Safe Speed Forums

The 'Team' can only do so much say 2 cases per day?? Certainly in that ball park.

They are not intended to make prosecution more effective their purpose to to threaten and cajole people into not contesting!! If it's not actually illeagal it's as close to it as you could possibly get.

It's blatant intimidation.

The phoney war is over, 'Med' has now openly declared war on the motorist!

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 10:13 this morning:

PR354: Desperation and intimidation from the Police

news: for immediate release

BBC news this morning reports that: "Acpo [Association of Chief Police
Officers] is also introducing a team made up of a lawyer and a former police
officer to help prosecute speed camera cases.

The association hopes motorists will avoid contesting their speeding charge
because if they lose, their costs will include up to £4,000 for the cost of the
team."[1]

Safe Speed points out that such intimidation tactics are unacceptable and
illegal since costs in court cases 'should not be disproportionate'. [2]


Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "These tactics stink of desperation and
intimidation. I presume that too many people are fighting speeding tickets, and
that it interfering with the flow of money from speed cameras. I am disgusted
that, in efforts to enforce petty regulations against us that the Police in
this country are now prepared to bend the law for reasons of intimidation and
expediency."

"Speed cameras are wrong, wrong, wrong and do not make the roads safer. Now we
have wrong, wrong, wrong intimidation tactics from the Police. Effectively they
are saying - don't bother us - you are guilty. But countless thousands of
erroneous speeding tickets are issued each year and motorists are entitled to
proper justice."

"The war of technicalities waged against the motorist is out of control. The
original objective of improving road safety has long been forgotten by both
sides."

"I urge every motorist who may have a valid defence in law to challenge their
speeding ticket. Do not be intimidated. You are entitled to justice."

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================


[1] BBC News website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5340846.stm

[2] Magistrate's court sentencing guidelines Page 88:
http://www.jsboard.co.uk/downloads/acbb/section2a.pdf
[given the force of law in the Court of Appeal]

======================================

I hope it's good enough. I've felt rather in the dark while getting it together.

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

Absolutely brilliant, Paul, you really are very good at this. I love the closing line.
And yes, it IS good enough.

I have actually submitted a comment to the "Have your say" bit on the BBC website, which also refers to the "team" and "intimidation" (Great minds think alike?! ) ... but they haven't got their act together yet, I'll look later.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread. ... 0913115522

Looks like most of the commenters are in agreement that this is a step too far. None of the usual 'do the crime, pay the time', 'speed kills' wallies replying as the issue digs deeper than that.

This is definitely a sign of the abuse of the legal process to permit automated enforcement unravelling and being exposed for what it is ie. weak law. The whole announcement smacks of desperation.

there are loads of comments now. I liked the comment that there was "no small print in law, all words are equally important"

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

That's exactly the point though....the words are the words. I don't understand exactly what a 'legal loophole' is.....other than an excuse for not doing your job correctly!

Isn't it ironic that one of the unintended consequences of speed cameras is a rise in legal awareness amongst the motoring population.

Yep, good to see that most of the contributers are not having the wool pulled over their eyes, and are displaying some intelligence and balance (I was starting to get worried about the impartiality of the BBC).

These comments are great:

The police refer to those acquitted as "wrongly acquitted". Excuse me! It is the courts who decide who is guilty and not guilty. The police are not judge and executioners. What planet are they on?!
There is no justice when it comes to driving offences. I have seen police driving when their brake lights are not working. What was i going to do? I would be a brave man to tell the police officer this, without recriminations.
The quality of police officers' comments is down rock bottom.

tok, london

- - -
You report - "The association hopes motorists will avoid contesting their speeding charge because if they lose, their costs will include up to £4,000 for the cost of the team." This is truly obscene, and a total negation of the concept of innocent until proven guilty. There should be no deterrent to any person trying to contest ANY criminal offence.

D. Lamont

It would seem that the police have been abusing their powers with speed cameras just to get money from perfectly safe drivers going about their business as lawfully as they reasonably can.

They have forced motorists to learn about the speeding laws and loopholes to try to defend themselves against these unjust penalties and now the police are complaining about the backlash they are experiencing, which they have brought on themselves.

So it now seems they are trying to redress this by yet further abuse of the legal system.

This is really starting to worry me now, but what do we do?

Oh yes.

(Leaves forum to go and become a safespeed member)

That's pretty poor indeed. Someone should be writing to the PCA.

daily mail



one laywer and one retired coppper to deal with three million motorists

there is an add your comments box too

reuters

I wonder if they have won one yet??

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

This is beacuse they will only prosecute cast iron certainties for conviction. Why waste their time on questionnable cases?

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

Microsoft news; http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp- ... tid=912552

isn't that classed as "Harassment"?

if the Police try and "Discourage" someone from seeking their own Justice, could this even be construed as "Perverting the course of Justice"?

From the MSN version of the story...



One wonders why, if the technology is as reliable as they claim, they'd need expert assistance to defend it against determined dissidents... They couldn't be (dramatic pause for effect) lying to us about its capabilities, could they???

Couldn't agree more with the sentiments expressed so far - this is a complete abuse of the legal system to railroad potentially innocent people into accepting a penalty just to maintain the illusion that all is well in their fantasy world where the laws of logic and physics don't apply, allowing devices like the Lti 20-20 to perform exactly as their manufacturers claim. And yes, it absolutely sounds like they're running scared... how many more punches do we need to land before they start begging for mercy, and would it be utterly wrong of me to suggest landing just a few more, and perhaps the odd well-placed kick, after they start to beg?

_________________
Chris

Sounds increasingly accurate.

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

And there the story is all but complete!!

From Microsoft news (Dr L's earlier post):


Any information on what amendments to existing legislation are proposed in this new Bill (Big Brother Bill?)?

And will it stand the test that existing law faces in the ECHR in two weeks time - the Francis and O'Halloran appeals?

And wil this special 'task force' have any relevance after the ECHR hands down it's judgement?

Safe Speed issued a further PR at 4:33 this morning:

PR355: It's policing, but not as we know it.

news: for immediate release

Amongst recent news about loophole acquittals in motoring cases are a couple of
quite extraordinary claims.

Firstly there's the claim that (in the BBC's words): "And police say they will
be keeping a close eye on drivers who they think have been wrongly acquitted of
crimes." As Wednesday wore on the absurd and illegitimate nature of this
suggestion became clear and ACPO's spokespersons seemed to back away from it.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said:"The idea that the Police can determine those
'unjustly acquitted' is as absurd as it is abhorrent. We have courts to
determine guilt or innocence according to law. But now, apparently, if we are
acquitted in court we can expect to be followed around by Police who arrogantly
believe that they know better than the courts. It's policing, but not as we
know it."


Secondly there the promise of a two man team comprising "a lawyer and a former
police officer to help prosecute speed camera cases." It looks like they will
have their work cut out because:

- Speed camera cases in court 2004: 127,100 (latest Home office figure)
- around 250 court days in a year
- implies over 500 cases a day

And that's before you consider around 150,000 cases each year under 'Section
172' where someone has 'failed to identify the driver' at the time of an
alleged offence.

Paul Smith continued: "Clearly ACPO are in a panic about something or other. I
presume that the courts simply don't have the time to deal with thousands upon
thousands of pointless speeding cases. And ACPO's solution? Blow hot air in the
vain hope that motorists will be too intimidated to defend themselves. It's
policing, but not as we know it. It's bluff and intimidation. It seeks to deny
our right to justice. It might even be 'attempting to pervert the course of
justice'. Beyond that it isn't even going to work."

"Surely they have noticed by now that speed cameras aren't making the roads
safer? Surely the easy solution, even for ACPO, is to back out of the failed
speed camera programme?"

"I urge all drivers who may have a legitimate defence to their speeding ticket
to demand their day in court. Call their bluff. Do not be intimidated. Above
all, demand your right to justice."

<ends>

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

I just posted this on another forum, but i think I was thinking on the same lines as paul......

When I think about it I have had a few colleages get thier case dropped and won when 100% innocent
bryn the motorcyclist in bristol gatso triggered by a bus
jackie b in bournemouth gatso, number plate misread by dorset

belinda a, pleaded guilty to due care and attention after an accident then recieved a second summons for the same accident

then there were tecnical defences
me, detected under power lines and over an electrified railway,wrong side of a d/cway, paid it, before I knew!
clive p , road painted wrong, speed signs not lit , thought it was a 50 not 40, wouldn't contest it.

These are the cases ACPO wants 5X£60 and 15 points for!

All these dangerous criminals are working for a national telecom company in diagnostic test or the records office. And all could have be intimidated and/or worried by the threat of £4000 costs.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code