Safe Speed Forums

Unfortunately some overzealous chairman slip the net.
They even ignore the advice of the clerk of the court, and get away with it!

The chairman in this case was widely criticised for his heavy handed approach, especially because the defendant had a prior history of unofficial action to ensure speeds were reduced.
The powers that be are well aware of the issue, but in different areas, removal of such a chairman is not always the recourse!

The chairman I was alluding to was sent on such a training course having mislead two of his colleagues after they protested at his manner in court, but is STILL a chairman!

I recently asked a magistrate if she was aware of the rules regarding siting of speed cameras in relation to partnerships - she said no. I asked if she thought it would be legal to prosecute a motorist for speeding past two cameras in close proximity - she said she did not know. I cannot speak for qwerty, but I suspect that she is not alone in not knowing the many ins and outs of all the different laws - many of which I suspect remain unaddressed until they come up in court.
Presumably you are a magistrate of long standing, and have a wider knowledge of many of our laws. Your input is appreciated I am sure, as is that of serving and formers police officers - and even they dont all agree!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

This was comment from the Daily Mail over thie case I outlined above.
I should like to ask if you think it was over zealous and counter productive to treat Mr harding in this manner.

He was after all causing cars to slow - which is supposedly the point of cameras. His only crime it would seem was denying them an income from those drivers who slowed!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

This is a repeat of one of your posts which I quoted - not my words or sentiments.




The bench constitutes what the law calls a tribunal of fact. The chairman was probably stating in open court, as required by law, the facts the bench had agreed on and on which their sentence would be based. This is obviously of great assistance to anyone who wants to appeal.



Bans take effect at once. They can only be suspended until an appeal takes place in exceptional circumstances. The clerk was ensuring that the bench were aware. If he or she had been giving advice it would have taken the form of "You are required to suspend the ban". If a bench ignores advice from a clerk and imposes a sentence which is subsequently overturned on appeal the bench are personally liable for the costs of the appeal.


Criticised by who? I suspect not by anyone with a real understanding of court procedure.


Sometimes a period of retraining is suuficient.


Some areas rotate benches, others do not. Training in both new and old legislation is ongoing. Every year there are compulsory courses as well as a number of optional ones.




The rules in relation to siting of cameras are just that - rules not law. I would be surprised if many magistrates had anything more than a passing interest in camera siting guidelines.

The question of prosecutions for speeding past 2 adjacent cameras (which is what I think you mean, please correct me if I am wrong) is a complicated one.
It usually arises in court when someone wants one set of points and not two. There is a growing amount of guidance and case law on this subject. These cases always turn on the individual circumstances.

Government passed the law for it to be used. Someone had to be first. Some of these will, no doubt, be appealed and then case law will make things clearer.
I am surprised that , so far at least, motoring law hasn't been prominent in the election.

The way new laws are sprouting up, they should be retrained every week!

So if the defendant appeals successfully, but has already served his ban, how is he reccompensed for the time he was inconvenienced?
Does the Magistrate receive any censure for getting it wrong?
I believe such heavy handed sentencing, and the wording used by the chairman, coupled to the refusal to suspend the ban until appeal, will bring the courts into disrepute, and they will lose any respect they might have from law abiding members of the public.
This is part of the Daily Telegraph report:

It make it look as though the chairman overode the concerns of the clerk, which does not look good, even if it is legally sound.


It's only a matter of time!

Road Safety, or Revenue - which did this man jeopardise?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

As far as I am aware compensation is dealt with by the Crown Court, its certainly not the magistrates courts that do it.
One of the prices to be paid for a truly independent court (i.e unpaid so not putting future at risk by making decisions that may not find favour in political circles) is that the only sanction is to remove from sitting as a JP. A colleague of mine has just been suspended from sitting for 6 months after getting 9 points on her licence. I did point out previously that if they have acted against written advice from clerk they are financially liable for ALL costs that may arise from a successful appeal.




Thats the nice thing about living in a democracy, you can believe what ever you like.




Would you prefer a system where the courts do legally unsound things just because they look good?



Leaving aside the fact that the opposition spokesmans job is to criticise the government, the court acted in accordance with the law as they understand it. The defendant is able to challenge that in the higher courts if he wishes to do so.

The only people who know whether it was road safety or revenue that was jeopardised are the people who passed the laws, as only they know the real reasoning behind the legislation.

For what its worth I think the laws were passed with road safety in mind. After all, its a voluntary tax. I decided I didn't want to pay any more tax so I stick to the speed limit and don't have to. Governments much prefer reliable taxes where they can predict , with some accuracy, how much money they will get. A few more pence on fuel would seem to me to be a much more reliable way of making money than cameras, and I doubt there would be much difference in the unpopularity.

Personally, I would much rather amore lenient attitude towards speed limits, as in the past, and pay a few more cents/pennies a litre for fuel.

I do not mind paying for the use of the roads by way of a petrol tax, but I do mind being forced to drive slowly and keep my eyes on the speedo for fear of being booked for a few mph over the limit.

The only proviso I would add is that I also get very pissed off when the tax on the fuel is not directed back into the roads and is just allocated to central revenue.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Fisherman, your comments, observations and advice are much appreciated. For once we get to hear it 'from the horse's mouth'.
The big problem here is one of perception.
With the speed cameras being increasingly seen as 'cash-cameras' (apparently by about 75%+ of the population) it is a matter of perception, the perception being that the vast majority of cameras are not used to improve safety, despite the flawed statistics claiming reductions in accidents at specific camera sites (mainly regression to the mean), rather that they are for cash-collection. To then list the Magistrates Courts (or whatever they ae called this week) as 'partners' in the scheme is badly thought out and this remains so whatever the impartiality level is. It is a bad judgement of government to allow their listing as 'partners' which does nothing for the perception of their impartiality.
For one, I believe that the vast majority of Magistrates are fair and impartial. Once I attended court as a witness and in another case I saw the Chairman get very angry with the CPS over a case which she dismissed and awarded full costs to the defendant. No bias whatsoever was shown and the CPS looked very foolish.
Whilst the old adage that the law must be SEEN to be being fair is still true, the alignment of the Courts Service to the liars and cheats of the Silly Camera Pratnerships does nothing to help this.

The really big mistake was assuming that it would be relatively easy to distinguish betwen the Magistrates Court Service (now Her Majestys Court Service, HMCS) and the Magistrates Court.
Clearly, even after the very clear explanation from Fisherman, there is still difficulty in appreciating the difference, there is one, it's a fact, accept it.
The explanation Fisherman has given, now appreciated by members here, is also very much aligned to the "liars" explanation given over the past 2 years of posting. Now why is Fishermans appreciated when it is exactly the same story as that already given and ridiculed by all? You should really be realising that we were telling the truth all along and admitting so.

Cooperman,
Thankyou for the vote of confidence. I believe that courts are as fair as possible and do their best to uphold the law as it is and not as they would like it to be. But then I would think that wouldn't I:D

As to the partnership and public perception stuff. That all happens at a level way above me and has no connection that I am aware of with the functioning of the courts.

The thing that worries me is the willingness of people to put forward on the net and in the media opinion and guesswork pretending to be fact. I suupose the courts (and magistrates) have to take some responsibility for that, because unless we make more effort to get the truth out to the public they can not be blamed for believing the rubbish.
As an example I was on a weekend residential course (on the new criminal justice act) not very long ago. It ran from 6pm to 10pm Friday, 9am to 5pm Saturday and 9am to 4pm Sunday. One of the participants brought a printout from an internet site that said that all magistrates should be forced to undergo some training instead of just coming in off the street and sitting in judgement. Unless someone finds the time to post on that site everyone who reads that will probably think it to be true.

Misinformation is a well used tool of the camera partnerships, fisherman. To issue statistics that contain recognised errors and then infer an inappropriate conclusion from them is a common tactic!

Are you surprised that there is mistrust in the 'facts' they issue?

Fisherman, thanks for your input on here. You have cleared up several misconceptions for me, and I'm sure for others.
The entire speed camera legislation/obsession/cash-collection, call it what you will, has repurcussions far beyond the sentiments expressed on this forum.
For me, there are two basic objections to the law as it stands:

1. The requirement of S172 which forces me, under threat of alternative penalty, to confess to being the driver without the right to silence. This right to silence is (or was) a basic right bestowed upon us by the Bill of Rights, but that, apparently, does not apply, although I do believe there is a right under the PACE not to have information provided under S172 used as a voluntary confession without a caution first being given.
2. A wedge is being driven between the average motorist and the Police Service against which can be balanced no gain in road safety, and all in order to fine and give points to ordinary drivers who happen to stray a little over the posted limit, probably quite safely. This does not bode well for the future.

It must be difficult for magistrates who are required to remove the licences of minor transgressors for amassing 12 points over 3 years when, in doing so, they know that in many cases it will deprive a family of their primary source of income and, quite possibly their home and the future career of the main 'breadwinner'. Quite a responsibility and one which I should not want. This applies especially in cases where the transgressions are relatively minor and no accidents or dangers were involved. As we are told by Fisherman, the sentencing guidelines are there to be followed by him and his colleagues on the bench, but it must be difficult sometimes to believe in the fairness of it all, unless all the Magistrates have been seduced, which I for one doubt, by the global statement that speed causes 1/3rd of all accidents when, in fact, 5% of all accidents are caused by vehicles which are driving in excess of the posted limit - an entirely different thing.

I don't pretend to have an answer to this but can give a few thoughts.
Drivers need to be identified somehow and the legal arguement is that s172 requires the driver to be identified in order for an allegation of an offence to be put to the right person. In other words saying that you were the driver is not incriminating yourself.
If that person pleads not guilty then it goes to court where the CPS have to prove the offence actually took place.
There is a defence available if you really can't ID the driver after making reasonable efforts to do so.
There is no real right to silence,that phrase comes from the US caution.
The UK version is "you do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court".
Courts can NOT convict on silence alone, there has to be evidence. Would you want ALL defendants to be able to escape punishment by staying silent?

There is a particular site that promotes the PACE method of avoiding penalties. Its main use seems to be an attempt to clog up the courts, which some people see as a success. Those of us old enough to remember the poll tax also remember courts sitting 7 days a week from 8am to 9pm. That didn't stop the system, what killed the poll tax was the risk of losing votes.
The systematic attempts to allow drivers to speed without penalty by finding loopholes has resulted in the law gradually being tightened up. That gives courts much less leeway when we want to find in a defendants favour. In this respect, at least, the PACE method and others have backfired on ordinary motorists.



It is compulsory to consider a ban for 12 points. But drivers can put an "exceptional hardship" arguement to keep their licence. That succeeds more often than you might think.

A recent one I dealt with came to court with 9 points and a 94 in a 70 charge. He spent ages telling us how he needed his licence and that his world would fall apart without it. Why on earth did he do that speed if his licence was so important?

Perhaps he was a train driver - and as such he was doing that speed quite legally

Sorry Fisherman, couldn't resist - no offence, not trying to get at you in any way.

Cheers
Peter

I was sent an NIP for speeding in my (wifes, in my name) car. The trouble was, we were on holiday in France at the time in our other vehicle.

However, this was not considered good enough for the ticket office, and they wanted to know who might have had access to our car while we were away.
My assertion that nobody had access to the car, or the keys held no weight, and I was asked to interrogate my friends and family (my brother-in-law had keys to our house while we were away) and see if any of them had borrowed the car - unlikely, given my wife had a puncture on the way to work, on the day of our departure, so we left the car at work, minus it's spare wheel, which we left with the garage.

At no time did they consider that the officer may have mistakenly noted the number, (they said they had photographic evidence, but refused to show me it) or colour of the car (7.00 am, wrong time, wrong town, wrong direction, under sodium streetlamps, yet he knew it was British Racing Green, and not burgundy, or dark blue??).
Eventually, I lost patience with them after 6 lots of letters, and asked them to send a forensic team to examine the car, and see if it had been taken without consent! Finally I got a letter from the chief constable saying under the circumstances, they would not be pursuing the matter!

Their difficulty was they assumed I was guilty, and safe in the sure knowledge of my innocence, I was unable to give them the answers they thought they deserved. Is this really a defence? I know of one person who has taken points on their licence, when they KNEW they were not guilty, because they were AFRAID of being dealt severely with in the court if they persisted in protesting their innocence.
Your disclosures here would no doubt reassure members of the public.
Does the Courts Service have a policy of educating the public of their rights and expectations in court by any means?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

The police had evidence which was sufficient for them to have a duty to follow it up. Courts make no such assumptions, the case MUST be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I was in a similar situation a few years ago when I fitted the description of a man who was sexually assaulting women in the area I live in. It was a very unpleasant experience so I do know how you feel.
The alternative would be for the police to believe everyone who denies an offence in which case very few people would ever be convicted.



Without getting into the legal terminology there is a defence if you carry out all reasonable enquiries to ascertain the driver. In your case if it had gone to court I would expect that proof of your being out of the country and a statement on oath that no one else had your permission to drive the vehicle would probably have been enough. In your case it didn't go to court, so in spite of their apparent belief in your guilt they (quite properly) dropped it. None of which makes the experience any more pleasant for you.

You don't have to look far to find websites that advocate denial and utter lack of co-operation as a standard response to all motoring offence allegations. With a change to a guilty plea at the last moment only if the authorities have not given up first. The police have no way of knowing (at first at least) if they are dealing with an innocent member of the public or someone who is following the obstructive route.
I would always advise anyone who is certain of their innocence to go to court and put their case. If they lose then there will costs to pay but courts do not ramp up fines just to punish people for taking up court time. For your information a significant number of people who are certain of innocence end up pleading guilty when they have the law properly explained. I have lost count of the number of drivers who think that, to be gulty of drink driving, you have to be over the limit AND have an accident.



Many courts have open days with mock trials and a chance to talk to magistrates and clerks.
The vast majority of adult courts are open to the public, with seating provided. You can sit at the back and watch courts in action all week long if you have a mind to.
Every county has a schools programme with magistrates giving talks to pupils.
Social groups can always ask for a magistrate to come along and give a talk. A colleague of mine went along to a back room in a pub and gave a talk, including some sentencing exercises, to a local motor cycle group. As is usually the case the sentences they imposed were more than the court would have given.

this site can be helpful
www.magistrates-association.org

The problem is that the CPS (or whoever) try to bully the keeper into naming someone in order to get their £60. It seems they really don't care who is named as they make no other checks.
So, if a husband and wife really don't know which of them was driving, or don't want to own up even, the authorities push them to answer using threats of court and probably higher penalties.
I've often wondered what would happen if a husband or wife, after initially saying that they don't know which one was driving and the photos not showing either, were to write back saying: "We really don't know, your photos are no help, but we recognise that an offence has been committed so if you tell us from whom you would like to receive a confession we'll be pleased to oblige and pay the £60. Of course, we want you to indemnify both of us from prosecution for perversion of the course of justice should other evidence turn up which does identify the other one as the driver, but this is the best we can do at this time".
'Fisherman', if this turned up in court with, say, the wife accused of not providing the S172 info and she produced a copy of such a letter signed by both her and her husband, how would you deal with it?

They need to get a name in order to be able to put a charge, which may then be agreed or denied by the driver. Simply naming a driver does not lead (directly) to a fine.
I'm not sure about your use of the word "bully". They set out the possible consequences of failing to respond. If there were no adverse consequences no one would respond and no one would ever be prosecuted. Laws passed by a democratically elected government would then be ignored.

I am aware that some drivers get very worried about the letters, a worry often fuelled by inaccurate statements made on the net or in the media. I am aware of one person who posted for advice (not on this site) and was told that failure to respond would result in a warrant for their arrest and revocation of their licence. Neither of which is true.
In some respects the existing system is not good, the problem is how to change for the better? Imagine the howls of protest if they didn't warn of possible consequences of failure to respond. There would be loud protests that "I would have responded if I had known there was a penalty for not doing so"





There is a thin line between a magistrate giving advice, which is frowned on, and answering direct questions about what a court would do in specific circumstances which would (quite properly) get him removed from the bench if identified.

I am not a fan of quoting what is referred to by magistrates as "yards of law" because it usually makes things worse rather than better but.............


Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act says :-

(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and

(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

In this subsection references to the driver of a vehicle include references to the person riding a cycle.

(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.

(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence.

The bold emphasis is mine.

Whether or not this is fair has already been tested at least once in the European court. :-

7th Mar 2001
Director of Public Prosecutions Wilson QBD (DC) Rose & Sullivan JJ , 6(1) Appeal (stated case) - crime (evidence) - whether admission at trial of affirmative response to notice sent by post pursuant to s172(2)(b) Road Traffic Act 1988 is compatible with freedom from self-incrimination. (1) No distinction between s172(2)(a) (keeper of the car to provide driver's identity - relevant section in Brown v Stott (Procurator Fiscal) (PC 5.12.00)) and s172(2)(b) (any other person to give information leading to driver's identification). (2) Brown followed; admission of defendant's response not incompatible. TLR 21.03.01

and found not be contrary to the ECHR


The key lies in the words "reasonable diligence". This is not clearly defined and the bench will decide on this in the individual circumstances of the case. A few days sitting at the back of a motoring offences court will show that a significant number of people do succeed in defending these cases.

Sorry, Fisherman, I didn't mean to place you in a difficult position with regard to answering a question and I wasn't 'fishing' to reply to any problem I might have. Indeed, miraculously, I still have a clean licence and two protected no-claims bonuses, plus my wife also has a clean licence and one protected bonus.
However, as we are nearing retirement age, we do tend to do some long journeys together and I really couldn't always say for sure who was driving at any particular place or time. Additionally we use each others cars very often, or one of our classic cars, so if we did receive an NIP for an offence, which could well have taken place a couple of weeks ago, we may well not be able to answer with complete certainty.
This is where the camera legislation is, IMHO, badly flawed and what makes the whole thing look like cash-collection. Add to that the fact that only 5% of accidents are caused by vehicles exceeding the posted limit and it puts the whole thing into perspective. In the days when a manned police patrol would stop those driving in an unacceptable manner, there was never any identity question. Now, seemingly, the 5% cause of accidents is the main aspect of motoring law enforced with any vigour (and the cash rolls in) and the entire system is moving into disrepute.
Magistrates are having to ban very safe drivers for a few minor indiscretions, whilst the dangerous drivers go largely unpunished. It's no wonder the death rates are on the rise.
I'm just glad I'm not part of the system and that if I should get a few cash-camera points I have the ability to 'opt out', so to speak, by using a foreign licence and Irish registered/insured/taxed car.