Safe Speed Forums

Reading some of the above posts, there seems to be a difference of view over "reasonable doubt".

Most lay people would say, referring to Ernest's description above, that documentary evidence that the camera was not calibrated as required by law would be good enough to introduce reasonable doubt as to the evidence it provides.

The courts seem to say that this, on its own, is not sufficient to introduce doubt as there is verbal testimony from an SCP employee that there system was working acceptably. The courts balance one thing against the other.

The question seem to be just what is reasonable but, I thought the system was designed so that you are given the benefit of any doubt introduced.

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

Careful now, it sounds like you are saying that it is better to have one of the 'elite' trying and convicting all defendants than a jury of their peers. I wouldn't put that opinon past a lot of the magistrates I have met but, for all your clumsy back-biting, I did think you were worth more than that!

At the risk of going off topic:


Really? Why is this?
Would it not be better for juries to publicly outline the reasons for their decision? (as long as particular individual jurors aren’t identified or associated with particular opinions of course). Summing their deliberations into literally one or two words really doesn't give me confidence that what they concluded was right.

I saw this from Godfrey, written back in March 2004, although he had no feedback sadly...

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50

There is an interesting exchange of letters with the scameraship in the unsigned forms group. In particular the point is made that there was no way to tie up the calibration certificate wth the actual equipment with that used at the time of the offence, see : http://tinyurl.com/yt22g

I used to work for an ISO9002 registered company and we had to pay particular attention to the equipment calibration issue as part of our compliance. I have thought for a long time that the Police and Scamership calibration issue would bear expert examination in court. I am not a calibration expert, just someone who had to comply. If anyone out there is an expert out there I would think it worth a go. The case would almost certainly have to go to appeal as the lower courts appear to have a "convict at all costs policy".

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I'm very much with you on this.

I was recently preparing to defend a s172 based on the fact that I had not receieved the original NIP. There is no way that the SCP could have proved beyond doubt that it was posted. All they offered was a statement that said something like...I don't remember the individual cletter but I have no reason to believe that it wasn't posted.

As it happens the CPS folded before court but it's an interesting point.

I would have like to have seen their documented process and procedures along with audit records and any NCR's pertaining to it. Without this there is no way they could begin to prove postage.

Now consider the case where a company is obligated to name a driver under s172. If the company rep simply said...I have made exhaustive enquires and I cannot identify the driver (without actually producing comprehensive documentary evidence) then it would not be accepted.

I'm preparing a Quality Plan for a new operation as we speak. I will have to ensure that it is 100% water tight so as if followed a compliant product will be produced and that suffiecient checks and audits are carried out.

I simply do not believe that SCP's will have the same rigour.

And this could equally be said about some mags/judges, going on some of the punishments meted out! Well OTT for some and nowhere near strong enough for others...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I didn't use the word elite, or anything like it, as I know it doesn't apply to JPs and don't think it could reasonably be applied to any group of people drawn at random from the general populace.

You will also note that I did not express an opinion either way as to the relative merits of JPs and juries.

I have no problem with you stating your opinion, even though it is so often wrong, but I do wish you wouldn't keep putting forward your views as if they are mine.

Sentencers, whether judges or JPs, are obliged to sentence in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. They are also obliged to give reasons for their sentence.

There is provision, in the rare instance where they have felt that the individual circumstances of a case merit a sentence which does not accord with those guidelines, to vary a sentence to take account of the particular circumstances. In such cases the variation, and the detailed reasons for it, must be spelt out.

In any event all sentences, whether too harsh or too lenient are open to appeal.



As a concerned individual I am sure you keep a close eye on the sentencing guidelines council website and contribute your point of view to all the consultations. For instance I am sure you have sent in your views on the current consultation about sentencing for assault.
After all you wouldn't post complaints about sentencing if you were not doing your bit to get it right.

Would you?

You will need to ask your MP as I don't know why, and he or she is part of the only body of people that can change it.

Well, I was clearly mistaken, you have now reconfirmed my previously held opinions about magistrates; their double-talk and unfounded arrogance!

i would never be arrogant enough to judge 30,000 people based on information gained from a few internet discussions with one of them.

Perhaps your own attitude could do with some adjustment?

I have been reading the posts with interest and will add my tuppence worth.

I too think that the partnership between the magistrates and camera scammers creates a conflict of interests and does nothing to give me any faith in a judicial system with such an arrangement.

I believe that scammeras do lie, that they set up scammering in areas that do not need to be monitored such as aiming immediately at limit changes from above 30mph to 30mph, or on perfectly straight stretches of motorway/dual carriageway. This adds to the notion that it is a scam which is supported in a court because speeding is an absolute offence.

If the law gave oppportunity that the alleged offence was determined as being dangerous rather than just a penalty for exceeding what is an increasingly arbitary speed limit because someone thinks this is an appropriate speed then a fairness in the system could be observed.

There are millions more drivers who exceed speed limits and not all have crashes or injure someone. This indicates that speed can be safe. It is the interpretation of it in this country that is wrong and it is increasingly unjust to have it today with the proliferation of cameras as a criminal offence that brings about punishment that does not fit the crime.

Careless and dangerous driving befits punitive sentencing not the 5, 6, or 7mph over the posted limit. I drove 300 miles this week around an urban area and my average speed was 17mph as will a majority of other drivers be and yes were it was safe I most probably exceeded the 30mph but in arewas were I could not drive faster I did'nt. It is the dangerous drivers that need to be stopped.

By not taking into account that this system is flawed the judicial system indicates that it approves of a unjust process and yes you may well say that you do not make the law but you operate it and give it credence. We cannot change things in this country because democracy does not work as we are split up into small groups that cannot make an impression on an unjust rule. It takes mass protest, ie the poll tax that can engender change and this notion that speeding is dangerous is not able to produce this as no one knows who is telling the truth any more.

Lastly, there is enough evidence out there available to show that the scammers are not always correct and I put in a lnk from 2005, I think, called the truth about cameras. Sorry if you all have seen this before.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=noTllmqWjOU

Since this was produced there has been other evidence showing that cameras are not always right and that their use can be seen as somewhat dubious and everyone can be credible as a witness but just because they stand up and say under oath that they have done this that or the other does not mean that they are telling the whole truth.


It seems that we are guilty and have to prove innocence in this and that dubious testimony and dodgy equipment wins out.

If it appeared a fair system and not a money making scam then I could accept it.

Sorry for this long post and I hope it is mainly on topic but, is it Fisherman who is the Magistrate, you can argue until you are blue in the face that the magistrates are impartial but the system makes you seem partial.

you quote

" I didn't use the word elite, or anything like it, as I know it doesn't apply to JPs and don't think it could reasonably be applied to any group of people drawn at random from the general populace"


I don't think they are drawn randomly from the general populace are they. They usually volunteer and may be accepted.

They are also usually people from a middle class or higher, have aspirations to be middle class or are removed from every day life as they have time to give to attain their aspirations of grandeur and working to improve society. Any way its the Magistrates Clerk who wieilds the power in court, the magistrates just rubber stamp his/her advice on law. They cannot think for themselves

I am possibly biased by the magistrates I personally know, but I am glad I have not been tried by them.

By the way do not take this personal as I do not know you it is my opinion of people I know and my interpretation of the system, it could be me who is wrong.

Nor would I! I met plenty enough, in person, to form an opinion, on those individuals, whilst working in the system, and your continued attitude and performance leads me to believe that my opinons of them may well apply to the wider body of lay magistrates, if you are in any way representative.

Your childlike arguing technique, as evidenced by your method of rebutting points I haven't even made (your obtusity or my lack of clarity? Perhaps you deserve the benefit of the doubt, as I do often use words of more than one syllable) and then generalising "well your opinions are always wrong", coupled with your own arrogance in discounting evidence that opposes your point of view, raises serious doubt about your competence to reason on internet fora, let alone in a courtroom on issues of an individual's liberty. Add to this your blatent endorsement of yourself and your peers as arbiters of the populace, whilst demeaning jurors, and purporting yourself as some sort of legal expert, in the glaring light of your utter lack of credible legal qualifications (despite some of us having to sweat long years (not days) at university (not the Holiday Inn conference suite) for them), and your transparent subsequent efforts at back peddaling and double-talk in suggesting that this was not the case at all, I was merely putting words in your 'mouth', and I think most of the intelligent posters here will be finding any credibility you had to be wearing rather thin!

I have to say that I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a long period. Despite our initial head-to-heads, which I was willing to discount as coloured by my own poor experiences of lay magistrates, I largely avoided commenting on your posts, in an attempt to look objectively beyond my first impressions and see some real depth and quality therein. For a time I thought I had it, and I was happy and ready to be proven wrong in my initial judgement; however your recent high-handed and egotistical postings, coupled with your repeated clumsy jibes at me, have led me to conclude that my faith was ill-founded, and my first impressions were indeed correct.

It does intrigue me why you continue to post here; you don't seem to have any real interest in moving the system forwards towards safer roads, you seem quite content to be a cog in the machine, maintaining the status quo, and you are continually cagey about your stance on the issues that matter most to the posters here. It would seem you just want to pitch in with your 'I know best' posts, and perhaps that is why you are so threatened by others with real knowledge and experience?

Let me be clear, I bear you no ill-will; if you are able to take these points on board then I would very much like to engage with you in future, preferably in a more intellectual debate than an e-peen waving contest, and I would genuinely be delighted to hear your opinions on many matters, if you would ever actually express them, and see you open to those of others. I have no intention of rising to any more of your digs however; remember that arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics (google it if you don't get the reference).

Goodnight.

You've both got good points to make, but neither of you can resist popping at one another. Great great shame.

I fully agree mate, hence why I am laying it all out frankly and hoping that we can move past it and get some real value out of sensible debate! Despite everything I endeavour to retain an open mind and an open hand.

We shall see.

I have explained many times that there is no conflict of interest at the judicial level.


The offence of dangerous driving exists to cover those circumstances.


The problem is that the average british driver can't be trusted to decide when that is. Every driver who leaves home in his or her car intends to get back home with no points on their licence, no damage to themselves or their car and no damage to anything or anyone else. Every day thousands of drivers show that they have seriuously overestimated their driving abilities. We both know that if speed limits were lifted and drivers allowed to set their own, that the lunatic fringe of bad drivers would exhibit even worse driving than they do now.
I don't know if speed cameras are preventing mass mayhem or not. I do know that every day large numbers of drivers show that they are unable to protect their valuable licence by obeying posted limits. Which gives me no confidence in their ability to drive safely were they to be allowed to set their own top speed.


In my area less than 25% of the cameras have film in them at any one time. The local MP is pressing for funding to enable all of them to have film in at all times. If that ever comes about then the "money making scam" argument might actually have some sense to it.


Only "seem"? At the start of your post you were sure.
The only people who truly know how impartial JPs are, are the JPs themselves. We put time and effort into serving our local communities to ensure that when someone ends up in court they are dealt with by ordinary people. Every JP I have ever known has taken their judicial oath very seriously.




This is not meant to be offensive to anyone who posts here but, many of the complaints aired here show that the poster doesn't really understand the system. Which is not surprising given that what little information the system puts out is generally assumed to be lies, even in the abscence of any facts to support such assumptions.

Why don't some of you apply to be a JP? That way you will find out the real facts. Not least of which is that motoring offences are a tiny proportion of a JPs daily duties.

people appointed to be JPs must be at least 18 years of age. Appointments are rarely made above the age of 65 because JPs have to retire at 70 and the Lord Chancellor wants to able to get a reasonable return on the training investment.
You need to be free of serious criminal convictions but all applicants are treated on their merits.
On my bench we have a couple of long term unemployed people. Social security rules allow JPs to be "unavailable for work" for a longer time each week than is the case for other recipients of Job Seekers Allowance in oredr to fullfil their judicial role. We have a number of self employed people who can set their own hours. We have a lot of shift workers who get days off in the week.
We have NHS employees who benefit from a leave allowance aimed at encouraging staff to participate in community activities. Some of the big banks and high street shops have similar schemes, although the shops are increasingly wanting their staff to become special constables as it brings obvious benefits to the store to have a PC on the premises all the time.

We also have wealthy people with no need to work and retired people.

In short, the bench is no longer the preserve of the middle classes.
As to aspirations of grandeur, we do get some like that. They normally quietly depart during training when they are told they are not suitable. A few make it through and leave following a failure at appraisal. A few change for the better and a few manage to pass all the appraisals and just get regular stick from the rest of us.



There are people here who think I am unfit to be a JP. They have no knowledge of how I perform my duties and (I presume) think that what I report here as fact about the way system operates is actually personal opinion of how it should be.


How pleasant to reply to someone who is honest enough to say that he (she?) is posting opinion and hasn't done what so many others do and put forward unsubstantiated opinion as fact.

I post here to correct the all too frequent mis-information put out, albeit probably due to lack of knowledge and not maliciously, about the way courts work. I have seen so many cases fall apart because of the defendant based his case on misinformation, that I know this is the best way for me to contribute.


Each contributes in his or her own way. I have up to date knowledge of how the system works. Others contribute their knowledge about road safety.

I didn't think that even you would stoop to such a disgusting attack on defenceless people who, every day, are fighting a bigger battle than you or I are ever likely to face.

Except when it come to people with disabilites.