Safe Speed Forums

Imagine a situation in which a motorist appeals against a speeding conviction, and the Judge's ruling is along these lines: -

"Whilst I am satisfied that the police acted properly in accordance with their rules of practice, I have also given careful consideration to your past driving record, to the prevailing conditions of the section of road in question, and to the documented research with which you support the claim that you were giving appropriate consideration to road safety, irrespective of whether or not you were within the local speed limit at that moment.
I have to say that the conclusions of this research strongly concur with my own experiences as a driver of some 40 years.
Therefore, as the ultimate purpose of the judiciary in this case is to enforce the law against those who have failed to act with due consideration to road safety, it is my decision to uphold your appeal"

The story gets national coverage, and a precedent is set that fatally undermines the scameraships.

Would the Judge be forced to resign from the Judiciary?

Would his Ruling be overruled by the High courts without a judicial review?

Would the Governmant's multi-million pound stealth-revenue raising machine be allowed to continue unchallenged?

Or is there one good Judge out there that has the power and the will to bring down the electronic eye of Sauron?

_________________
Dave Lucas

Unfortunately, no judge can ever say this as they are sworn to uphold the law as written (even though very senior ones can interpret what this means). In the case which you cite, the judge could not rule that you were not guilty, only that there was an inappropriate punishment in the original hearing.

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

It would be very interesting to run a well supported 'public interest defence'. If you aroused the sympathies of the judge or the magistrates I believe it could be won.

Now that WOULD make some lovely news. Even if lost there could be some worthy soundbites.

I decided some years ago that I would defend a camera case against me with a public interest defence. I still will. But they have to catch me first.

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

doubtfull. The charge is "exceeding the speed limit", the evidence shows you were committing the infraction and whether you were driving safely or not is besides the profit, sorry point.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I agree. I think it's like wives who get done for murdering abusive husbands. If she actually DID it, the judge wouldn't be able to find her "not guilty", no matter how much he sympathised with her and might (privately) even feel it was the right thing to do! What he CAN do is alter the severity of the sentence based on her individual circumstances. I think there's a good case for magistrates having more leeway in the sentencing when it comes to awarding the points. The only trouble is, would I trust the judgement of a magistrate as much as that of a judge?

Perhaps the next person who visits the 'help! I'm being prosecuted' section of this website could be given the option of being a test subject for just such a public interest defence case. How about if we all chip in a couple of quid each to cover their court costs if they lose, thereby giving them the peace of mind of a financial safety net.
And which of the national newspapers would be most interested in covering the story. And would they be prepared to pay good money for the coverage?

_________________
Dave Lucas

The best you could ever get is that the argument in mitigation is strong and that although guilty, the plea in mitigation is accepted and the sentence shall be a conditional discharge with no points and no fine, just the costs of the case.
I had that some years ago when I had a 2-week-old car with an inaccurate speedo. My speed was 47 in a 30 and I got a small fine with no points as my mitigation was my incorrect speedo, a letter from the manufacturers apologising, a letter from the dealer confirming the need to replace the speedo and my comments that my driving was not unsafe, just illegal in respect of speed. In case you are wondering, it was Northampton Mags and it was in April 1980. The car was a BMW 735i.