Safe Speed Forums

Everyone except the police officers who have lost cases when the court found the defendant not guilty.


The burden of proof is taken very seriously. Its very rare indeed for a defendant to prove he didn't do whatever it was he is accused of. If he could prove that he didn't do it the CPS would not prosecute as they would be bound to lose. Just about every not guilty is down to resonable doubt.

Well I probably wouldn't go quite that far, but now you mention it, it seems reasonable if you could claim back the cost of the ammunition.
The point where the burglar has been subdued, property recovered and experienced a bit of punishment (because the courts won't punish him properly).
Miscarriages of justice happen all the time as you probably know, far better than me...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Fisherman wrote



All for it! Why should the bastard get away scot-free?

(And he/she can have the ammo for free! )

Fisherman you quote

"And therein lies the problem, you have no proof but you still think it happens. Courts can't guess, we must have proof from the CPS or reasonable doubt from the other. In general, a statement that "I wasn't speeding" is not enough. It needs some sort of support to give credence to it. "

Unless I am prepared to be caught speeding and follow it through to the bitter end I will never get to see this proof. However, there are many who have followed it through and I link you to this video from the BBC:-

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


It provides me with enough evidence to say that I do not believe these automated tax collectors are correct enough to be believed.

Personally, I feel we are concentrating on the wrong point and we should get rid of the absolute crime of speeding and concentrate on excessive speed and unsafe driving, their videos could still be used to capture an unsafe speed and unsafe driving, just that the emphasis is different.


When I have passed the scam vans and see them sitting behind the screen I do not believe that they visually form an opinion without the camera screen showing that the car is speeding and I believe that they hit every car passing the beam. Perhaps this is why they are reluctant to show full session videos.

Election or not we do not in our democracy have the capability to change anything in an election. It is the same whichever side is in as they milk the system to stay in power using sound bites that fool the populace.

Tax, Education, health and immigration.

Nor do the civil service advisors, Chief Cons, H&S, Euro rules etc., change after an election, they still feed the politicians with the same guff.

By the way if 30,000 of you decided that the system was unfair and decided not to continue with these motoring cases then I am quite sure someone would sit up and listen.

I will search for the Magistrate who quit but it is a distant memory, perhaps someone on the board remembers.

Found it. It is not about speeding but about unfair practice, he resigned on moral grounds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/camb ... 548489.stm

Regards

Hear, hear!

Best thing I've read in a long time. Pure common-sense.

I base my comments on what I've seen and experienced on the motorways (UK and Germany) and NSL roads, as opposed to mere numbers generated from those who have financial interests in the matter (I’ve made that mistake once, never again).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Me too

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

I have seen magistrates courts with lay magistrates and with stipendiary (now DS).

I was most unimpressed with the former.

The clerk of the court ran the court. In effect he told the magistrates how they were going to find the cases. The clerk did 90% of the talking and was, in my opinion, far too friendly with the prosecution. To the point that it was obvious that he was biased in favour of the prosecution. (These were not just motoring cases.)

The Stipendiary magistrate, however, took no nonsense from anyone. Prosecution or defence! He was fair but firm and took one police officer to pieces when it became clear he was not only lying in order to obtain a conviction, but had actually stolen an item if evidence in the court.

I think there is a problem with lay magistrates tending to believe the evidence of people they see, week in, week out.

And as for points made that even though there is a quasi-commercial link between the police, the courts and the camera partnership, there is no bias. This ignores one very important rule: "Justice must not only be impartial, it must be seen to be impartial."

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Let's not forget, either, that the Clerk to the Justices is an employee of the Courts Service, unlike the Magistrates, and the Courts Service is a 'Partner' in the Camera Partnership. Thus, in the court, the Clerk is actually a representative of the Camera Partnership (by association). He's the one who 'guides' the Magistrates in respect of the law. There is a 'bias' in the person of the one whose advice is taken by the independent Magistrates.
That says it all really. It's justice being seen not to be as fair and above-board as it should be.
If someone were to challenge this they would probably be accused of 'contempt of the court'.
That reminds me of a famous barrister Mr. F.E. Smith (later Lord Birkenhead) who, when asked by the judge, the two of them being long-time adverseries, if he were trying to show his contempt for that Judge's court, replied, "No, your honour, I'm doing my very best to hide it!".

You seem to be confusing The Clerk to the Justices with Court Clerks. In each area there is only one Clerk to the Justices and he or she very rarely, if ever, takes a court.

One thing you omit to mention is that both the Clerk to the Justices and Court Clerks have their judicial independence guaranteed.

All clerks are able to give advice to the justices without any risk to their jobs if they fail to toe the government line.
Any clerk who gives biased advice does put his or her job at risk, along with their liberty. Why would any clerk risk that just to secure another speeding conviction? Its not as if there is any shortage of speeders.

Thatsnews, can you remember in which year, and which court, the police officer admitted theft and perverting the course of justice while under oath? He would have recieved a considerable prison sentence for such crimes.

It would be useful for me to know the details as I help train police officers in court procedure and it would be nice to be able to quote a real case, so that they fully understand the seriousness of taking the witness oath.

It was in the mid 1980s in Wolverhampton.

The officer pocketed a statement he had signed, which he has been handed to agree he had signed it. Having realised that he had just given evidence that was not on the statement.

It was "just a terrible error, your honour." Yeah, right. If looks from the stipendiary magistrate could have killed, the PC would have been a smouldering heap.

I do not believe it was taken any further. My law lecturer thought it should have been...

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/