Safe Speed Forums

You and others have got this wrong. There is no need to show it has happened as that is not the argument at all. I said quite clearly above there is nothing in law that prevents the evidence of 2 witnesses, such as 2 from a CSW operation, in being used to prosecute and convict a speeding motorist. The reason I said that is because there is not and what is more the law allows exactly this to occur.
My proposition is entirely lawful and possible. Now contrast that with "it isn't lawful" (I paraphrase and summarise) and you should be able to see that it is for you to say what law there is that "prevents the evidence of 2 non-police witnesses from being used in a speeding case".
Now go and adduce the law to support your case. I await the answer with interest because there is none.

Exactly!

Perhaps the obfuscation is deliberate to avoid the loss of face as there seems to have been either a deliberate missing of the point or the misunderstanding is out of ignorance; I know not which.

Funnily enough I passed through a CSW today, in my village.
It read 31mph.
My speedo read 30 mph.
My GPS read 28mph.
They were using a portable speed display....funnily enough the one permanently mounted at the far end of the village flashes at a speedo display of 30mph......
I await my FPN with interest.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

The "yes it is - no it isn't" approach doesn't add anything to the debate.

Assuming the "no legal force" sentiments are correct: it is quite difficult to show something that doesn't exist, although confounding factors have been shown (as Malcolmw repeats in the next post).

While the initial claim indeed wasn't yours greenshed, it was you who made the first easily verifiable claim. Could you be gracious enough to put this to bed by simply pointing out the appropriate legislation that supports your counter claim?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Hmmm...

If GS is correct, why did the SCPs spend a fortune on cameras and support staff when all they needed to do was pay a couple of civilians to stand on a road and judge if a car is exceeding the limit?

It's because, although presumably possible to launch a prosecution on the say so of these two people, the chances of getting a conviction are zero because there is no clear evidence of exceeding an objective measurable limit - just an opinion. You can have an opinion on something being dangerous but not on a matter which is objectively measurable.

As a thought experiment, what if the car driver had a passenger with him and both swore that they were not exceeding the limit? Two against two with no actual objective evidence. Forget it.

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

There is unlikely to be specific legislation stating that a prosecution can be brought on the evidence of two civilians; which is what you are asking Greeenshed to prove. It is more likely that legislation states that a prosecution can only be made on the evidence of a Police Officer - a proposition which you are proposing and GS is opposing. As we are agreed that one cannot prove a negative - that such legislation does not exist - it is up to you to prove the positive - that such legislation is indeed in place.

_________________
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

You're a twisty one GS and no mistake. Lets go ahead and break this down before the thread gets too much longer, and your slithering is lost in the background noise of all the calls for you to answer questions that you have avoided, yet again.

The original post contained a quote in which "the council" alluded to people caught by a CSW programme having been punished by way of fixed penalty.

It was asserted that the word of CSW operatives carried no legal force. (Obviously meaning no legal force above that of any member of the public giving testimony.)

You claimed this to be incorrect, and stated that all that is required for a speeding conviction is the testimony of two lay people.

Now it is perfectly possible that someone at the enforcement unit got it wrong, and sent out NIPs based on the evidence of CSW; come on, its not like it'd be the first howler made by the speed camera regime! Its equally feasible that the recipients accepted these as having been correctly issued, completed them, and were issued with fines and penalty points, again, this wouldn't be the first miscarriage of justice via this procedure.

Its interesting that you specifically took care to bold the assertion that CSW held no legal force and claimed it to be incorrect:



You were immediately then asked for a real world example of this happening by PeterE, a request which has since gone without adequate response, you merely pointed back to the detail-less BBC news report in the OP, but certainly the first request for substantiation, thus putting the lie to your assertion that "you asked first".

Here's the thing, two people could be utterly convinced that the way their cat meowed at the neighbor this one time meant that he was a persistent speeder. A case could be brought against the neighbor on the basis of their testimony, however their word would carry no legal force (above and beyond the word of people randomly claiming stuff, if you want to plead semantics) and the case would no doubt fail. It is the CPS's job to consider cases not only on their merits in terms of public interests and the interests of justice, but also on their likelihood of success, so this case would be unlikely to ever be brought.

I put it to you that this is little different to your assertion that only two lay people's words are required to secure a conviction for speeding. Its technically possible that a case could be brought on this basis, but their words would have no legal force, and the case would seem doomed to fail.

It appears you have made the mistake that many who are not conversant with the law do, which is to mistake statute and law; just because something can be manipulated to seem to fall within the wording of statute does not make it legal. Statute does not become law until enacted by the courts, it is for them to deduce it's meaning in any specific case, and therefore, giving you one last chance to come good on your twisting and turning, I will slightly modify and restate my earlier question, which has so far gone unanswered:

Greenshed, can you or can you not provide either caselaw, or such sufficiently tightly worded statute that a court would be bound to accept it, that substantiates your claim that the word of two lay-people would be sufficient to secure a conviction for the strict-liability offence of speeding?

If not then all we have is your unfounded opinion as a lay-person that it would be sufficient, and we have seen how keen you are to deride unfounded opinion. It would seem rather hypocritical of you to do so while offering one of your own, but I don't think anyone here is under the misconception that you are above hypocrisy.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

oh I give in. here is the legislation that defines a speeding offence:

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27)

Speeding offences generally.—
89.
(1) A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit.


now explain where the police officer is defined as a requirement.

there is case law that says one of the witnesses can be "a mechanical device" that's law code for a speedmeter. i believe the case Nicholas v. Penny, [1950] 2 K.B. 466 sets a precedent of allowing one of the witnesses to be a mechanical device.

so you can easily convict with 2 CSW non-police officers and a speedmeter of some sort.

now where is the law, legislation or common, that sets the requirement for a police officer?

happy hunting.

edited to add: I was typing this out before robinxwhatever was posted so it overlapped. I would hate to give the impression I gave up and posted the law as a result of his post immediately above.

To be clear - I have not proposed or claimed anything here.

Whilst it could be proven that "prosecution can only be made on the evidence of a Police Officer", I personally reckon that would be unlikely because such "only" clauses will make further legislation awkward (must always reference/consider the "only" clauses). IMO it is likely for the legislation to state "prosecution can be made on the evidence of a Police Officer", so not advancing us beyond square 1 (I'm no expert). So I do take your point, but it may not prove anything.

Anyway, greenshed has forwarded the debate. Onwards!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

No no, you're quite right, that is indeed the case, and fortunately so for you, since your reply does not address my request. You've merely given the statute which precludes prosecution on the basis of a single opinion of speed, nothing that even comes close to backing up your unfounded opinion that the evidence of two lay-people would compel a conviction.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I'm not sure that cuts it (I'm no expert, I'm not making any claim).

Could there be other legislation that states when one can be prosecuted, where your stated is only a clause?
I'm under the impression that no legal power can be applied unless there is legislation to cover it.


Your 'mechanical witness' is a red herring, we already know they can act in lieu of a 'witness'.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

The legislation speaks of "witnesses" and does not specify their occupation. The case law allows a witness to be in the singular if a mechanical device is used to measure the speed and that device can be operated by the single live witness.

As a matter of interest the same legislation, the Traffic Regulation Act is the source of the "opinion" in "prior opinion" another inaccurate legend because there is no legislation or case law that requires any opinion to be made "prior" to a measurement being made by a speedmeter.

Of course there will be similar bleating about this from our sheep-like interpretors of the law when they ask me to bring evidence that there is no requirement for a prior opinion when in reality it is the legend that requires the proof of its validity in fact rather that the fact itself.

Please don't let the answering of this question interfere with you trying to squirm out of answering my previous question, but how exactly are you qualified to interpret the law?

Mine is LLB, your move.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

well that's what I am asking you to prove so lets's see the proof. I say there is none.

how do you think 100,000's of offences are prosecuted on the evidence of one non-police officer and one device? it happens every day.

ok mr. llb
where in the law I have quoted that defines the offence does it legislate or define the witness.
use you legal database to adduce it please

A type approved device and a person trained in it's use ? two lay-people. Duh.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

You didn't quote a law, you quoted a statute. You've clearly not read my longer post above which has already covered this. I suggest you do as it has a question for you at the bottom, you can't miss it, its in bold.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

To repeat - "To be clear - I have not proposed or claimed anything here."


An sequence of events being frequent doesn't make it technically correct.

What is the legislation that allows prosecution of a motorist who was exceeding the speed limit?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

your question has nothing to do with my challenge to the premise that a court can not convict on that basis. Why can a court not convict on that basis? You should know, mr. llb that courts make decisions about the evidence of witnesses and apply that evidence to come to a finding of fact that an offence, defined in statute has or has not been committed. Why is a court prevented from hearing the evidence of 2 CSW members and convicting on that basis? That is the crux of this discussion; you say that is not possible but it clearly is. Now why is it prevented as you say? you have failed to say why and continue to do so.

let's say you are the judge and i bring the prosecution for the crown with 2 CSW and a speedmeter, let's say that is not type approved. you, as the judge, reject the prosecution, let us all have the wisdom of your llb and your written reasons for your judgement of no case to answer.

think of it as one of your essay answers when you were qualifying.

RTRA 1984 s89 (1)
did you miss it? I posted it above.