Safe Speed Forums

There is no reason to exempt anyone from punishment for failing or refusing to obey one set of laws simply because they obey all the others, are kind to animals, help old ladies across the road etc.

Maybe not, but wouldn't it be JUST GREAT if a magistrate exercised some common sense and threw a speeding case out, because there was no danger to anyone/thing... Oh Utopia...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Common sense BB? It is common sense to me that magistrates abide by their guidelines, maverick magistrates would result in an even greater mess than we have already.
But I guess thats the problem with common sense isn't it, its anything but common (as in uniform in its meaning and applicability).

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Yes, common sense.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

true, but... oh no... here it is...
there is the CPS code...

or

_________________
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

Get the law changed to allow us to do that and I will happily oblige when the circumstances are right.

You will note that I referred to punishment, your quotes refer to the charging decision.


When the CPS decide to proceed with a case the courts have no choice other than to hear it. If the CPS prove their case we must sentence in accordance with the guidelines.
If there was a genuine mistake or misunderstanding then that will give a degree of mitigation, which will keep the sentence to a minimum.

Ahhh, YOUR version of common sense then .
No offence mate, but bearing in mind your casual attitude towards 'laws you consider unworthy of adhering to', i.e. don't like it so ignore it, your version of common sense is quite different to mine. Which was the point I was making after the first two or three words of my earlier post.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

It has been established for quite some time that not only does one have a certain right to ignore unjust "Laws", one actually has a *Duty* to do so!

THAT is why "I was only obaying orders" is not normally considererd a defense!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

Two phrases spring to mind ---

Magna Carta

Poll Tax .

_________________
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

It has also been established that prime examples of the contorted thinking that goes in to some of the posts on this forum diminish the overall impact of the campaign. Congratulations, knock the credibility down another notch.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

At what point is the cps code applied to most motorists?
the nip and fixed penalty excludes the cps code from this essential part of british law.

_________________
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

NIP and FP are made available so that any driver who is sure he or she is guilty of the offence AND who is willing to accept responsibility for their actions can do so with a minimum of fuss, expense and time if they want to.

Those who are not sure if they are guilty and those who wish to have their day in court, for whatever reason, can refuse the FP. At which point the CPS will consider the evidence in accordance with the code for prosecutors.

The nip and fixed penalty system does not explain the detail of the cps code. It threatens a larger fine and more points if the court route is used.

Roll on Friday

_________________
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

It doesn't need to. It offers a substantial, and guaranteed reduction in punishment for those who wish to take up the offer.



It points out (accurately) that if the FP is declined the standard punishment will probably be imposed in the event of a guilty plea or finding.

Are you suggesting, in the case of a person who has received a FPN but not accepted it, that the CPS actually considers whether "prosecution is needed in the public interest"? You're 'aving a larf!



There's no "consideration" worthy of the name. It's an automatic (and automated) process; which makes a mockery of:



[emphasis added]

[last section added on edit]

That and the is-there-enough-evidence-to-get-a-conviction test. You would be surprised how many are dropped at court when they hear the defence side of things.



From personal experience I can assure you that is not universal, if indeed it happens anywhere.

If that is the case, you should be able to describe (in brief), from your experience, the elements of a case (or several cases, please) in which prosecution (for a speeding offence) following the refusal of a FPN offer has been judged NOT "needed in the public interest".

members of the public spotted him driving erratically, reported it to the police, who had a look, then scrambled the helicopter, which then found/caught up with him, then casually observed his behaviour.

My question would be, how much pasta did this guy have??

Sounds very iffy to me.

_________________
Any man can be a father, it takes someone special to be a daddy.

As there has been no response, I'll repeat (and rephrase) my last question.

If it is the case (as you assert), from your personal experience, that the decision whether or not to prosecute in the case of a person who has received (but not accepted) a conditional offer of fixed penalty in relation to an alleged speeding offence, is NOT 'automatic', you MUST know of at least some examples where, after due consideration, the decision was made that prosecution was NOT "needed in the public interest".

Or are you saying that the consideration IS made in every case but the conclusion, in every case, is that prosecution IS needed "in the public interest" (in which case the process would appear to be effectively 'automatic').

If you do not know of ANY cases where prosecution was NOT "needed in the public interest", I wonder how you can know (and assert) that the decision to prosecute is (universally or otherwise) taken following 'due consideration'.

How do you, as a magistrate, become familiar with 'non-prosecutions' on the grounds that prosecution "is not needed in the public interest". Seems very strange to me.