP. The motorist has no means of challenging this device and even if he has (as described above a GPS or tachograph record (which is pretty accurate), the operator of the device and its readings is ALWAYS believed.

Fisherman can protest until he is blue in the face about the magistrates not being involved with SCPs despite their appearance on every SCP website. I for one will never, ever, believe it. And I know I am not alone. There should be NO involvement by any legal body in these iniquitous organisations; they are a cancer on this country.

Yet still they continue in their evil ways, with the situation that eventually, I would judge, there will be no candidates for the magistracy because they will all have points on their licence.

And in case you ask, No, I have no points on my licence, and have never had any.

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist