Safe Speed Forums

In a free society, fundamental principles of justice are:

(a) the accused are considered innocent unless proven guilty, and
(b) nobody is required to incriminate themself

If the authorities cannot prove somebody guilty, according to their own rules and procedures, then who are we to say that they are guilty?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

The point Stephen is making which I totally agree with, is that, although there may have been an error in the procedure when bringing a person in front of the courts, if they are guilty, than justice is not done if they are let off on a technicality.
Think “The Justice System” that’s not exactly justice is it.
Again it’s very different when it’s your house that’s rammed in to by a drunk millionaire, or your daughter paralyzed/killed.
We all forget, we want justice, if that means overlooking a genuine mistake in a simple procedure to get that justice, what is the problem there?

There is a danger here, that if people dont see justice being done, they will take matters into their own hands - police OR the victims.

One case which springs to mind is the air traffic controller who contributed to the crash of two aircraft, who was murdered by one of the victims family member.
I'm sure from my own experience that this sort of responce is quite common, if not at the same level. We had an incidence in the village where I work, of a householder, who felt his complaints regarding local children targeting his house went unaddressed, so he "assaulted" one of them. Whilst the child's parents were unhappy with this, other householders were prepared to follow his example.

Mr Loophole's customers while escaping punishment via the letter of the law, will find they lose the respect and protection of society at large. If Alex Fergusson got taken short and asked to use my facilities, he'd get told where to go!

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

So you would favour the police being given carte blanche to search houses without a warrant and beat confessions out of suspects, would you?

Those are only technicalities if the people are guilty, aren't they?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

What an outrageous suggestion, don’t know where you got that from.
NO, my point is, if a statement, as Stephen suggested, went before the courts without the signature required in a murder case, I feel it would be justified (had the person been guilty beyond reasonable doubt) if the judge/magistrate’s could overlook that error should the Police officer who took the statement to swear on oath it was there statement and an honest error.
Not an everyday occurrence, but a rarity that needed to be overlooked for justice to prevail.
What you are suggesting is that the Justice System would be correct in letting a Murderer walk free because of this tenie weenie mistake.

Who decides what's a "teeny weenie mistake"?

"Oh, we forgot to get a warrant."

"Oh, my hand must just have slipped and hit him."

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

As stated, the Judge/Magistrates.
And my example was that of a forgotten signature on a statement, wrong date etc
Not of a Police officer beating ten tons of… out of someone, there is a clear difference between the two.

Do such indescretions then go both ways? If we are to have treat the law 'in the spirit of', then such a notion could surely expect to be reciprocated by a defendant. If we are to go down such a route, who decides how far one can go?

Personally, i'd like to see descretion used by both parties but such powers of descretion are being removed from the judciary and the Police.

Precisely. Without it, the alternative is a kangaroo court. "Ah, what the hell, we all know he's guilty, so why bother with a trial, it just wastes time and money." That way the independence (?!) of the judiciary from the prosecution is undermined.

So you would all prefer a murderer walk free because an overworked Police Officer forgot to sign a statement?

Because that’s the reality.
Can we all sleep easy at night knowing that should one of our loved ones be murdered in there sleep or raped walking back from a friend’s house, and the murderer/rapist was brought to trial they could walk free?
I feel the judge should be able to weigh it up, had it been an illegal search warrant, then different, but a forgotten signature??

We would all have far different attitudes if it was our daughter/Son murdered or raped.

Justice if the murderer walks free?
(we are talking about cases where they are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt remember)

Sorry, but that just has to be a case of "tough". If there is a requirement for a statement to be signed then signed it must be, else it is inadmissible. If there is no need for it to be signed then the law should be changed. Simple as that, you can't just gloss over law, especially in a court.

As others have said, we have to accept it the other way around. I can't stand up in court and say "I was driving safely, therefore I am not guilty", on the basis that exceeding the speed limit was just a technicality.

Rules, laws and procedures are there for a reason: to ensure that people get a fair trial. That's not just the 1% of cases where a blind drunk motorist "gets off on a technicality", but the other 99% who genuinely were NG but would get banged up if the law were relaxed and procedures needn't be followed to the letter, that the "hunch" of the prosecution that "they are clearly guilty" were enough to satisfy the court.

As per Blackstone's formulation: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

But the whole point of all the rules and procedures is that if they are not followed then there IS reasonable doubt. The argument for ignoring them is completely circular!

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

“Officer, did you write this statement?”

“Yes your worship”

“And why is there no signature?”

“I’m terribly sorry your worship, I forgot the signature, however I will state under oath that it is the true events of the day in question”

“I will allow this to proceed on this occasion, I would suggest officer, you do not make this mistake again”

Where is the problem?

And what's to stop the police doctoring the statement before it gets to court?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

The problem is that this is not a plausible scenario. If the officer were present in court then he could testify directly, therefore the presence [or otherwise] of a signature on any statement he might have made would be irrelevant.

However, if the officer were not present, and the case swung on evidence given in a statement, the rules for which state that it MUST be signed in order to prove its veracity, how then? Should it be accepted and the client found Guilty just because the prosecuting advocate [who isn't a witness] says it is genuine?

Would you accept an unsigned cheque as payment?

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

Fair point, which is why I feel should there be some allowance for unexpected, unforeseen genuine error (that doesn’t change the fact the person is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt) then perhaps the case can be heard at a latter date.

Again, it’s the Justice System, had an Officer forgotten a signature and not been present, or forgot to sign an exhibit statement, they should reschedule, rather than let the guilty person walk free.

How would it be justice for the bereaved family in your scenario?

Fair point, which is why I feel should there be some allowance for unexpected, unforeseen genuine error (that doesn’t change the fact the person is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt) then perhaps the case can be heard at a latter date.

Again, it’s the Justice System, had an Officer forgotten a signature and not been present, or forgot to sign an exhibit statement, they should reschedule, rather than let the guilty person walk free.
[/quote]
Which is exactly how the legal system does work. Adjournments can be granted to sort things out, but not generally to correct obvious, major errors by the prosecution. Somewhere there has to be a balance - if the prosecution are basically lacking the competence to bring a proper case to court, then it is hardly fair to the defendant to have to keep adjourning and waiting for months of uncertainty while each error is corrected, one by one.

Remember of course, that at this stage he must be presumed innocent. All this "we know he is guilty" stuff has to be regarded as nonsense until such time as a court has found him so, beyond reasonable doubt.

How is it justice if ten other people get banged up wrongfully, without their cases being proved to the current level. What about their families?

Remember, the "emotive appeal" game applies to both sides.

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

I do not know if any of you realise that most of Mr Loopholes defences rely on minor discrepancies, within paperwork that is not in direct conflict with the evidence to prove the case against his client, but in paperwork submitted as a direct result of there clients offence ie the RTC report.

He is aware of these facts well before the trial date but this is what he bases his defence on and a lot of the times he sees the error, and does not request the officer to attend court on the trial date, therefor brings out the discrepencies in court and they can not be disputed,therefor has the officers evidence ommitted and goes on to say that the crown can not prove beyond all reasonable doubt etc etc, call this justice no its blatant misleading amongst other things .

So, perhaps justice has caught up with him at last and he is going to get at least his ar*e bitten just like we have had over the past. I am all for a fair trial but it has to be seen to be fair all round not a one way street.
Stephen

Does that sentiment hold where the police are concerned?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

From what I have seen "teeny weeny mistakes" are delt with under the slip rule in court. little things are gloosed over like a wrongly spelt name or wrongly addresses nip. Even a few lies are not enough to halt a prosicution. The court room is weighted towards the police.

There are cases ongoing with big errors that have been found guilty and are subject to appeal... like the car was going in the other direction to what the laser said!



This case was not neccessarily a teeny weeny mistake.

The law was changed so that blood could be taken before the persons blood levels returned to normal, preserving life is the job of hospital doctors and comes before gathering evidence, which must be done by the police surgeon. He must have been in a very serious way to get 7 doctors.
The police got thier knuckles wrapped in the court for breaking very important bounderies in law AND medical ethics.

I don't think you have addressed this point.

_________________
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

I just don't understand all this. There is no 'spirit of the law' there is the letter of the law. If I don't comply with the minor technical offence of speeding then, if proven, I will be found guilty.

If the prosecutors are too slack to follow the same laws then tough on them and tough on society. If our prosecutors are not competent then they should not be in the job.

Don't give me all this bleeding heart cr4p about 'what if it were your mother/brother/wife/child' be in no doubt if someone 'got off' on a technicality due to police/cps failures then I would hold the perpetrator responsible for their actions and the prosecutors responsible for theirs (or lack of action).

Aggressive enforcement of technical offences has led us to this situation. The 'authorities' have brought all of this upon themselves. A rift has been driven between the police and those who have long considered themselves to be, honest, law abiding citizens.

My views on Freeman are pretty indifferent in general, However I believe that this is a show trial intended to scare of others from pursuing justice. To that end I sincerely hope that he is cleared and then finds a way of causing Gwent constabulary severe legal embarassment.