Safe Speed Forums

I am not trying to say that I am right and you are wrong, just that there are alternatives to the thoughts put forward by you and others.

You may be interested in this

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/109_06.html

but the defendant could have accepted £60 and 3 points, no he used his right to go to court and lost, he used his right to appeal and lost again

remember once he elected court, it is down to the CPS to prove the case, but because they did this that is wrong,

again

_________________
now retired

The defendant didn't lose the case, and the CPS didn't prove the case.

What happened is that the CPS, backed with effectively limitless funding, simply raised the stakes to the point at which the other player felt forced to cash his chips in and walk away from the table, without ever seeing the supposedly winning hand.

It might be a legitimate ruse in poker, but is it a fair way to decide legal cases?

Another point is to consider what would happen if the roles were reversed. If the defendant had gone and unilaterally decided to hire an American "expert" to fly over in order to prove that the camera was faulty, then the Crown simply withdrawn it's case rather than prove it one way or the other. Can you really imagine the court taxation office approving costs on that scale?

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

so the whole legal system in britain is wrong now,

as you now i have been in court under s172 against someone who had been convinced that it was against the human rights act for him to fill in the nip he had his moment anfd lost, the cps decide if it is in the public interest to prosecute or not, i have had several not in the public intrest after submiting the relevant paperwork, this is how the system works

look at Starcross and the other 'success stories' costs were not awarded ?

_________________
now retired

Huh?

I don't think anyone is drawing that inference from this, least of all me.

We have the finest legal system in the World, and I acknowledge that this is based firmly on an adversarial model - he who presents the best case on the day wins.

The CPS is vested with a great deal of power, with which comes the responsibility not to abuse the privilege. From what details I've read of this case it seems very much as though this is what happened here.

If the CPS felt it were in the public interest to drag the top banana over from the colonies in order to prove some point about these pesky new-fangled cameras once and for all then that's fine, but if they were genuinely motivated by such public interest considerations then they should have stood the cost themselves, on the grounds that their intention went way beyond the proof of a single case.

If, alternatively, they ran up a £5k expenses bill for no other reason than to win one single speeding case, then IMHO they should have stopped to consider whether that response were proportionate.

As you say, people have a right to their day in court. How does is serve justice if people feel that to do so might end up costing them £5000?

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

Law is written by parliament and the House of Lords.
It is then tested and proven in the courts
It takes a few cases testing the law to make it work properly. Bad law would backfire and get swiftly revised
However, these cases are being manipulated by the excessive costs.
It is my understanding that to date Dr Clarke has fought 6 of these cases and won 4 and told 2 to plead guilty before the hearing. at least one case the crown decided to fold just before the day.
I believe there is a tidy little queue of cases which are all on legal aid in the pipe line. (I hope they all don’t cost the tax payer £30k each!)

I also think that the cps differ in quality around the country.

_________________
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

Why should someone have to accept the £60 fine and 3 points without question if they have reasonable grounds for believing they are not guilty.

As I have experienced, all of the advantages are with the police, who have unlimited funds, all the experts and experience they could want, a forest of legal barriers as well as manipulating the system and evidence to their advantage.

The most criminal part of the system is that the accused driver cannot get a copy of the evidence that has not been manipulated before having to decide whether to take their case to court.

Everyone, apart from the camera operators and others who benefit from its use, has good reason to believe the instrument is untrustworthy. This is to the extent that it would seem that the Home Office are not prepared to subject it to any operational audits to determine if it is achieving and sustaining the necessary standards of accuracy and reliabilities with the vagaries of normal roadside operating conditions.

Clearly rather than face up to the limitations of the equipment and how it is operated, it would seem the authorities will go to any lengths to deter anyone from defending themselves against unreliable and unjust speeding allegations.

JT, anton & Dr L have contributed well written posts and made some excellent points which reflect my views on the situation too.

Simply put, the playing field is uneven. We all want justice to be served, but by not acknowledging the "raise the stakes" model apparently being applied (excellent poker analogy btw, JT) we are implicitly supporting the unfair aspects of the system.

As a litmus test, I imagine how I would feel if I was in the position of a defendent in this situation with a busy life, demanding job, family responsibilities but also with limited resources. The more the stakes are raised, the more stress I would feel. I can imagine many people would give up their fight for justice prematurely due to a feeling of this stress. Or should I use the word "intimidation"?...

Don't forget camera operator! His posts are good too! Just a diferent view.

_________________
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

Good point, I also enjoy reading fisherman's contributions, excellent stuff.
I just let my partisan tendencies show

i take on board your comments (keep them sweet )

we have now got a fixed penalty system in certain areas for offences like drunk and dosoredely, anti social behaviour etc, someone is arrested and offered a fpt, they then have the option to except the fpt or go to court the choice is theirs

_________________
now retired

But if someone decides to contest a D&D FPT, are the local plod going to fly a "breathaliser expert" in from the USA?

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

So especially in the light of revelations regarding Abu Hammza, and the CPS refusal to prosecute on two prior occasions, with the same evidence from the police as was used in the recent case, I can only assume that they are failing miserably in inspiring confidence.
My own experience is that I waited over 12 months to go to court, plus travelling time and expense (tax payers) and because of a simple oversight, which was not revealed until the day in court - mainly the notice of intended prosecution served verbally by the police, was backed up by a written notice served on the leasing company of the vehicle and not the defendent, the case was dismissed on a technicality!

Clearly the CPS operate on behalf of the CROWN as their name suggests, so people's perceptions of their activities is bound to be coloured.

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

Does anyone know why the appealant dropped the case - I wonder if there had been any bluff and bluster from the CPS about costs?

One thing to remember is that this does not put to bed the LTI2020 issue. as it has not been tested in court.

secondly CamOp you need to be careful about refering to ASBOs in the same light of minor criminal offences. they are entirely different.

lastly - any step by the govt. to discourage appeals through financial penalty is a serious issue for justice.

The fact that the CPS had to hire the 'top man' suggests that any rumour about the LTI 2020 is probably true - otherwise such a fool proof technical device could have been defended by anyone properly trainined.

The CPS have a lot to answer for. The Police Service have little time for them and the general public have little time for them either. As Terry Thomas (who?) might have said; "They're an absolute shower".
A close friend has been badly let down by them only recently. He is an ABA Boxing Judge and the father of one youngster didn't like the judges decision on his bout, so he seriously assaulted my friend, who is now 75.
The Police took the case to the CPS who decided not to proceed with the ABH charge as there was 'insufficient evidence'. The only evidence they had were 200 spectators, 2 other judges, the referee and the ABA official in charge. Now, something stinks here. My friens is aiming to proceed with a personal damages claim.
As my friend said; "... but if I had been driving a car and committed a minor offence they would hound me all the way".
That's what we now have and we must, surely, fight this attack on the average driver for really minor and victimless offences as hard as we can.

People who have been caught speeding think speeding is a victimless offence, after all no one was killed.
Shoplifters think theirs is a victimless crime, after all supermarkets make millions in profits.
Burglars think theirs is a victimless crime, after all everybody with anything worth nicking has it insured.

Personally I think there is no such thing as a victimless crime.
In a democracy we elect a government to make laws on our behalf. If we don't like the laws we campaign for change and, if necessary, vote out the government and vote in a different one that will see things our way.

When people take the view that the law does not apply to them democracy suffers. That means we are all victims.

I don't think that's a fair analogy.

It is not whether or not someone was killed that is the measure of the severity of a motoring violation - after all fatalities on the road are mercifully rare.

The object of enforcing traffic laws is actually to reduce the risk of someone being killed, so the actual measure we need to use is whether the level of risk was affected by the offence.

If someone breaks a speed limit, but in doing so causes no measurable increase in risk, then to me that makes it a victimless crime.

This is why I believe traditional road policing was so much more effective. Apart from the odd bad apple, traffic policemen applied common sense and discretion, and would go after motorists where they saw an appreciable increase in risk. After all, the traditional "acid lecture" is a bit thin if there was no actual safety issue to lecture the motorist about, and I don't doubt that they realised this too.

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

who said anything about ASBOS, i said there is a system where someone arrested for d&d can be offered a fpt rather than go to court, the choice is theirs

_________________
now retired

Leaving aside the emergency services, there are two circumstances in which drivers break the speed limit.

One is incompetence. In other words they wanted to obey the limit but their skills are not good enough. My view is that these people need to have it pointed out that they are below the standard required before their driving deteriorates further. If left unchallenged there is a real risk of more serious offences in the future.

The other is drivers who take a deliberate decision that the law does not apply to them. So often I hear in court "why don't you catch some real criminals".
What that means is that he wants the system to concentrate on other people who have decided that the law does not apply to them. but to allow him to continue to ignore laws as and when he chooses.

people don't value democracy until they find themselves living in a dictatorship.