Safe Speed Forums

Can anyone answer the following:? When a speeding case goes to court, is the prosecuting solicitor always an expert on motoring law, speed camera issues and police procedures? Or is the speeding case simply given to any solicitor who happens to be on duty that day at that court? If this is the case a good defence solicitor has a distinct advantage over the prosecutor. Does anyone know exactly how this works? I ask because judging by the Montgomerie case it seems obvious that the solicitor there, certainly representing the CPS at the Appeal, seems to have been totally clueless about certain important issues.

Some of it.

No

Yes

Not really


see above

Not able to respond because I don't know the details.

_________________
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.

Thanks for the reply. That is very informative. I was under the impression the prosecutor always has to be an expert on motoring law, but that is clearly not the case. So if, for example, I went to court and defended myself, and the prosecutor says :"your recorded speed was such and such," if I wanted to be clever I could reply," is that the True speed, or the Cosine speed?" Although that would be irrelevant, strictly speaking, the fact is he would not have a clue what I was talking about. Or if I raised an issue from the ACPO Code, he might be equally clueless? Very interesting!!

Would it be cycnical of me to suggest that it could work both for and against you?

i.e. if the prosecutor didn't know what you were on about, they could probably convince the court that it was so tangential as to be irrelevant.

(see what I did there? cosine? tangential? You're the worst audience ever!)

A considerable period of time elapses between a not guilty plea and the start of a trial which gives time for the CPS office staff to build a file containing the relevant information. With the fairly recent introduction of the new criminal procedure rules each side has to disclose in advance what it is going to rely on at trial, thus giving time for a response to be found to each of the other sides points. The prosecutor will often only see the file on the day of trial, but all the information should be there.

Much of the confusion is due to press reporting by people who don't understand the court process. Some of the advice given on the internet is not too hot either. I have seen people put forward "defences" with no basis in law at all. Such cases are not really disputed by the prosecution as they know the "defence" to be of no value. Given that the forums which propose these "defences" commonly tell posters that the courts are corrupt and always unfair it is not surprising that the defendants in those cases leave court feeling they have been cheated.

_________________
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.

Thanks again. Your info is most appreciated. But I believe there is also something called a Full Disclosure Hearing, or pre trial review, which also should disclose whether they have enough evidence.

Of course the CPS and call in the RSS experts in cases where challenges are being taken to Court.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

As far as I am aware the term "full disclosure hearing" is an american one, I have never heard it used in the UK. Pre trial reviews were renamed Case Management Hearings a long time ago. They in turn were renamed Case Progression Hearings (CPH) fairly recently.

You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of a CPH. A CPH is to set a timetable for the trial ie the date, location, how long it will take, how many witnesses, what can be agreed between the parties before the trial and what is in dispute. The matters in dispute being the issue(s) that will be debated at trial. The prosecution would not proceed to trial unless they were sure they had enough evidence to succeed. That decision is taken well before any CPH and with at least an outline understanding of what the defence is likely to be. The only time anybody knows if there is enough evidence to convict is at trial.





Both sides can call whoever they want to assist their case. My personal experience (which is almost certainly not statistically valid as it is based in one region of the country) is that it tends to be the defence whoare more likely to use "experts".

_________________
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.

Thanks again. I was not aware that the pre trial review term had been changed to Case Progression Hearing.Wish they wouldn't keep changing things!!!