Safe Speed Forums

Its common for "first up" (ie first time a case is mentioned in court) motoring courts to have a list of 50 or more cases. Some will be declined FPs, some will be cases where the police did not offer an FP.

The CPS will already have looked at each case and assessed, as far as is possible with no knowledge of the defence, whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution would be in the public interest. However the final say will rest with the prosecutor on the day. Any really serious cases(ie likely to result in custody) will have been weeded out for prosecution on a much shorter list, giving more time for each case.

The prosecutor will only have picked up the file that morning and decisions are made on the spot. If the defendant has either sent a letter or turned up in person the prosecutor has a duty to consider if the information they give should affect the decision to prosecute, sometimes resulting in the withdrawl of the case, substitution of the charge with a lesser one or a request for an adjournment.

Some recent examples.

A speeding charge withdrawn when the defendant turned up with a doctors letter confirming she had taken her asthmatic son to hospital because his inhaler had failed to work. She admitted the speeding but the letter confirmed that it had been a genuine emergency.

Similar but involving a run over dog. Adjourned to give defendant time to obtain a letter from a vet.

Jumped a red light. Produced a letter from fire service confirming that the in cab video (intended to deter kids from attacking fire appliances which is a common occurence round here ) showed the car edging slowly through the red light to make way for the fire service. Charge reduced from DWDC to fail to comply with traffic signal. Later withdrawn by more senior prosecutor after viewing video.



Partly because I see some of the process in court, as described above, and partly because if I ask why a decsion was taken to prosecute a particular case the CPS are always able to check the file and produce the record of the reasons.



As described above.



What is even stranger is why someone who clearly has little or no knowledge of how courts work feels the need to make such specific assertions about the workings of the judicial system without bothering to find out if his beliefs have any foundation in fact.

I asked you to provide examples of cases where the CPS had decided that prosecution was not "needed in the public interest". You have given some examples of motoring cases (only one of them a speeding case) where prosecution was discontinued before the court hearing. That's not the same thing at all. It's strange that someone who claims to have (or should have) detailed knowledge of how the courts works doesn't understand the distinction.

The fact is that a 'prosecution' occurs at the point at which a summons is issued following the laying of an information. Do you disagree?

In your previous post, you asserted that the public interest consideration does occur "in your experience" (which I take to mean in the area of the court(s) where you sit). I don't believe it, and your response addresses a fundamentally different question, which I didn't ask.

I don't doubt that (some) cases are discontinued where the prosecutor considers there are good reasons for discontinuance. However, as you pointed out, the facts of an individual case are very likely not seen by a prosecutor until immediately before the hearing (that is exactly the problem). In order to have any chance of securing that consideration, a person who is charged with a speeding offence which, in the circumstances of his individual case, he believes is 'wrong' or 'unfair' has to:

(i) decide not to accept a CoFP;

(ii) plead not guilty to the charge on a subsequent summons, so risking a greater fine and costs;

(iii) unless able to defend himself (and only a very small minority have the ability to do that effectively), be willing to risk the costs of legal representation (which will almost certainly be disproportionate to the cost of accepting the CoFP);

(iv) have the time to attend possibly multiple court appearances ('ordinary' punters are often told they MUST attend pre-trial reviews even though it's actually not necessary, even for a DiP), each of which may involve extensive travelling;

(v) generally, have the not inconsiderable determination required to resist and challenge the prosecution machine.

You have given one example of a speeding prosecution that was discontinued before court hearing. I'm pleased to hear it. Please give some examples of cases where a speeding prosecution was not commenced, following non-acceptance of a CoFP, because it was considered that prosecution was not needed in the public interest. This is not asking very much. After all, the CPS 'mission statement' requires that consideration and, as previously stated:

Speaking of out to lunch.

Went for a drive last night passed a school and what did i see? A mobile speed camera sitting there. At 8pm on a sunday night. I drive that route every work day and do i ever see one there at school kicking out/start times? No.

But remember kids, it's there for safety.

In the cicumstances I described the cases were dropped because information came to light which made it not in the public interest to continue with a prosecution. And note, dropped during court hearings in the presence of the bench, the defendants and those in the public gallery. NOT before a hearing.



I do. You don't.


Yes.
Prosecution is a continuous process which starts when the police pass over their evidence to the CPS and which finishes when either the CPS drop the case, the defendant pleads guilty or a verdict is announced at the end of a trial.
At any time during that process the prosecutor can decide not to continue with a case. It can even happen during a trial, after the prosecution case has ended and the defence are putting their side of the story.
Sometimes this is called "taking a view", sometimes discontinuation. Whatever they call it, its done for one of two reasons. Either the CPS have realised that their evidence will not "come up to proof" or facts have emerged which make it clear that continuation is not in the public interest.


Refusal to accept facts which are at variance with your personal beliefs is your perogative. Doesn't change the truth though.



I posted that I have seen it happen in court and on every occasion when I have asked why a particular case was not dropped they were able to refer in court, at once, to the case file and read out the reasons. You will be aware that a significant percentage of NIPs do not result in prosecution. They can only be dropped for one of the two reasons I have already given.



That will be true for some cases and not for others. I know that jumping red light cases are dropped if there is an emergency services vehicle immediatly behind and theblue lights are seen to be on.



You will doubtless be amazed to hear that some people lie to the courts!! That makes it necessary to ask just many people to come to court to test their story.

The process you list above has some truth to it but the majority of cases are dealt with at first hearing if there is a genuine public interest reason to drop the case - provided the defendant brings the evidence with him.

It may be that your experience is mainly, or perhaps entirely, cases reported on one or other of the anti camera websites. If so, you will be aware that all (the ones I have seen ) recommend not disclosing anything at Case Progression Hearings (what used to be called pre trial reviews). That and the use of various ways to try to avoid trial at all will inevitably delay things.

The vast majority of defendants in motoring cases conduct their own case.



DURING a court hearing.



Just look at any site that deals with how to avoid speeding tickets. You will see numbers of people who decline a COFP and hear no more.
Those tickets can only have been dropped for one of two reasons. As they don't get as far as court I can't give an indivdual reason.

Not following this thread particularly, but the context of this quote makes it seem to me that you believe the possibility of lying only exists on one side of the case. Given your position, I find this very very worrying!

1.Discontinuance of a prosecution before or during the hearing is not the same as a decision not to prosecute. The CPS mission statement is that the need for prosecution in the public interest will be considered in every case. That self-evidently is not the case with speeding prosecutions in the circumstances I've described. Why do you refuse to accept that irrefutable fact?

2. I have described, with reasons, which you agree "[have] some truth" (in fact, they're entirely true), why the vast majority of ordinary people have no practicable means of defending themselves against a speeding charge that they consider to be unfair or unjust. Certainly many of those reasons will not be well founded. But, remembering that >2M cases of speeding cases are being dealt with each year, it is impossible that there is not a large number of cases that have some reasonable foundation (just 1% is ~20,000). You may see a number of motorists who have the determination to challenge the prosecution case. I should imagine you find that most of them do not have a well founded defence. What you don't see is the (almost certain) large number of cases which never reach court because the accused, even with a well founded case, is simply unable to summon the means (financial or otherwise) to challenge the prosecution.

3. You're still not addressing or answering my explicit question honestly. You're being disingenuous or evasive. You state:



In a speeding case, in the circumstances I've described, is it your assertion that the case papers are passed to a CPS lawyer who, on the facts of the case as presented at that time, makes an individual determination of the need to prosecute? I do not believe that occurs but, if you can honestly state, to your certain knowledge, that it does, I will reconsider that belief. As I understand it, the transition from CoFP to laying information to summons is more or less automatic, possibly subject to some degree of review by a safety partnership decision maker.

4.

I don't follow any of these sites (although I have in the past). That may be true but I (and you, as you have said) have no accurate idea of why these cases do not reach court. It could be clerical error or shortage of administrative resources or whatever. What it certainly isn't is the result of an individual CPS review and determination.

5.

Exactly my point. You can't know about cases that never reach court and you cannot claim that consideration of the "need for prosecution in the public interest" occurs - quite simply, it doesn't.

You have a massive streak of arrogance. You really seem to believe you, and the criminal prosecution system as we're discussing it, can do no wrong. Nothing in anything I've seen you express anywhere, on any topic, suggests any sense of due humility that should be a pre-requisite for the position you occupy.

You may well say the same about me. You may well be right. The difference between us is that I have not set myself up as a judge of my fellow citizens.

Yes it is. As I have already pointed out you are wrong in your contention that prosecution is a one decision event. Prosecution is a continuous, and often long drawn out, process. A decision not to prosecute can be taken at any time during the process.


A fairly recent speeding trial was based on the defendants not having been given a copy of PACE to read in the back of the police car. A "right" that has never existed, but which is put forward as a defence on a well known anti camera site.
Not what I call well founded.


I am sure there are some people who can afford to buy, tax, insure, maintain and put fuel in a car who decide not to go to court for financial reasons. Or at least they say its for financial reasons.


I am answering honestly and to the best of my knowledge and experience. If my real world replies don't come up to your exacting standards you will need to ask someone else. Good luck in finding somebody who is prepared to take the trouble I do.



Well which do you believe, that its automatic or that it is subject to review by a decison maker?
I don't work for the CPS or, contrary to established SCP conspiracy theory, visit their offices. All I can say is that I see evidence - in the form of withdrawn cases and resaons for proceeding with other cases - which makes me believe that the CPS process does what it is required to do as regards decison making about individual cases.




A pair of definitive statements based on guesswork.


I am sorry that you see factual reporting, based on personal experience as arrogance just because it doesn't agree with your view of how things are.


Where have I said that? I rarely express a personal view, but I do give examples based on personal experience. When those examples don't match your view, you assume you must be right and I must be wrong.


In view of the fact that I don't post personal views or thoughts here you can't know if I have any sense of humility or not.


Even though my work ( not court duties) involves making judgements about peoples personalities I wouldn't even trey to make judgements based on anonymous posts.


You tell me I am arrogant
You tell me I lack humilty
You assert, with apparently no experiential basis for it, that the CPS is failing in its duty.
You tell me I am wrong about factual matters just because I don't accept you are right.

You judge far more people than I do.

I was appointed to judge others after an intensive selection process. Where you?
I had to complete a training course. Have you?
I have compulsory update training for my judging activities, Do you?
I have to pass regular appraisals to retain my right to judge others. do you?
My decisons are open to independent appeal and I accept those decisions without question. Who checks that your decisions are correct?

Legal training?

Your habit of dissecting posts line by line is unbearably tedious.

I have made one substantive point consistently over the space of several posts on this thread. You originally posted:



The ordinary meaning of that language is plain: when a CoFP is refused, the CPS will consider the evidence and apply the "public interest" and "realistic prospect of conviction" tests.

It is my belief, which you have done nothing to dissuade me of (nor, I imagine, any other reader), that is moonshine. The issuance of a summons following a non-accepted CoFP is, for all practical purposes, automatic. The first time anyone from CPS sees a case is at the first hearing (typically a pre-trial review or case progression hearing). These are sometimes, but not always, heard before the bench (usually if there are some more complicated issues). Typically, they will be chaired by the clerk and involve little more substantive than the co-ordination of diaries and discussion of witness attendances.

You have tried to muddy the waters by introducing spurious justifications, such as the facile argument to the effect that a discontinuance just before or even during the trial hearing is equivalent to a prosecution that never commenced. You can assert that until you're blue in the face. It's doesn't wash; it's not true and I doubt that anybody else will be convinced by it.

My last word on this thread. You're welcome to take the parting shot.

I had entirely forgotten your almost magical ability to take comments in a way which was not intended, and to spin that into criticism.

Let me make it clear.
Court proceedings require ALL evidence to be tested, unless accepted by the other side.

Isn't it just.


All the evidence I have strongly suggests that the law is followed and the tests are applied. As far as court procedings are concerned that evidence comes from first hand observation of the process.
You have put forward opinion but no information about the evidence on which you base that opinion.


The first time anyone from the CPS sees a case is when a file builder recieves the papers from the SCP. The file builder collates the evidence, issues requests for more evidence where necessary and takes a number of decisions. The most important being the charging decision ie should this person be charged at all, and if so with what. That decision being based on evidence available at that time, the prospect of securing a conviction and the public interest consideration.
The first time the prosecutor sees simple cases will be in court although more complex stuff will be seen days or weeks before any court appearance. As an "officer of the court" and a professional bound by the standards of his or her regulatory body the prosecutor will always carry out a continuous appraisal of the evidence bearing in mind the charging standard. This can lead to them making a decision that the charging standard is no longer being met, which results in the case being dropped.

I have not said that. I have said that, contrary to your view, prosecution is a not a split second thing but a long drawn out process which can be stopped at any time. That clearly is not the same as a prosecution which never started although the end effect is the same.

I haven't done that before and I see no reason to start doing so now.

It is clearly true and can be seen to be true by anyone who attends enough motoring courts.

Promise?

I didn't want to upset Observer by including too much.

For the benefit of others who lack your knowledge of the court system the legal training JPs get is extremely limited in range of subjects but comprehensive where it matters.

BTW - are you solictor or barrister?

RAF Pilot (LLB MSc)

A while ago you posted that you were once a court clerk and I just wondered which side of the legal fence you were on.