Safe Speed Forums

You might already know about the new dream team set up by ACPO to combat the "Loophole lawyers" intent on getting a prosecution thrown out by loopholes in the law. Of course there are no loopholes. There is the law, good or bad.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... itted=true
The remark by Merredid Hughes one of the founders of the new team Road Safety Support Ltd that "if you think you are hard enough to tackle us then come on" shows a complete and utter contempt of the British legal system.
The massive costs awards this team lay claim to make it very frightening for anyone, even if they're convinced of their innocence, to take their case to court. This is a deliberate attempt to deny us the right to a fair trial. The intimidation of having this team called in to rebutt a claim of innocence is designed to make anyone who wishes to take his case to court think again. The recent case in Hull which attracted costs of over £9000, yes that's nine thousand, is just a taste of what's to come in the future.
In the eyes of the law we are (should be) innocent until we are proved otherwise or are stupid enough to pay a COFP but his team is intent on denying us this priviledge. In their capacity of members of this duplicitous team they hold the opposite view. We are guilty until they prove us to be or are too frighten us off at the thought of extortionate costs.
What's even more interesting is the "association" with ACPO. If it isn't a prt of ACPO then what does the "association" really mean?
ACPO members who are serving members of the police and then take on a directorship in this new Ltd Co. are duplicitous. They are salaried members of the police force and here they are being remunerated for being a member of this new Raod Safety Support team. Is this not against the contract of employment of a policeman? Why in hell should the public pay their wages when they are also earning from this secondary source?
The Company details are provided online in a post at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=20927 where the Articles of Association and full company details are made public.
In every respect we have a secondary organisation here which is intent on denying us the right to a fair trial and as such should be the subject of an immediate parliamentary debate.

Not to mention the potential for conflict of interest!

Actually, it isn't. It is intent on ensuring that spurious or fallacious (rather than valid) defences against speeding tickets are rebutted, this isn't the same thing as preventing someone from getting a fair hearing.
What is ridiculous is that the local authorities who seek to enforce the law against the motorist are so uncertain themselves as to whether or not an argument raised in defence of a speeding ticket is valid, that they have to get together this team in order to mount their prosecutions for them.
It has become a battle of technicalities with the real victims still dying each year because other, more important business, is getting overlooked or ignored.

I can't understand why the tiny number of people who feel strongly that they are not guilty and want to go to court are felt to be such a serious threat to law and order that they warrant a special "police squad".

Oh, sorry, I know the reason. If they didn't do this then more might go to court ...

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

The biggest concern is that the police do just as they please, even if it's actually unlawful yet expect everyone to roll over and take a COFP without a fight.
When you sign a NIP you are making a statement under oath. I cannot make a declaration that I was speeding when I know I wasn't. Apart from the fact that it would be untruthful, I just don't see why information supplied as to the identity of a driver is then used against me in a court of law. I know all about the O'Halloran case etc which might give some respite to this subject but for me, the knowledge that one of the "dream team" is going to turn up and contest my claim of innocence sends shudders down my spine.
The fact is, I know I wasn't speeding. I even joked about the camera van being in such an open place at the time and made comment about how many stupid sods had fallen foul of it that particular day.
I WASN'T SPEEDING but still got a ticket, and now just because I have the balls to contest it I'm in the position of having to think about a second mortgage to pay costs in the event that the lies of Trevor Hall (one of the dream team) win the day.
For those who have any further interest then I'm contesting the use of a Gatso from the rear of a camera van. It doesn't have Type Approval for this and even the ACPO Code of Practice states for radar devices "Must not be used from within a vehicle". Trevor Hall apparently wrote the document but he's going to turn up to submit evidence that it actually can be used from within a vehicle. This is despite the fact that it still doesn't have Type Approval which is an absolute requirement.
The reason it can't by the way, is that using it in an enclosed space causes radar reflections which are likely to give incorrect measurements. The same code of practice states that they should not be used from under or through bridges or arches for the same reason. Consider a bridge of around 40 feet width and 16 feet high against the more enclosed aspect of the rear of a van..........
So here we have the author of a document coming along to give evidence that what he wrote as "must not" can actually mean "can be".
What a bloody travesty of justice. Thank God the police don't carry guns.

They do and we know what happens

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

There's a few around the North Circular which (from memory of their exact positioning) don't appear to follow this code...

_________________
Chris

Same around here.

Looks like a pretty sound one to get you off too.

*remembers*

Just to remind people that the case mentioned was a mis-carridge of justice that should have been challenged by the defendant but was not.

The magistrates guide lines state (PAGE 66) that the DOVE CASE sets the law that costs cannot be grossly disproportionate to the fine. The dove case where the costs were 4.5 times the fine, was over turned and the costs reduced to zero. Most magistraites cap costs at just under twice the fine.

for the police to be talking in this confrontational language, using bully tactics to intimidate people from chalanging wrongfull speeding tickets using this case is very wrong.

As the magistrate's , and the police and the CPS are all part of a partnership they appear to be conspiring to bring about wrong judgements.

ACPO & "Road Safety Support Ltd" are not elected politicians. They must not be allowed to make up the laws or mis use ASBO's against motorists.

ACPO are also hiding behind being a private company.

All our police policy is made in a private company to circumvent the FOI act. This has to be stopped.

_________________
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

I agree, it seems difficult to believe this would stand up to any serious challenge. You can't just redefine the language to suit your needs: merely saying it's a private company doesn't alter its actual position as a branch of government.

Perhaps 'Fisherman' would like to comment, as he recently ridiculed my post in which I stated that the CPS used heavy intimidation prior to trial to get a guilty plea and hence conviction and thus force even the innocent to plead guilty due to the HUGE gamble that going to court actually is.

So lets hear it from his own words: -

Would all the prosecution costs of this new ACPO team of oppressors be charged to the defendant if found guilty in his court of a minor motoring offence; Yes or No ?

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

The fact is that this spin off company is duplicating several services that ACPO itself has always undertaken. The difference is that ACPO has recognition from the HOME Office and the government of the day, is making recommendations to the Home Office as regards law and procedural matters, advising on testing of new technology etc, whereas the RSSL is now doing some of the same but at a fee from which it pays members and directors in wages and pension benefits, and possibly healthcare benefits too.
There can be no impartiality from such a company. Whenever it comes to court and makes an opinion then is it because they are looking to bump up income for the company or make a legitimate attack against an accused's defence.
Without total impartiality and transparency we have nothing less than a self seeking organisation which is hiding its true motives.
It's very disturbing that the stated aim by CC Hughes is to tackle those loophole lawyers under the threat of "if you think you are hard enough then come and get us".
This gives a very clearcut statement of intent that anyone defending a summons on a point of law will be hounded. This is not Justice the way it is meant to be. Everyone has the right to their day in court but making such threats under the potential of suffering huge costs awards will undoubtedly put more people off challenging their summons. So we get a few people who really aren't guilty of an offence being dissuaded from challenging this. Not good. In fact it's bloody disgraceful.

And here was me thinking that all I had done was to put forward a view which disagreed with yours.
If you think I was harsh on you have a look at some of the responses to my posts and be thankful that you aren't me.




As I am sure you are well aware it's not possible to answer such a question with a simple yes or no. Which is probably why you asked me to............


In normal circumstances the CPS request a contribution towards costs and not the full costs of a trial.

However if they have had to go to unusual expense such as employing an expert witness to counter specific claims made by the defence they will normally ask for payment in full of that part of the costs of the trial.

The CPS do on very rare occasions take the view that the defence had no option other than to use an expert witness. In such cases they ask for a contribution to their expert witness fee rather than the whole amount.

The defence are allowed to speak against the request for costs.

A bench are not allowed to order payment of costs which are beyond a defendants means.

Of course if the defence was valid, and not just a punt in the hope of getting the CPS to back down, the defence would win and no costs would be payable.

I haven't yet seen a case where the CPS employ an expert witness for no good reason. If I do I would be very unwilling to order those costs.

The problem I have is that a defendant may not know if he is guilty or not, and may wish to see the proof.

That isn't as odd as it sounds: if I said that 4 months ago you were seen with an under inflated tyre, you may not think it likely but you might have to concede that it is possible. So the reasonable thing to do is to request a hearing and demand proof. If however, doing so could cost nine thousand pounds, then obviously that is a massive incentive to just pay a fixed penalty and get it out of the way. It isn't your fault that it would cost the prosecution that much to prove it. You didn't ask them to come after you. And there is no other way to avoid admitting the offence. For the prosecution to say "You either pay up, or 'come and have a go' and we'll f*** up your life" is arrogant chest beating and seriously undermines justice.

From what I have seen there is at least enough evidence to cause concern that hand held speed devices can give incorrect readings. Type approval is irrelevant as the type approval did not test for the suspected errors. If the defendant is genuinely unsure of their guilt, why should they admit the offence just on the off chance without seeing some proof first?

They shouldn't.

And if the CPS ever introduce £9000 worth of expert witness in a simple case of a tyre being underinflated you can expect the request for costs to be denied.

If its a case of a fatal accident which is blamed on an underinflated tyre then there may need to be expert witnesses on both sides. Whether that would amount to £9000 is beyond my experience as it would be a crown court case.

As I have said before, if the Magistrates Courts Service was not listed a 'partner' in the speed camera partnerships, defendants would feel more comfortable. But then, althought he Magistrates themselves are independent, the Courts Service, by their own admission, are not (or else they would not be 'Partners' in the Camera schemes), so all the sabre-rattling from the 'hit squad' is done in the sure and certain knowledge that the Courts Service are on their side.
Fisherman, I applaud your coming on here and answering questions. I know you could easily take offence at some of the replies you get. I hope mine don't offend in any way, but I do feel really strongly about the listing of any aspect of the judicial/court system as 'partners' in speed (cash?) camera schemes. It's the public perception which needs to be considered.

I am glad to see a response from 'Fisherman' to my post, and no, I was not really expecting a Yes or No answer, but one with clarity and truth and this is what Fisherman has given, bless him/her. Clearly he/she has to show some circumspection in these matters, but his reply is reassuring to some degree.

What needs to be addressed is this clear intention of the ACPO and CPS to increase their pre-trial intimidation of the motorist in order to force guilty verdicts, even if the motorist is innocent. It is always done when offering the FPN, by pointing out, ( with what seems some relish), the huge fines the courts could impose for the same offence.

Frankly I find the current situation a complete disgrace in every way. How can the citizen possible employ the resources to counter a claim of speeding using, for instance, the Lti 20-20 ? a device KNOWN to be inaccurate in many circumstances.

So far the only way seems to be to prove that the speed claimed is beyond the speed envelope of the vehicle; I have seen one or two of these, involving a bus (claimed 80, max 50), and Fiat Uno, (claimed 109, max 90).

Another way is to present an alternative speed log such as derived from GPS, but the only case so far where a GPS log has been presented in court the magistrates preferred the Dodgy-Scope (or Lti 20 -20), AND costs were awarded and were heavy, as well as the fine.

Beyond reasonable doubt is therefore no longer the case it seems when minor motoring offences come up in court, but then we see serious criminality on the 'Police, Camera, Action' programme and when the sentences handed down to the little scroats are announced at the end, one groans in exasperation at how pitifully small they are. £40 for stealing a car, and not the first offence either is less than half the fine for a box junction offence in London.

SO there IS something deeply wrong with the whole of the law in this area. Here the Law really IS an Ass

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

Exactly. So why is speeding, with no accident, any different?

I'm not to sure how to take the news of ACPO's revenge squad, we have the likes of A N OTHER and many Mackenzie's friends standing up in court against in the main probably junior CPS representatives. IMO ACPO has decided to meet these technical defences / loopholes head on, i cannot see any winners here except the lawyers and i doubt very much if road safety is their main priority

EDITED TO REMOVE INDIVIDUALS

The point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between the CPS needing to use an expert to counter expert opinion put forward by the defence and the CPS using an expensive expert to prove their case in the absence of any specific need to do so.

If the defence put forward a complex scientific defence (whatever the charge) there is aclear need for the CPS to counter that. In such a case it would be reasonable for the CPS to request an award of costs to cover the extra expense. Whether a court would award all, or indeed any, of that is another question.

If the CPS were to put forward the full range of expensive expert witnesses to counter a defence of "I don't think I was going that fast" I would consider that entirely unreasonable. I don't see any court awarding expert witness fees in such a case.