Safe Speed Forums

I will reply to any poster where I feel that he or she is interested in the truth. Your refusal to accept any possibilty that someone who disagrees with you might possibly be right is why I don't usually reply to you. The thread about risk of disease from cats being just one example. You were right and the whole of medical and veterinary science was wrong.




Pretentious moi?

TBH I am not sure if the admin people from HMCS do get involved with recovering costs or not. I know they are involved with scheduling courts to deal with cases which are too serious for a FPN or where the FPN has been declined.

I can say that JPs are not involved in any way with the SCPs. In any case our judicial independence is guaranteed and jail awaits any JP who compromises his or her independence.

I have heard lots of allegations against JPs, the commonest of which is that we are in league with the CPS. I have yet to hear a convincing reason why I would risk jail for doing so just to secure a small fine for a motoring offence. especially so when I would not benefit from the fine.

Thats interesting, because the facts actually backed up the points I was making, you were, however, choosing to argue against different points. I claim en passant.

Whilst on the subject, however, I believe it was you who was being picky-choosy about only recognising studies that agreed with your own point of view! Hello pot, this is kettle calling!

Subsequently, and under this guise, you have opted to ignore many relevant points I have made, merely because they are inconvenient to your stance.

QED on this one!



I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting tacit collusion between any magistrates and the CPS. The concern is, as I see it, with their willingness to take the CPS, or more often their witnesses, unquestioningly at their word, particularly when their word is, all too often, demonstrably deceitful!

Really?




The problem is that the defence have to show, at the very minimum, a reasonable doubt about the prosecution evidence.
saying "thats not right" or "this is not justice" or "I shouldn't be convicted" doesn't do it.

Um, no, the prosecution have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, which is not the same thing!!

Contrary to what you are implying, I don't see the quote from Cooperman as being in any way contradictory to that of RobinXe. The problem is this:

1. The SCPs are, in effect, a profit making business entity.
2. It can clearly be seen that the duty of anyone declaring themselves to be a partner of a company to act in that company's best interests.
3. It is clearly in the interests of the SCPs to do all they can to dissuade motorists they accuse of speeding from taking their cases to court. As soon as a case goes to court they lose any chance of gaining income from it.
4. HMCS are a partner in CSCP; and the employers of the court clerks who advise the Magistrates on how they should interpret the law.

This is an absolutely crystal clear conflict of interests. When a point of law or (perhaps) the validity of some evidence needs to be clarified the Clerk no longer has a sole duty to be impartial, he also has a duty to act in the best interests of his employer. In this case this would be to advise the Magistrate in such a way as to make it more likely for the defendant to be found guilty, thus dissuading others from taking their cases to court and depriving the SCP of their revenue stream.

You may argue that no such effect takes place; that the clerks are utterly impartial and do not try to sway the Magistrates in any way. This may be true, but the fact remains that as long as HMCS are partners in the cash camera company the incentive for such impartiality exists, and therefore the suspicion that the courts are dishing out unfair verdicts in order to protect the interests of their trading partners.

Either way, it was with a slight ironic smirk that I read Ernest's case reported in the Westmorland Gazette, where they summarised it as saying that "Mr Marsh failed to prove his case". They certainly seem to have unwittingly captured the general public perception regarding speeding cases as being "guilty until proven innocent"!

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

Well said JT.

Perhaps we should remind the Gazette that the defendant in a "criminal" trial is in no way required to prove anything. I haven't seen the article yet, but it sounds like another case of journalists writing about something they don't really understand

Saturday's Lancs Evening Post an article started off saying several drivers had been arrested no less for speeding on rural roads. It went on to say they had been offered FPN's

I rest my case

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

I suspect that like the magistrates, the technical aspect went straight over the Gazette reporter's head.
I was told that evidence had to be produced in court.
The photographs do not constitute irrefutable evidence, BUT the camera operative telling us that the computer in his office DID show it more clearly, was accepted by the magistrates.

My swearing on the bible - something I did not undertake lightly - made no difference - they accepted the word of a man who swears on the bible for a living, because they either dont know any better, OR chose not to believe, in case it rocked the government boat.
I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, and choose the former.

The camera partnership and Redspeed however know better, and collude to obscure the truth, and mislead the magistrates. Proving this will be an uphill struggle given the resources they can bring to bear.

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

Two very well written posts, courtesy of JT & Ernest. Thanks to you both for making the effort.
Not only well written as far as style is concerned, but both posts actually contain very important and powerful content.

I hope that many people will read them carefully and think about what they mean regarding the general public (especially the driving public) and the judicial system.

_________________
p.s. I am still absolutely floored by Paul's death. May 2008 be the greatest ever for SafeSpeed. His spirit lives on.

I actually bought one about two years ago but sent it back when I heard the laser bit was going to be made illegal, which happened about a year ago didn't it?

I thought the laser detector was the most useful part to be honest because I don't have internet at home to update the unit all the time.

Also, call me cynical but can you always trust you will get accurate updates if they're coming via the police? I wouldn't trust them always to divulge the correct time/place if they adgenda is to catch people.

We know the fixed ones aren't always visible too so...

As an aside, I notice the manufacturers even refer to their devices as a safety unit. Cough

_________________
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.

Turn-about is fair play.

It certainly should be. Little bro watchin big bro

_________________
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.

During the presentation of their evidence the prosecution are required to prove the elements of the case to a standard which would enable a jury to convict after being properly directed as to the relevant law.

If the defence wish to obtain a not guilty verdict they must introduce the element of reasonable doubt. As I have previously stated that can't be done by merely saying the CPS are wrong.

This is, of course, entirely without foundation. Court clerks not only have their judicial independence guaranteed by law, but are required to act at all times in the interests of justice.
The quickest way for a clerk to lose his job, and put himself at risk of criminal sanction, would be to favour one side or the other, thus failing to act in the interests of justice.



As no such incentive exists any suspicion must be founded on supposition.

Are you saying it is actually unlawful for HMCS to enter into a business partnership with (eg) CSCP?

I must admit I'd never previously considered this angle, but you could be onto something!


Of course it exists! If they are partners in a commercial operation, namely a Speed Camera Partnership, then they have a duty in law to act in its best interests.

And as we can clearly see, the best interests of the companies operating the speed cameras are served when the public are strongly dissuaded from taking their cases to court.

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

I'm not sure where this fits in with that ethos then.

Clerk: "I presume you will be asking for costs - the usual £200 then?"

CPS Prosecutor "Yes. Err... costs of £135"

I was not happy at the clerk suggesting figures to the CPS - I would have preferred the CPS to make up their own mind based on each circumstance.
Is this normal?

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

I'm inclined to agree with Fishy on the count of the Clerks' impartiality tbh. Whilst I was in post there was a certain paddy-wagon-chasing legal aid lawyer I saw time and again, who's patter never changed, whatever the charge.

Assumption may well be the mother of all f*ck-ups, but to do so on the part of the clerk, in the circumstances given by Ernest, smacks merely of unprofessionalism, borne of familiarity, rather than corruption.

That said, were any clerk to form a familiar biasing sympathy with the CPS, who try guilty case after guilty case, day in and day out, it would have to be considered only human, even if altogether wrong!

What troubles me most is this:



This would suggest to me that magistrates are being instructed to second-guess juries. This is not their place!!

In many cases, it would seem, merely saying the CPS is wrong would be quite enough to introduce reasonable doubt.

The job of the CPS witnesses, often with their own vested interests in the outcome of the case, is not to say "I believe it is so, so it must be so", and to have that accepted by the court. Their job is to make the lay-people understand, be they magistrate or juror, why their interpretation is correct, beyond reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this; "my computer back at the office tells me its so, so I will testify it is so, and you'll believe me", then the rebuttal "they're wrong" is absolutely enough to introduce reasonable doubt!!!

It genuinely concerns me that so many cases, it seems, would warrant a hearing before a crown court because magistrates are attempting to prejudge the jury's opinion of that trial, rather than trying the facts in front of them, as they are presented! These cases will never see a jury trial, however, due to the lack of funds and willing for such a relatively trivial punishment, and so the magistrates courts are allowed to continue in the status quo unchecked.

By that logic, no one would ever commit crimes. To conclude based on this that nobody therefore ever does a crime is a fallacy as you well know. Would you accept this as evidence of innocence from say, an accused drink driver? "Why would I drink and drive knowing full well that I would lose my job?"

I am saying nothing of the kind.

You said (bold emphasis is mine)
I pointed out that a clerk has no duty to his employer where such action would not be in the interests of justice.




HMCS may be partners. Court clerks are not. Court clerks have a guaranteed independence from such a duty in law.

Its considered to be in the interests of justice that part at least of the financial burden of a failed defence falls upon the person who pursued it.