Safe Speed Forums

Heres a link for your information about how section 172 prosecutions are conducted in Lancashire!
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Instructor-fi ... 0#comments
Before you add any comments please bear in mind that Mr Wilson intends to appeal.
Based on the evidence before district Judge Ward he was found guilty. Maybe the evidence should be scrutinised much more closely before comments are made. I say no more!

It's now been a week since the case & the press have all made their feelings known about the Driving instructor!
And we all believe the press reports, don't we?
Well let's look at a few of the reports for facts.
February 6, 7th & 8th 2007 The press found Mr. Wilson guilty of "framing his pupil", "operating a scam" and "cheating"! The actual case took place on 13th June 2008! No mention in the court case about earlier reporting. This despite District Judge Ward being alerted to these publications in earlier court hearings!
In all these publications it was reported that Mr. Wilson claimed that if the photograph showed only one person in the car then it must have been him. Note the dates 6th, 7th, 8th February 2007! Mr. Wilson accepted responsibility and NAMED HIMSELF, on the 9th February 2007, as the driver on his 2nd section 172 notice and supplied all the information requested by Lancashire Constabulary including his date of birth & his driving license number for the points! Job done, FPN, no problem!
So why didn't District Judge Ward spot this? He had the documents on at least 3 previous hearings and even admitted that it only took him 5 minutes to review them! No publicity in a FPN!!! Instead he claimed that Mr. Wilson NAMED MR RAMSDEN again on his second section 172 statement! Not on the documents I have seen! "Trust me - I'm a Judge" springs to mind!
Why did Mr. Wilson's solicitor, after declaring a new spurious defence to the courts on the 14th appearance, suddenly declare that he couldn't represent him on the day of the trial after receiving all that legal aid money?
Too many questions! Would like opinions on this.

Hummm if I understand you correctly you are basically saying that he supplied the Court with his name yet the press and the court somehow got the name of the 'pupil'?
Whilst solicitors can fall out with their clients and refuse to continue, if legal aid has been applied then the client may still have to pay - 'only' the reduced legal aid costs ... if applicable.

There is not enough real information here, and as you say the media cannot be relied on for the hard facts ... so it is rather hard to give a good opinion, when it is hard to judge what is the real facts, and then what we think of those.

It would be awful for any instructor to blame a pupil. But it is worse if a Court implies to the press that he has done so if he did not !
Hummm non of it sounds good.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Thanks for your interest Safespeed2!
After a lot of thought I believe that it is in the public interest that these documents should be made available for debate! Especially as the press reports have been published, supposedly on their content!
Link. Download here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/124909518/Untitled.pdf
Look forward to your comments!

Those docs contain personal information of the guy accused. Don't think they should be hosted on an open forum. There is enough there to commit identity fraud.

It clearly show him as lying as he is claiming the pupil was behind the wheel when there is only one person in the car. Unless he is in the habit of letting learners out unaccompanied I don't see what the press got wrong. Or am I missing something???? To comply with the section 172 he should have named himself but used PACE as a grounds of it being inadmissible due to self incrimination perhaps?

These documents were used in open court to convict. You really missed something! He did name himself on the section 172 notice and supplied an explanation. Your statement about him lying is far more damaging than any identification info! After all he still has the right to appeal and if he wins.......... you could be liable for damages! Let's keep to the content of the legal documents and his complying with the law rather than personal attacks passed off as facts!

The additional letter names the pupil in essence. I am missing something clearly. Could you explain why the simple explanation of him naming a pupil that wasn't driving wasn't the case at all? He names himself as driver then goes onto say he was instructing a pupil at the time and asks why the pupil didn't admit to being there inferring the pupil is the one that was driving at the time of the offence. But the photographic evidence shows there is only one person in the car. There are only a few sensible explanations - the date or time of the offence are wrong or the photo is referring to a different offence b) he let someone else drive the car unaccompanied and hasn't named them.

If it has nothing to do with the pupil why is he writing letters and claiming his records show the pupil was in the car at the time? Would it not have been better to have just said 'yes I was driving' and just accept the FPN and not even mention the pupil?

I think there is more to this than what is happening on the surface.

The letter/explanation was a condition imposed on him by the police. i.e.you are required to give additional evidence or an explanation as well as fill in the section 172 notice supplied. He simply explained what his records showed!

I have now seen a few versions of the photograph, and all it shows is that the passenger is not visible.
It does not prove the passenger seat was empty - somebody could simply have been reaching on the floor for a dropped pen/clipboard!
I dont see how the trial can be fair when a version of the story has appeared in the press!

Another triumph for prosecution by camera!!

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

Teabelly your last statment is absolutely true!!!!
Here's a script as to what has been happening UNDER THE SURFACE for the last 15 months!
This case caused the IPCC investigation into corruption at Blackburn CTO in September 2007.
Questions asked by local M.P. Nigel Evans into corruption within Blackburn CTO caused the Chief Constable, (who had been informed many months previously) to act and call in the IPCC. After an 8 month investigation FPNs were being torn up by the thousand, speed awareness refunds were being made and three members of staff are to be disciplined.
This lead to speed awareness courses being scrutinised. Despite claims from the police & LRSP that speed awareness courses were NON PROFIT making it was shown and printed in the press that Lancashire County Council made a clear profit of over £157,000 a year from these courses. Lancashire Constabulary received £127,000 per year from The Partnership for administration of these courses & THEN made the same claim from LCC for the same administration - a total of over £250,000! It was then discovered that undercover police operation costs, completely disallowed by Government regulations, were directly funded from speed camera revenue! During this period changes in personnel have been;
CTO Civilian Manager replaced by a police officer.
LRSP Project Manager replaced.
Ministers have also been supplied with documentation showing how speeding tickets can be made to disappear!
Documentation has also been supplied that illustrated that over 24,000 FPNs go unpaid every year and never reach the courts! Speeding motorists issued with FPNs go without fines totaling nearly £2,000,000 and are never issued with points every year!
Yes teabelly you are absolutely right! Milking the cash cow in Lancashire has been taken to a fine art.

This article was in tonight's Lanca$hire Evening Post:-

www.lep.co.uk/news/Convicted-driving-in ... 4232951.jp[url][/url]

"He changed his story....." rather a telling line! Yimitier, can you spread any more light on this comment?

Bottom line for Mr Wilson is he is likely to be struck off the ADI register with 6 points.

_________________
That's how Nazi Germany started. They'll be burning books next. (Brian Noble, Wigan coach - updated 20/4/06!!).

Well....... He really didn't change his story! His defence solicitor came out with this defence during an abuse of process hearing at Chorley Magistrates. (This was the 13th hearing and not as reported by the press when he received the 2nd section 172 notice) where allegations of forged documents was being heard.
Mr Foster, the registered keeper, produced 3rd part conclusive documentary evidence to the court that indicated who had the other vehicle before, during & after the offence. The worrying thing is that despite Mr. Foster contacting both the police & the CPS they refused to accept this DOCUMENTARY evidence for over two months and after taking legal advice Mr Foster sent it to the courts DIRECTLY for the attention of the Judge!
As for the points, Mr Wilson only received 3 points, as the offence took place before the increase to 6 points! However if anyone feels that the conduct of any driving instructor is detrimental to the profession a complaint to the registrar could be made, or if the driving instructor failed to report the conviction within 7 days it should result in automatic removal.

You can only get so much from the published words on web sites but I can only see three possibilities here,1. The guy was driving and speeding so tough titty. 2. His boss or someone else was responsible for the ticket and blames fatty for it by telling him that was the car he had. 3. Fatty is guilty as hell and is also an ass for blaming a pupil.

As far as legal proceedings goes Ive been on the receiving end of legal proceedings and have witnessed other proceedings so please dont live under the illusion that judges/magistrates etc are beyond being complete tits. When we have people like Mrs Blair sitting in judgement need I say more

In my view a sensible judge would throw it out and save tax payers a lot of money........so I blame the judge

He didn't have a boss! He was self employed. Documents before the court showed he had the car. The Judge went on EVIDENCE! However the car was only insured for Mr.Wilson to drive the car on business. He never denied that he had the car for over 13 months & 13 court appearances! When he did he had no records or evidence to support. However he DID claim in court that he exchanged the car the evening previously! I doubt if he would have put up that defence if he knew exactly WHERE the vehicle was that night! You can only only defend a lie with a bigger lie! The lies just got bigger & bigger ...............& bigger throughout the trial. All records are available to the police! If they are interested! Seeing as how they failed to even inquire into this case at the beginning I doubt if they will show interest now, that will show how they originally failed!