Safe Speed Forums

The two sides aren't comparable for two important reasons:

1) The CPS have virtually unlimited funds, while a debt of thousands of pounds can destroy someone's life,

2) The CPS can choose whether to bring a case or not; the accused has no choice.

yes but the defendant in this case elected to go to court, this is not a pre trial hearing, he had been convicted at mag court and appealed and gone to crown court and pulled out at the last minute

_________________
now retired

We are throwing justice out of the window here. There was a school teacher who won his case and the costs reached £30k.

Justice is not justice if the ordenary man with 2.4 children cannot afford to challange thier case for fear of losing thier home. They are not empowered.

Cases are being brought by some partnerships and are being deliberatly drawn out by endless PTR's where the defendant is fighting blind and the partnership is witholding almost all of the evidence the defendat needs to see to make a proper decision to continue or not.

We have a couple of cases on the south coast where the defendants live 250 miles and 300 miles from the court. They expect him to make 4 or five court visits or employ a lawer to atttend at £150? an hour.

That is before seeing the evidence.

The prosicution may have served the defendant with the evidence 7 days before the trial. 2 days to make a decision, then the weekend, they try and contact the expert witness he is drivig to the airport for a meeting with the prosicition the day before the trial!

_________________
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

Anton,
I have never suggested that the system is perfect.

The problem is that people who are trying to change it for the better are handicapped by statements like this one
perhaps I should list a few of the things that are wrong with the statement.

Costs are not a sentence but are an ancillary order.
Courts can't just make up costs but are restricted to the amount requested by the CPS and can decide to order all, part or none of the amount requested.
The CPS are restricted to amounts actually incurred.
The court MUST take into account the defendants ability to pay.
Courts can also take into account why the costs were incurred. eg if a police officer wanted to issue a fixed penalty but had run out of tickets and the defendant was brought to court, the guidelines state that the equivalent of a fixed penalty should be imposed.


I count myself among those who would like to see the system improve but every time I raise (what I believe to be a valid) point someone senior to me produces a huge list of erreoneous statements and says theyhave got those to deal with first.

I believe we should consider the hypothesis that the CPS created this situation with the intention (hope?) of discouraging appeals. If that were true, then Anton's statement could be MUCH closer to the truth than you gave it credit for.

Very nice to see you again, btw.

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

I don't have a problem with the issue of paying reasonable costs If you loose. (however £30,000 & £4,000 seam excessive)

It is the witholding of evidence, making the defendant fight blind, engaging the international expert witness before even disclosing the full vidio tape to the defendant.
That is my problem with the way they are playing this game.

One defendant has been asking for the tape in writing and for three hearings. At the fourth hearing he threw in the towel about the tape and asked to proceed to trial with the evidence in hand. Two statements and a photo. The prosicution couldn't produce a tape fast enough (4 seconds)! They had intended to produce it all along , but at the last minuite. This conduct is wrong.

They mention the tape in thier statement so it should be disclosed to the defendant in full if requested. Then if the defendant engages an expert then the prosicution does the same. You can't get the full tape unless you engage a solicitor and an expert witness. It will cost you a grand or two to see the evidence.

A big game of poker!!!

_________________
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

What I find really strange about all of this is that it seems to imply that our Police forces and camera partnership are using a device to prosecute tens of thousands of motorists every year, yet there is no-one in the country capable of demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt to a court that it works properly.

Like Anton, I have a very grave suspicion that the CPS deliberately "upped the ante" by needlessly calling an expert witness at ludicrous expense, specifically so's they could hit the defendant with the costs and deter others from going to court.

Indeed I wouldn't be surprised to hear that hints had been dropped to the defendant about the costs they were racking up, to encourage him to bale out in the mistaken belief he would be saving himself this sum.

But whichever way you look at it, it does seem rather like he was "made an example of".

It would be interesting to see if the court service in question are members of a Camera Partnership...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I am not sure I said they "needlessly called an expert witness"
However it is amazing that the only two scientists prepared to defend this product are the inventor and the importer.
..
...
Oh I forgot the importer dosent even have a physics o'level.... reportedly!

If they both were involved in an unfortunate accident or illness there would be no-one... maybe they should not be allowed to be in the same building, court room or travel on the same plane as it could bankrupt the SCP's

_________________
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

Sorry, you didn't. Please accept my apologies for putting words in your mouth, it was entirely unintentional. The suspicion I shared was with you, but the second clause of my sentence was mine alone.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Thats all right! I might have thought it.
Do you have esp powers?

_________________
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

Its not an unreasonable concern that CPS may be using spiralling court costs as a device to discourage people from taking that route.

I certainly think there is enough to warrant a review of current practice.

I didn't intend to take issue with Anton. it was the statement that courts are "clearly" getting round the rules that I objected to.
There is room for opinion on all sides, I don't think there is room for statements that are inaccurate and which add fuel to the various conspiracy theories that abound.

Within the last few months I heard someone say that the CPS were refusing to take his case seriously because their witness was (and I quote the defendant) " a monkey when I wanted the organ grinder".

Another defendant produced his PhD certificate and references proving his many years of expertise and was equally upset at "being denied justice" by the CPS who brought in a witness whose academic background was not as good as that of the defendant.

It seems the CPS can't win, whatever they do someone finds it unaceptable.

Have you contacted the CPS to ask for their view? I would certainly be interested to hear their side.

I would prefer to say that the CPS are taking the defendant seriously.

Would you prefer they did not inform the defendant of the financial situation?
I can just imagine the fuss if they had stuck him with a bill for £25,000. You would have been the first to complain and say that he wasn't given the chance to drop out before the bill got so big.

There is an important issue of justice for the individual here. Regardless of the realities of costs and who pays them, the perception of the average person in such a situation is that they will risking an awful lot by pursuing their case through the courts. There is a general feeling by people that justice is somewhat proportional to one's ability to a)pay and b)shoulder any subsequent loss in the event of failure.

In my view the CPS "play up" to this perception, aided and abetted by the whole speeding penalty "chain". The CPS are leant on to only take things to court they can win (to save public funding) and this is, IMHO, a negative symptom of this.

I accept the logic behind what you say, and agree that we clearly seem to be putting two different perceptions on the intention behind what has gone on here.

In these sort of situations I often find it is useful to apply the test of "which seems most likely?". So in this instance is it most likely that:

(a) In response to an appeal over a relatively minor charge of speeding, the CPS have brought an expert witness all the way over from America solely to ensure that the defendant gets the fairest possible treatment, and in the honest belief that there is nobody available in the UK capable of answering any likely technical questions about the device in question, notwithstanding its massively widespread use in the UK.

or

(b) the CPS decided to "make an example of" the defendant in the case, and brought the top man over from the States in the hope that he would carry sufficient weight to put the issue of "LTI20:20 inaccuracy" to bed once and for all; but failing that to send out a loud and clear message to others that appealing against minor speeding charges might well incur costs out of all proportion to the original case.

For myself I find it very hard to believe that the CPS were acting in the best interests of justice, or of the defendant. You may be right, but I find he latter seems a far more credible explanation.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

There are only two people in the whole world who would stake thier scientific reputaton on the accuracy of the LTI20/20. and one is the inventor and one isn't a scientist just an importer. Both have a financial interst in the products suvival.

Ask any leading laser expert to defend the lti20/20 and he or she will run a mile.

_________________
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

Surely there must be someone out there?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

He should pay 900 cheques of 5 quid each - it costs the cort avg 3 to cash a cheque. he should also misspell the 20% to increase the labour burden and ask for a monthly statement too.

he should also ask for itemised proof of all costs - and check exchange rates too - check the facts about every expenditure - could it be refunded, or novated and ask for the T&C for every expense item.

Lastly he should be able to get back the tax on any item.

He may pay 4,500 but he could easily cost the system more and I'd do everything in my power to get 'value'.

if by "leant on" you mean they stick to their published standards for prosecution I am sure you are right.




http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/index.html