news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5340846.stm
At the risk of unleashing yet another tirade of anti-policism....an interesting article though.
|
If govt properly drafted legislation and the police constructed their cases properly in the first place there wouldn't be all these loopholes! Typical scare mongering. Innocent until proven guilty, has that been forgotten? It is all going to be coming unstuck with the ruling from the ECHR about the S172 and self incrimmination anyway. Speeders have always been easy targets to try and make the police and judiciary look efficient. The real problem is the rest of crime which actually needs a decent level of thought and application is usually going unpunished as everyone has forgotten how to do things properly while being obsessed with punishing motorists over every last piddling technicality.
teabelly
|
|
Putting speeders in the same news space as drink drivers...not at all transparent.
|
|
|
|
the police chiefs were backtracking a little when questioned live on the radio and tv this morning.
their claim is now that they will be improving the training process to ensure that police do their job properly and thoroughly in the first place so that technicalities cannot be used to avoid convictions.
and even nick freeman seemed to be supporting that view - he said he accepts that some clients he gets aquitted are "morally" guilty but not "legally" guilty.
|
"Lawyers who are trawling throug the small print" is the bit that worries me.
If there is something in the "small print" that enables an aquittal then surely it is there for a reason. Like to stop unsafe convictions, for example.?
--
Robin Reliant, formerly known as Tom Shaw
|
The introduction of 'Camera Partnerships' to undertake a job previously carried out by police and the raft of rules and regs which they are supposed to adhere to in respect of location and operation of cameras is a loophole finders dream.
Just look at pepipoo - especially the on going situation at the second Severn crossing where a scamera van is raking in thousands a week. The limit is 50, so anyone doing more is liable to be prosecuted and I have no issue with this. But there are rules and regs in force on where scamera vans can operate the main one being where there have been a high number of accidents involving death or serious injuries. IIRC this location has had one accident - a member of staff's foot was run over whilst assisting a motorist get through the tolls. If scamera partnerships have no justification for placing vans where they do and are blatantly breaking their own rules and regs I have no problem with people exploiting the loopholes created by the lawmakers.
|
I think it's time everyone stops and thinks about what the knock on affect of the current climate, of justifying breaking the law by speeding, is having on the whole of society. 99 out of 100 who get caught speeding are knowingly breaking the law, but they see it is a crime where they are the victim, due in part to the way the press covers the issue to make a profit. If everyone stood back and said hang on, I know that I might not agree with the current speed limits, but they are currently the law so I'll obey them. This would then see it filter to other issues that affect the community as a whole, and in the long term would help reduce crime as a whole. If this happened there would be a better chance of speed limits on certain roads being raised, and not constantly lowered as is the current case because those who think they know better or don't care think it's perfectly acceptable to breach them by 15-20%, but who will then bleat that they are the victim when caught in breach of the law.
As for the camera partnerships, most operate on a 10%+2mph before issuing a NIP, in a 4o mph zone with the inaccuracies of Vehicle speedos, you could be travelling at a indicated 50 mph. Which means either your knowingly breaking the law, or your not paying attention whilst driving [which is even more frightening]
|
|
|
|
|
Agree with RR. A jury or a judge should be able to determine whether technicalities have a bearing on the case in question. If the police procedures are not 100%, but we agree that someone has been acting in a dangous manner then they should be brought to justice. However if the technicalities raise doubts about if the driver was behaving in the aledged way (sorry spelling going to pot!) then it is fair to say they can't be proved guilty.
|
I'm sorry but I take a simple view of the law. If technicaltities are not upheld, then no conviction is 100% correct.
If that results in zero convictions change the law. There must be zero latitude on evidence which proves guilt
(for a separate example see man jailed for 3 years, increased to 5 on appeal (!!!!) for a rape which allegedly never happened and now freed after it was discovered complainant's record was not disclosed..and that got past the Court of Appeal.. I would not trust ANY judge with latitude on technicalities after that case.- much more serious than driving and yet apparently a mockery of justice happened twice!)
Far too much sloppy thinking imo when drafting and enforcing laws. Too many unenforceable laws. (eg using phones when driving/uninsureddrivers/no MOTs etc).
And at present if a conviction says you go to jail for 3 months, well effectively you don't.. cos jails too full.
So personally I say "sort out the laws .. and the courts .. and the prison system.. and the police procedures "
Pigs will fly first.
madf
|
|
|
|
|
|
You will always have a small number of drivers who think that the law should not apply to them because.....................
Most of the loopholes have been exploited as the law concerned was badly drawn and was able to be exploited to show the benefit of doubt to ensure a not guilty result. Personally I feel it will be impossible to plug all of the loopholes, surely it would be better to rewrite each section of the law to be clearer and ensure loopholes do not remain.
Most of those using loopholes are very wealthy, this fact will never change. So making it more difficult and expensive to escape the rule of law should be good for making us all more equal before the courts, rather than one rule for the rich and famous and another for the rest of us.
We all know many people claim to be innocent even when they are guilty, only changing their plea at the last moment when faced with appearing in court. It is very likely that someone breaks a law at some point during a short drive, there are so many you can fall foul of. What is most important is did it cause an accident, was anyone injured, or were you a risk to other members of the public. The scale of the offence unfortunately is now no longer the overriding motivator for legal action to be taken against you. You could be driving without a licence, insurance, road tax or insurance, yet be treated more leintently than someone being caught slightly over the speed limit for the fourth time in 3 years. It is this injustice that should be tackled. We should respect the law, but unfortunately many people have no respect for the law, other people or property.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
Fiat justitia ruat caelum as we say.
|
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.
|
|
Don't you just love this, when the police use legislation they are following the letter of the law, when the motorist does, we are "using the small print "
What is a legal loophole? I am given to understand there is no such thing. Why don't they say, "we are going to try and stop making cockups".
And note that they are going to put together a legal team costing £4000 per appearance, to prosecute cases in court. Lose your case and you pay those costs. This shows you the level of contempt the police have for people who wish to exercise their legal right and have their case heard at court. They just want you to roll over and pay your £60 quid.
What these dreamers are now saying is basically: "Well, you can have your trial mate, but it's gonna cost you four grand if you lose, and we really don't give a flying wotsit if you're innocent or not, 'cause as far as we're concerned, you've been reported, the system is 100% perfect, so you're all guilty, and we can now bully you into not going to court to prove your innocence!"
So, it looks like they've finally come out and admitted in public what we all knew they've been thinking all along, i.e. accused = guilty, case closed!
Now, can someone please remind me what other areas of law exist where you are presumed guilty and bullied into not defending yourself?
but, wait a minute, they can't hit you with £4000 in costs, unless they increase the fine to a similar level. See page 88 of case law in magistraites guide lines. The costs must not be disproportionate to the fine. So they really are trying to bully the motorist into paying up, even when they have screwed up.
I'm awaiting my day in court with South Yorks Police, having submitted a PACE statement rather than complete an S172. I look forward to presenting video evidence showing that in the stretch covered by the 40mph limit, there is only 1 repeater, and it is covered by tree branches, making it impossible to see at 0138 in the morning. Oh, and before anyone gives me that speeding kills crap, it was 45 in a 40, caught by a camera just a few metres beyond the 40mph sign, coming out of a 60.
In my last court appearance 5 years ago, I walked away with no points and no fine, because the policeman who has stopped me didn't bother to keep the video evidence. No doubt he thought I would just pay my fine.
|
Loophole = Gap of Competence.
Badly drafted legislation, incorrect procedures. The police/CPS not following the correct procedures. Much the same as the loopholes with Tax legislation. We reply on the likes of PU and Nick Freeman to make sure that the authorities don't overstep the line. (even if they like showing off with dead languages!).
Martin
|
|
|
I'm awaiting my day in court with South Yorks Police, having submitted a PACE statement rather than complete an S172. I look forward to presenting video evidence showing that in the stretch covered by the 40mph limit, there is only 1 repeater, and it is covered by tree branches, making it impossible to see at 0138 in the morning. Oh, and before anyone gives me that speeding kills crap, it was 45 in a 40, caught by a camera just a few metres beyond the 40mph sign, coming out of a 60.
But if you'd just passed the change from 60 to 40 why are repeaters in play; surely they's only matter if you were further on and might have become confused about what limit applied.
PDC this is not aimed at you but while I'd hate to see any move towards a presumption of guilt I'm afraid that with speeding (and to an even greater extent with parking) there are far too many folksjust out to beat the system - mainly 'cos the media, based on the exploits of the rich/famous/notorious give the impression that this is an OK way to behave.
|
'But if you'd just passed the change from 60 to 40 why are repeaters in play; surely they's only matter if you were further on and might have become confused about what limit applied.'
Because this is one of the so called 'loopholes'. It's not a loophole, its a legal requirement for any road with lamposts not having a 30 to have repeater signs at set intervals. If the repeaters aren't there it puts the prosecuters case on a weak footing and can be used as a legitimate defence by a defendant.
With what was proposed yeserday (especially the £4,000 costs) we will eventually get to the state where only defendants will have to abide by laws, prosecutors can do what the hell they like - not something I'm looking foward to. Do you fancy thumb screws to get a confession out of you?
|
|
Calling faults in the drafting of laws 'loopholes' is as silly as calling car thieves 'joy riders'! If the people who write the laws can't make them enforecable that is their problem and taking advantage of their incompetence is not a loophole; it is merely using the law that they seek to use against us, against them.
|
|
|
">If the repeaters aren't there<"
... then there is no 40mph limit. Which begs the question, what is the speed limit?
£4k costs? Unfortunately, the "authorities" forgot a long time ago that they are paid for by the general public.
|
|
|
|
As this isn't a speeding thread as such, I will be brief.
40 sign was around a gentle bend, exiting a 60mph area. I had got my speed down to 45mph and was working on the other 5 when the forward facing truvelo gave a purple flash. Have you any idea how startling that is on a pitch black night, on a country lane, heading towards the woodhead pass. Far more dangerous I would say than the 5 mph I hadn't yet peeled off.
|
. I had got my speed down to 45mph and was working on the other 5 ....
Brill we all do that !
|
Has anybody yet had a NIP dropped as a result of sending it back with a 'PACE Statement'? I am hearing that some forces are reacting by sending back 3 points and a £250 fine for failing to name the driver?
|
|
|
|
Now was that 40+10%+2+5=51 or 45 for real?
45 for real and you've got my sympathy. 51 and you're banged to rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
