Safe Speed Forums

My whole point is that we are not misapplying the law. On the contrary, we apply it exactly as written (and amended by case law), as lots of drivers (perhaps too many) know only too well.

Parliament is free at any time to change the law if they feel that their intention has been misunderstood. This has happened very recently with new directions about sentencing for domestic violence offences. All magistrates were required to attend a course to be trained in the new way of thinking. At long last we are able to what we have all wanted to do for years, and that is impose realistic sentences in these cases.

There are a few other points to consider.

The magistracy has been under attack from some sectors of goverment for some years now.
The powers that be expected the Auld report to condemn magistrates not to advise an increase in powers. To do as you suggest would probably be the end for magistrates, and mean that, except for the vanishingly small percentage of jury trials, courts would be in the hands of people who are overwhelmingly from one social class.
I was in court earlier this week, the six magistrates on duty included an engineer (a graduate), a bus driver, a housewife (left school at 16, now doing A levels at evening classes in her 30's) and a driving instructor (ex army NCO).
Decisions were made by a bench of three, with advice where necessary from a clerk. I have real concerns about the wisdom of allowing one person (however qualified) to decide what the facts are, what the law is and what the sentence should be.

If magistrates were to allow people to set their own speed limits and find them not guilty unless danger could be proved, what would be next?

We frequently hear drink drivers say " I was stopped at a routine check" or " I asked for directions and he smelt my breath" followed by "there was nothing wrong with my car or my documents, there was no other traffic so there was no danger" They then ask to be allowed to keep their licence.
I am NOT suggesting that speeding equates to drink driving in terms of risk to the public, just trying to point out that for almost all offences there is a "no danger others" or "victimless crime" argument. With lots of people only too keen for us to go along with it.

Once again, thanks to all for the measured responses. This is of real use to me in evaluating my practice in court and in deciding whether to stay on the bench for another year or two.

This is developing into a misunderstanding. I don't think that magistrates are misapplying the law. I think magistrates are doing their duty as they understand it.

I think the fault lies in enforcement practice. I think magistrates have an opportunity - or even a duty - to recognise that the application of the law to routine speeding offences bears absolutely no relation to the legislator's intentions. (after all when the speed limit laws were written, automated enforcement wasn't even dreamed of)

In order to avoid further confusions and misunderstandings, can you please consider what your position should be when the spirit and the letter of the law are in clear conflict? Let's put up a hypothetical as follows:

There's a law against flunching - normally an antisocial act.

Unfortunately a certain life-saving surgical procedure involves flunching.

Before you is a surgeon, accused of flunching during a successful life saving operation.

You are aware that the legislators certainly did not intend to ban surgical flunching, and that convicting this surgeon will cause other surgeons to miss the opportunity to save life by flunching.

Could you find the power to acquit since this is not the sort of case that the legislators intended to cover?

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

The CPS test of "is it in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution" should result in this not coming to court.

But if it did come to court there are a lot of variables.
Assuming it is NOT an offence of strict liabilty, or if it is strict liabilty with an emergency get out clause :-

If he pleads not guilty then saving a life would probably be a defence.
This is similar to going through a red light (carefully!!!) to allow an ambulance to go through with no waste of time or speeding to get a seriously ill person to hospital. Both of which would result in a not guilty verdict.
If he pleads guilty then when he explains his mitigation, he would be advised that it may amount to a defence. The guilty plea would be vacated and things would start again with a not guilty plea.


If it is an offence of strict liabilty and there is no emergency clause there are two options.
When found guilty, or pleading guilty, to impose an absolute discharge. This means that the court accepts that he bears no moral responsibilty for the offence, and therefore no punishment.
hear the case and, by way of case stated, ask the high court to give direction as to whether or not to convict having regard to the specific circumstances of the case.

I think justice should be the will of the people, not Parliament. Parliament's job should be to act as a moderator, to prevent knee jerk reactions to events. Too often though, it is Parliament which makes the knee jerk, and brings out laws which are entirely inappropriate. Byelaws too, lead to unjust persecution of citizens, when laws are introduced at the whim of a vocal minority.
However lately we cannot rely on a parliament enacting the will of the people into laws which stand up to scrutiny by the people!
All too often we are let down by badly enacted laws, and a flawed system which allows wrongdoers to get off on technicalities.
If speeding motorists can find technicalities which allow them to escape an unjust punishment, then the Parliament should close that loophole in a proper manner. But there are far more serious failings which need addressing first, such as other driving offences, and better driver training!!!

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

To get back on topic, I am still not satisfied with this situation.

While fisherman has certainly shown himself to have much integrity and a sense of justice, I am not satisfied he is representative of others.

The original handbook of safety camera operations clearly states that it is the magistrate's court which is the member of the partnership. It just seems like the name has been changed as part of the usual spin to cover up a corrupt system.

I did find this site which shows the roles of the magistrates' courts committe. It seems like a fundamental department of the court, and the committee itself is made up of senior magistrates.

Some more gems from this document include: [my emphasis]





Doesn't square up with JJ's description does it?

There have been some decisions from magistrate's courts that are so bizzare and biased that it is impiossible for me to believe they are independent. The case on Pepipoo of the biker who was caught on an LTI 20/20 and the speed reading jumped around all over the place within the space of 2 seconds is damning. As well as the case of "Banned, the safety campaigner who told motorists to slow down".