Safe Speed Forums

Is it possible that he's been set-up?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

It'd have to be dead clever, I think, because most legal setups are illegal under entrapment.

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

It is very easy to recieve a peice of paper, read it and then completley forget of its existance or its contents. How much do we or Nick Freeman read each day? I can follow one or two cases in great detail but 10 or 20?

It would be possible to prove the documet was in the possesion of the client even in the possesion of nick , but unless he then produced it as evidence to prove another point to prove he knew he had it in his possesion and willfully ignored that with the intent of PTCOJ... that is another thing.

_________________
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

If that is indeed the issue then I would say Gwent are doomed and we'll see a lot of frenetic scamera overtime to make up the some extra funds for the coffers!!

"In jurisprudence, entrapment is a legal defense by which a defendant may argue that he or she should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment, a widely held misconception similar to the idea that police officers must answer questions truthfully if they are asked the same question three times, or that they must say "yes" if asked if they are a police officer"

Lets wait and see shall we.
I have no doubt, that Gwent Police have an airtight case, they’d have to really.
This guys got a reputation of getting people off the hook (so to speak) Mr Loophole, that won’t have been overlooked by the investigators, let’s give the police a little credit.

If he is guilty, I hope he goes down.
Just because you have an incredible understanding of the law, does not mean you are above it.

Interesting quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Sto ... 65,00.html
Mr Loophole said....



The guy the Police claimed was to blame for the accident was four times over the drink drive limit when the Police arrested him.

Well done Mr Loophole, you should be proud!

Scumbag.

I agree some of the cases Mr Loophole won are real eye openers. But lets face it. If I have a serious accident the last thing I want is some (equally scumbag, in this case?) police surgeon getting in the way of my medical care.

You might think all drink drivers don't deserve the protection of the law. But the driver might not have been drunk, he might have had a stroke and your police surgeon was getting in the way. The law was written to prevent this and the police surgeon broke the law. May be you should just leave drunk drivers to die at the side of the road? or hold the court case at the road side before calling the ambulance? The principle Nick was upholding is that the duty to preseve life comes before detection of crime and prosicution of crime. Isn't that in the police oath any more?
(its been watered down?)

What about the coppers wife , found with similar drink drive levels , hanging out of her car in a motorway service area. Just as dispicable, And the serving police officer who used his services to get him off drink driving as proceedures had not been followed. He does work for the public, the stars and the police when the law turns against them. I will follow any case (if it materialises) with interest.

I have also seen coppers lie in court, so lets see a few of them charged with PTCOJ

_________________
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

Quoting emotive examples is irrelevant. If you make a law with complex rules then presumably:

- the complexity was introduced for a reason
- you must keep to the letter of the law in enforcing it

As an appointed enforcer of the law, you presumably expect the public to respect all the detailed aspects of it. The public only expect you to do the same. If you can't then you only have yourself and the lawmakers to blame.

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

The arguments are irrelevant, the point is, he stated he knew the driver was over the limit but got him off the hook.

So as I suggested, Scumbag.

Mike,
When you grow up move to Singapore, they still ''hang 'em 'n' flog 'em" there.
You'd love it.

"Just because you have an incredible understanding of the law, does not mean you are above it."
This applies to the Police too.

fatboytim

I agree re: the Cops, never said otherwise!

My point, before the insults came my way was that; how can it be justified that someone who is 4 times over the drink drive limit, and lets not beat around the bush (he’s Pi@’d) get done for crashing in to his neighbors house, then gets of on a technicality and we all say, fair do’s.

What kind of website is this?
How is that fighting for motorists justice if he is clearly guilty, (which he admitted to being), I’m lost here.
Just don’t understand it, no matter how old I am, if you get drunk and go smash in to your neighbors house, possibly endangering life. How can you walk free and call it justice?

So Mike, are you suggesting that lawyers can also decide to be judge and jury?

Nick has gone on record as saying he want these loopholes closed.

To close the "loopholes" would be easy, the police and prosecution agencies only have to follow the procedures laid down FOR them follow to ENSURE evidence is correctly and legally obtained.
In the case of the drunken driver the police MUST have known the procedure was incorrect, meaning that the evidence may have been either illegally obtained of tampered with before testing.
The cry of "unfair" and "loophole" are frequently heard from police and prosecutors, leading to the conclusion [by me] that they are either ignorant of legal procedure or KNOW that the procedure was illegal and/or incorrect.
They are certainly not in a hurry to acknowledge any problems with speed-gun equipment or installation and use, in spite of it being documented and, hence, known. Another "loophole" ?
As for law.....the police are pushing for the legal ability to make and enforce their own "law" when necessary....exatly how far that will go is unknown at present, but given their inability and disinterest in following known and legislated procedure to guarantee correct eveidence, I would guess it will go all the way.

As for the government and loopholes, they are busy digging our graves as I type, and ignoring the European Bill of human Rights:

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/news/0,,1936149,00.html

What price freedom ?

Nope, just think Lawyers should only fight for a not guilty case if the client tells them they are not guilty.
Otherwise they should go guilty.
The guy admitted to being guilty.
It just allows very rich people to get off scott free.
For example the case of Alex Fergusson that “Mr Loophole” fought, that was nothing to do with incorrect police procedure.

I was on duty the night Mr Loophole was brought in and believe you me there is a case too answer, but I know what the outcome will be and the word scapegoat springs to mind, enough said watch this space.

On the other hand as has been said, if a man is four or five times over the legal limit and admits it why should it matter if a statement is not signed or something like that, this is not justice as I am sure if someone crashed into any of your family or property whether it be house or car, then you will want to see justice.

It's criminal some of the things he misleads the magistrates with on his summing up and the CPS sit there and let it happen,why ? because it costs to much money to appeal and have a re trial, thats why.

He is not hard to beat you just have to do your job right , which Ive done on at least three occassions with him or a barrister representing his company.

Stephen

only 3 times, i could double that, but then the press only print his success stories a bit like pepipoo

_________________
now retired

I am quite surprised at your views on this. If you believe that, for example, a form required by legislation need not be correctly completed then you should campaign to get the regulations changed after proper debate and consideration. The danger here is that if you believe it doesn't matter then the temptation is there to bend the rules to get a conviction. This is a slippery slope.

If magistrates are misled then they should be better advised in order that they understand the law properly and can argue from a position of strength.

As you say, the way to achieve convictions is not to circumvent the due process but for the police and CPS to do their job properly.

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

to that. It's amazing how it's "no such thing as a loophole, should have followed proper procedure.. blah blah blah" when it's not your own family or property, isn't it?

There's also the question of morality. If (god forbid) I ever became a lawyer, I'd like to think I had the conscience NOT to represent a guilty man. But I suppose money talks, at the end of the day.

As a slight aside, Jeremy Clarkson makes some interesting comments on the whole shebang of procedure, trials and juries in Vol 1. of "The World According To Clarkson" - it's well worth a read, and makes you think!

Well if you had your way (no dig at you) then all defendants would claim NG anyway, of course. Back to square 1.

This sums it up nicely. Our enforcement/justice system is detached from the spirit of justice; it is entirely a technical system – which is why the speed enforcement policy (among others) is the farce that it is.