Safe Speed Forums

Today's telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/405 ... legal.html

The thrust of the case is that because cameras have never been given the proper type approval then evidence has been gathered unlawfully.

Bet none of the magistrates will dare to set the precedent that will bring all the speed fines to a grinding halt. I assume the same flaw lies with the laser guns too....

Like to see Labour have to go crawling to the electorate for more money to compensate all the victims of their illegal behaviour. Hopefully it will see off all other snooping and interference ideas as clearly HMG is not a suitable organisation to be doing anything against its own people and is prepared to lie and cheat just to get £60.

I don't think Magistrates Courts can set precedents. This will have to be to Crown Court.

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

The system doesn't work like that. Magistrates are obliged to apply the law as it is, not as the Telegraph would like it to be. In any case, magistrates courts decisions do not set a precedent, so even if one bench agreed with your view it would not bind others to follow that decision. To find out if this idea is right or wrong it will require one of two things to happen. Either the government to agree with it or for a magistrates court decision to be successfully appealed on this specific ground.

thereby lies the difference. You and the papers are free to assume whatever you like. Magistrates Courts are required to decide on the evidence and in accordance with the law as currently interpreted.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Crossed posts.

Any appeal on a specific point of law like this would almost certainly go direct to the High Court by way of case stated. Any decision by the High Court would bind all the lower courts - unless it was taken to the court of appeal.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

“Kieran Henry” does not appear to be a solicitor! I tried Hendry as well in case it was an error. Well I don’t know who is paying his fees, but I hope they know if he’s professionally qualified or not!

Nevertheless, the RTA 1991 says in section 23:
“(4) A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless—
(a) the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State,”

My interpretation is that any device before the RTA 1991 came into force under the Home Office approval, would still be acceptable evidence, but any evidence from a device introduced AFTER that was NOT approved by the Secretary of State would be inadmissible.

I would expect any court, when facing a challenge of such evidence to seek:
“(a) a record produced by a prescribed device, and
(b) (in the same or another document) a certificate as to the circumstances in which the record was produced signed by a constable or by a person authorised by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the police area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed; “
AND the Certificate of Type Approval from the Secretary of State if this is challenged.

I quite agree with Fisherman that the “Magistrates are obliged to apply the law as it is, not as the Telegraph would like it to be.” and, so suggest that if a magistrate’s bench felt unable to interpret the precise meaning of admissible evidence in these circumstances, then they would be obliged to pass the case to a higher court.
Having said that, I can not imagine any Magistrates having the slightest problem with evidential issues like this one, even without the court clerk’s assistance.

But one thing puzzles me and I wondered if anyone can help me with this? Its just that I was wondering what devices don’t have Secretary of State Type Approval?
Hmmm?

After some thought I have decided to risk a reply to Lucy. This is not an attempt by me to provoke a disagreement which could well descend into the kind of mess that happened in another thread. It is an attempt to put forward what actually happens in court.


Mr Henry can be contacted at
http://www.henryandcosolicitors.co.uk/? ... ct=aboutus



I would expect the court to follow standard procedure, which is to provide an environment in which both sides can put forward whatever evidence they wish and can test the evidence provided by the other side. The court would then consider the evidence and decide on a verdict.

This is because UK criminal courts use an adversarial system which doesn't allow the bench to take part in providing evidence. If neither party had raised this question it would be completely unacceptable for the bench to raise the point. It is important to note that the bench can ask questions to clarify what has already been put forward in evidence.


There would be no problem in deciding what is, or is not, admissible evidence and a magistrates court would always make a decision on the matter. JPs do this all the time. If either side feels the decision was incorrect it can be challenged by way of appeal.


If the question of admissibility of evidence is raised, whether by prosecution or defence, the clerk would advise the bench in one of three possible ways. He or she could either state that it is admissible and quote statute to prove it, or state that it is inadmissible and quote statute to prove it. The final option would be to say that, as neither of the previous situations applies, it is a matter for the bench.

edited to correct ambiguous comment

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Thank you for that link. It would seem that there is a glitch in the Law Society website. You can’t find him by name, but you can find his firm and his name is listed there! - Moral of the story – don’t believe everything you read on the web!!

Please don’t feel that I wish to rake up the contents of previous threads, as I had made abundantly clear, but the fact remains that you claim to a magistrate that has seen many Hamilton Defences in your court but could refer to one that could be professionally researched. I would be grateful if you could refer to these cases on the register so that I can make further investigations – I fail to see what the problem is you have with this, especially if you are a Magistrate serving the public in judicial matters?

Regarding magistrates “seeking” evidence. Are you playing with words or do you never ask a party for the evidence? Does Active Case Management not apply to magistrates court? I regularly hear judges say to a party “Where’s you evidence?” I think that would be seeking evidence in most professional’s view. Doesn’t a magistrate have to intervene to ensure a balance of power between parties? Because that’s what happens in higher courts. However I accept that the judiciary can not be expected to advance a party’s case but can still ask a question that the advocates have not asked to further justice. I think that would be seeking evidence to most peoples view. But play with words if you must.

So if I swanked into your magistrates court and claimed that the device concerned was not type approved, how would you proceed? Obviously I could not advance the position as absence of evidence is no proof. Would the court descend into an Oh yes it is, Oh no it isn’t pantomime? Or would you “seek” evidence of the type approval with an adjournment if necessary?

But I am still wondering which devices don’t have Secretary of State Type Approval?

Posted to correct utter tosh lol

I referred you to Roger on this forum who has personal knowledge of two cases. I referred you to pepipoo who, when I checked just now, have over a dozen cases either in progress or in their completed cases forum. I also stated that any magistrates court register in England or Wales would have plenty of examples for you to investigate. I am not going to name my local court as that might enable me to be identified.


I assume you are referring to the Criminal Procedure Rules for Case Management when you mention active case management. If so, then yes they do apply to magistrates courts.
At a case management hearing, but NOT at a trial, I do indeed ask about evidence. Specifically I ask how many witnesses, which order they will be called in, if there are any witnesses that can be agreed via S9, if they intend to raise any case law in support of their case etc etc. What I can't do is ask why they haven't raised a certain point, or to suggest that they should.


If the advocates haven't asked a particular question, I wouldn't be able to ask it as I would have no idea what the answer would be. If an advocate doesn't ask what seems to the obvious question its usually because he knows or strongly suspects that the answer would damage his case. It would be very wrong indeed for me to ask questions that might produce an answer which would damage the case for either party. I can, and do, ask questions to clarify what has already been said.


If you were a spectator I would consider a contempt of court charge. If you were party to the case I would suggest you provide evidence to back up your statement. If you had no evidence I would be willing to consider an an adjournment for you to obtain it. It is not for the bench to seek evidence, that is the responsibility of the advocates.

I am sorry you lack the courtesy to advance your argument without resorting to this sort of comment.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Fisherman I really do not see what the issue is with revealing the registers that could have assisted a genuine enquiry. There clearly is no reliability in internet blogs on the matter and it seems everyone has heard of one and helped with one, but that does not really help the matter – no-one can name one other than the Hamiltons! I will draw my inferences from this as I please.

I was referring to the principle of Active Case Management rather than the CM Hearing. It would seem that you do not use the term in name but do in spirit by asking what a party hasn’t raised and why.

Surely if there was a question you wanted to as ask to assist you in deciding culpability, you would ask it, just as a juror can ask?

Lucy W wrote: So if I swanked into your magistrates court and claimed that the device concerned was not type approved, how would you proceed?
Fisherman wrote: If you were a spectator I would consider a contempt of court charge. If you were party to the case I would suggest you provide evidence to back up your statement. If you had no evidence I would be willing to consider an an adjournment for you to obtain it. It is not for the bench to seek evidence, that is the responsibility of the advocates.

Just what evidence could I provide to prove that the device wasn’t type approved? Hmmm? Surely it’s the prosecution’s job to prove that their evidence is admissible when challenged in this way?

I’m not sure if my local magistrate’s court has “spectators” – surely its not that entertaining in the lower courts?

As I have said there is no general issue with the registers. You are free to inspect any court register that you think will assist your research. There is a specific issue, that of my identity, which would arise if I told you which cases I have been personally involved with.

A google search will reveal lots of local newspaper reports from all parts of the country. Although press reports are not famed for their accuracy they usually manage to get the date, name of court, charge and name of defendant correct. That will enable you to identify the specific case in the appropriate register.


I am sure you will.


It is at case management hearings that the active case management part of the Criminal Procedure Rules is intended to be used. By the time it gets to trial its a bit late to ask how many witnesses there will be or how long the court should be booked for.

We do use the term in name, but only at the correct time. We DO NOT ask why a party has not raised a specific point or why. As I have already said, more than once, that is not permissible.


I begin to wonder if you have actually read any of my previous posts, as I have made it clear more than once, that we may only ask questions to clarify what has already been said and not to introduce new evidence. Jurors may well be allowed to ask questions to introduce new evidence, whether the judge would provide an answer is much more doubtful.

A list of the approved devices would be a good start. Always providing it doesn't include the device you want to exclude from evidence.

Provided the defence actually ask the question.


All adult courts will be open unless closed to deal with a matter involving national security. You should know if they are entertaining or not as all your cases will have started in the magistrates court.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Have you lost the plot Fisherman? So what if I know what court you are in? What’s the problem? Anyway how on earth will I know which magistrate Fisherman is??? Do you walk around with a rod in your trousers?

Perhaps you could name another court then if they are so easy to find, as I can’t find one and no-one else seems to be able to either.

Ah, now I see why you are a bit shy, don’t actively manage your cases. May I suggest you see the Court Manager for some guidance on this. You can ask any question you like if you believe it will further justice and should do so.

So if I produced a list that excluded the device I was claiming to be “illegal” – that’s would settle the matter?

OMG – I can see why you want to be anonymous. When are you 72? I do hope its soon for the sake of justice.

Some people like publicity, others don't.


As i have said, more than once, any court in England or Wales will have seen lots of these cases. A google search which took all of 15 seconds produced this
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/HCJAC52.html
which shows that the same law is used in Scotland which widens your scope considerably.


This link may be of interest to you
http://www.roadsidelawyer.co.uk/questio ... who-it-was
It is an advertisement for a law firm which makes the following claim
If your view that these cases never result in a not guilty verdict is correct, then this advertisement is a flagrant breach of Advertising Standards law. The good news is that you won't need to put any of your own money at risk as the Advertising Standards Authority will take action on your behalf. This is clearly a golden opportunity for you to prove your point. Please let us all know how it goes.


I do, but I do so in accordance with the law as it is, not as you believe it to be.


The Court Manager is an administrative post which is concerned with the upkeep of buildings, security, listing of cases etc. No connection with court clerks or the bench. While I have great respect for our Court Manager who does a very good job, legal advice from her is likely to be on a par with advice from you. ie based on wishful thinking.

In the course of a trial I am not allowed to ask if a defendant has a previous record. Thats just one example. There are many others.

If the CPS had claimed that the device was approved and if that approval was an essential element of their case, its absence from an official list would mean that the CPS would then need to show that the device is approved.


Once again you demonstrate your lack of good manners and your ignorance of the justice system in a single comment.

For the sake of anybody other than Lucy who may read this I suspect the mention of 72 is probably intended to refer to the compulsory retirement age for JPs. The actual retirement age is 70 and has been for a very long time. Anybody who wishes to check this can do so at
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about_judic ... /index.htm


That will be my last post in response to Lucy in this thread as, once again, her posts have descended to wild statements with no truth whatsoever, posted in a manner which is increasingly offensive.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I really do fail to see Fishermans problem.

that law site that he linked confirms what I have been saying all along;
"comprises "reasonable diligence" and merely saying you cannot remember is not likely to be enough. Neil and Christine Hamilton successfully used the defence, but magistrates court decisions do not set precedents, the decision was viewed as perverse at the time and guidelines have since been sent out to the courts."

Obviously Fisherman hasn't read the guidelines. Not surprised as quite frankly it seems that he wanders around court in a little legal world of his own.

Still no reliable links to sucessful Hamilton defences.

And Fisherman, if you have a problem with me, dont start a new post raking up our past differences of opinion, like you did this one -or be prepared to taste your medicine.

As I said before, a judge once said to my colleagues who had a professional spat in open-court, the least said , the sooner healed - lets see if Fisherman can take advice from a higher court.

WOW!!! from this to someone who has professional colleagues in court

Well done on your progress.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

oo Fisherman! Didn't expect you to come back.

To save you any further embarassement (lol) means laughs ou loud indicating that the post about prison was tongue in-cheek, meant for amusement and not to be taken literally.

Did you think it meant lots of love?

Awr bless you, you did didn't you. Oh, you'er so sweet. You must be a man of a certain age to be so endearing and trusting.

In that case Lucy, I feel it was inappropriate to start your post "The TRUTH about my legal knowledge ...".

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

I took the lol to mean "What a funny way to acquire a working knowledge of the law" And I still think it a great pity that they didn't have any Physics text books in there.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

And Malcolm as well!

Honestly *tut*

It was apparent from your first few posts that "I learned it all from Hansard while banged up" was not true.Too many out of date and inappropriate quotations of case law.

You were so keen to disparage me yet again that you let the cat out of the bag, although I have to say you maintained the lie for rather longer than I thought you would be capable of. I am disappointed that you fell for such a blatant trap as my post.

I strongly suspect this latest hint of professional colleagues in the higher courts, which I assume is to make us think you are a lawyer, will also turn out to be untrue. So far, myself and a number of the people I work with in court including some court clerks, are of the opinion that your knowledge is at about 1st year A level law standard.


This site values the truth and reasoned discussion above all. Even to the extent of welcoming people who work in the justice system, such as myself, some police officers and a camera operator. Please, stop the lies, drop the trolling and join in with the rest of us in a non confrontational manner.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Couldn't agree more.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.