PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Man spends £30k fighting speeding allegation
Jlc
post Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 08:30
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



As description: BBC News

Not a lot of detail - nothing about any secondary corroboration etc.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
Advertisement
post Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 08:30
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 09:23
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



If the CPS failed to be ready for any hearing he could have applied for a wasted costs order for those, if he just asked new questions it was his fault the costs escalated.

In my mind I'm pretty sure he was speeding, it was his choice to spend the money. He could have just taken a course!

The mindest of 'no case to answer' sums it up for me, that is of course 'not guilty' in any normally used language!

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 09:24


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 10:34
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



More fool him. I don’t like clients like that - the next thing they normally do is go for their lawyers for negligence, or to put it another way “despite advising me my case was shit you should have refused to carry out my instructions to proceed”.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 11:26
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Richard Keedwell, 71, said a "seriously flawed" legal system meant fighting the fine had taken nearly three years and used up his sons' inheritance money.

Bet they're pleased
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Charlie1010_*
post Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 11:42
Post #5





Guests






Another idiot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whippet
post Thu, 12 Sep 2019 - 14:17
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 4 Jul 2009
Member No.: 30,049



The gent had a two day trial at magistrates court before a DJ and a three day crown court appeal. CPS didn't cover themselves in glory as far as procedure was concerned but you cant get away from the fact the radar reading was 36 and the secondary check 35.79. Even the defence expert agreed that in a joint report used at the magistrates hearing.
He's just been on radio 2 Jeremy Vine show and still saying he didn't get justice. Then I suppose that depends if you are defence or prosecution. Shame is he is a decent chap led astray by two brothers and an 'expert'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 12 Sep 2019 - 15:46
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (whippet @ Thu, 12 Sep 2019 - 15:17) *
...the radar reading was 36 and the secondary check 35.79.

Yes, but, perhaps the camera was possibly not working correctly and the flash interval was out.

Or just perhaps he was actually speeding.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 - 11:03


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ocelot
post Thu, 12 Sep 2019 - 20:37
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,140
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
From: Surrey
Member No.: 1,326



Would have been somewhat cheaper to go for the SAC.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Charlie1010_*
post Fri, 13 Sep 2019 - 10:56
Post #9





Guests






£29,900 cheaper!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 13 Sep 2019 - 11:52
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



The gent had a two day trial at magistrates court before a DJ and a three day crown court appeal. CPS didn't cover themselves in glory as far as procedure was concerned but you cant get away from the fact the radar reading was 36 and the secondary check 35.79. Even the defence expert agreed that in a joint report used at the magistrates hearing.

Where did you find this ?

So if I understand correctly

His own defence expert agreed that the secondary check confirmed the camera reading to be correct
His only remaining defence point was an honest belief that he wasn't speeding

Can't see that the conviction is a denial of justice

I can only see two possibilities that explain his situation:

1 He slowed down when he saw the camera and checked his speed but too late
2 His speedometer's under-reading

Regarding the costs which raise a different question regarding justice

We know from previous threads that expert witnesses regarding cameras charge £3000/day
If his legal advisor didn't warn him regarding the potential cost and his poor chance of success, he was badly advised and a complaint to the Law Society would be in order
If he disregarded the advice, he's the author of his own misfortune - who else should pick up the bill ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Charlie1010_*
post Fri, 13 Sep 2019 - 12:11
Post #11





Guests






Just listened to the Jeremy Vine broadcast.
When Jeremy mentioned the bit about his sons inheritance he said don’t bring my family into it!
Well he brought his family into it himself by mentioning it in the first place in the news article so he’s got ‘no case to answer’ on that!

Bet Tim Farrow is laughing his head off!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whippet
post Tue, 1 Oct 2019 - 16:37
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 4 Jul 2009
Member No.: 30,049



The gent had a two day trial at magistrates court before a DJ and a three day crown court appeal. CPS didn't cover themselves in glory as far as procedure was concerned but you cant get away from the fact the radar reading was 36 and the secondary check 35.79. Even the defence expert agreed that in a joint report used at the magistrates hearing.

Where did you find this ?

I was there
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:40
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here