Safe Speed Forums

Link to Daily Mirror

it works (the link i mean), pretty harsh but cannot find this article on any success forums

_________________
now retired

This is one way in which the Scottish system is fairer as each side pays their own costs. Never going to be a completely fair fight though, as the prosecuting authority's finances are essentially without limit and their staff are paid to spend time in court. Anyone accused has to take time off work, appoint solicitors etc

I wonder how many people accept a fixed penalty, even if they don't believe they are guilty, just because it's cheaper than fighting to prove their innocence? (and we all know that's how camera offences are really dealt with. Guilt is assumed)

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Does that mean that Frank Garrett wasn't up to the job of defending the product?

That's worrying! Anyone who wishes to launch such a challenge must now accept the risk of such a legal bill (and that was excluding court time) – which will put most off straight away.

If that’s not intimidation then I don’t know what is!

Link to Telegraph

How could the american guy be used as an expert witness anyway? He works for the firm that makes and sells the cameras and clearly has a conflict of interest. Not quite as much as Mr Garrett, though.

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

It's worse than that, Jeremy Dunne is the registered inventor on many aspects of the equipment.

I wonder what spooked TeleTraffic enough to make them call in the big gun? Usually, Garrett's BS claim of "you can't get slip from a moving target" is enough to satisfy the court!

So, he clearly doesn't have any form of vested interest in ensuring that these cameras are seen to be accurate and infallible then?

Why am I not surprised?

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Can't see why the Yank couldn't do a sworn statement and have it sent across, or even use a video link. This is just another example of the punitive tactics used to make an example of anyone who dares fight back, so the rest of us are cowed into pleading guilty without question.
Which ties in with the post on Redspeed cameras, and the lack of photographic evidence- "our equipment says you were speeding, so pay up or risk a bill like this".

...but wasting public money in this way could be a matter for scrutiny by the media, especially if there were more efficient ways to present the witness statement. At least there is no incentive to artificially inflate costs in order to intimidate the defender.

It would also not go unnoticed that such a witness would be regarded as 'partial'.

If you get legal aid, experts costs come out of a central fund. You can get leagal aid by writing to the CPS and explaing that it is a complex case involving expert witnesses. It does not rely on your income.

It also apears from the cases that I have been involved with that if you don't empoly an expert they won't deploy one against you.

What I want confirmed is do the costs from central funds get passed on to the defendant. I don't think so.

_________________
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 annoys me most is that the maximum punishment for most traffic offences is supposed to be set at £1000. There are also guidleines which magistrates need to keep to, that determine that the penalty should usually be much lower; if they constantly ignore them they will be investiagted.

What they are clearly doing with 'costs' is using them to get around the guidelines/rules on maximum sentences.

Perhaps an PR is in order?

I've been playing with it. But I think the news boat has already sailed.

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

Certainly there are serious issues when it comes to right-of-trial and spede cameras. I don't think they're insurmountable, but nonsense like this has to stop.

I am curious as to why he dropped his appeal though. I guess we'll never know.

from the paper (not the link) the photograph shows an E03 error and the driver was convinced the LTI had malfunctioned, no doubt he had followed someones advice and elected court rather than pay into the SCP coffers, this was an appeal so would image crown court after being given 5 points at mag court

_________________
now retired

I doubt that would have been the reason for the offender to bring the case, TT wouldn't need JD to explain that E03 isn't a device fault code.


I bet he now wishes he was a :SS: or PPP member

thats what the paper says (as you said smeggy i cannot quote correctlyso there is no wayi can scan and upload the article i have in front of me ), but reading the article he had been convicted, lodged an appeal and dropped it probably before the hearing was due,

the offence was in on the A69 Nafferton, Northumberland and was heard at Newcastle Crown court

anyone know the namesof the local papers

_________________
now retired

If you have evidence of this then you MUST report the court(s) concerned to the Lord Chancellors department ASAP.

If, as I suspect to be the case you are guessing, you have guessed wrong.

A sentence (eg a fine) is imposed as a punishment and varies according to the seriousness of the offence in question, with the starting point determined by guidelines.

Costs are just that, expenditure which has been incurred by one side or the other in the preparation and presentation of their case.

If the defendant in this case had won he would have expected the CPS to pay his costs.


For both costs and fines, courts must set them at a level which the defendant can afford to pay within one year (ish) regardless of the amount the court considers appropriate for the circumstances.

Only possible if the defendant agrees the statement.

The defendant raised questions that required someone with considerable knowledge to answer. The CPS could either agree with him even if they believed him to be wrong or produce someone who could counter his argument. How is this punitive?

There is a world of difference between someone with knowledge of something who appears as a witness and someone who is an "expert witness" in the legal meaning of the phrase.
Too complex to explain here but lots of info available via google or similar.

The CPS have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The defence only need to introduce that reasonable doubt and they are home and dry. On the rare occasions when the defence need to prove something, it only has to be on the balance of probabilities.
Surely anyone who goes to court must be aware that their defence will be challenged.

Out of character for me to make a wild guess but here goes anyway - it sounds as if he may have taken advice from one of the many websites that claim to have found a loophole. And then got advice from someone who was properly qualified for the job. Courts see this sort of thing all the time.