PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Strange Day in Court
funkynut
post Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 01:59
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,409



Colchester Magistrates. 43 in a 30. It was absolute bull crap. The officer lied his ass off and the judge ignored all witnesses who supported me. Officer just did not like my exhaust sound and judge was pals with the policeman.

Offense location : Green Farm Lane Billericay

Anyway, I cross examined the officer on the use of his hand held laser device. It was proven that he had just 2.5 seconds to spot my car and make a speed measurement yet claimed that was plenty of time because he was like John Wayne on the scope and trigger. The judge was asleep and did not give a toss.

Even being a hand held device not on a tripod did not phase this guy. he claimed that the manufacturers of the device state that tripods are bad and that hand held is best.

Offense date@ 10th May 2017. Court date: Today 4/12/17

Thats a long time to get to court dont you agree? i wonder if they deliberately delayed it to dry up witnesses.

Any way,I was given a total of £900 in fines and costs, points on the license AND disqualification. I know that is not allowed on a clean license but guess what the idiot judge did... He looked at my 3 year old endorsement that are expiring next month and stated that they expire according to the conviction date not the offense date. The old endorsements are for speeding so they expire via the offense date! Again, the judge did not listen to my objections so I write to the court tomorrow to sort this crap out

cheers
Claire

This post has been edited by funkynut: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 02:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 01:59
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 13:47
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,401
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



AIUI you have not received a totting ban but a suspension at the top of the guidelines of 28 days.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 14:04
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,492
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 13:47) *
AIUI you have not received a totting ban but a suspension at the top of the guidelines of 28 days.

Points are far more usual for that excess but a ban is within the guidelines.


--------------------
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

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
bearclaw
post Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 15:31
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 14:04) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 13:47) *
AIUI you have not received a totting ban but a suspension at the top of the guidelines of 28 days.

Points are far more usual for that excess but a ban is within the guidelines.


Perhaps someone failed the attitude test in court...?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
funkynut
post Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 15:32
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,409



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 13:45) *
So go to the DVLA website and find out the exact offence dates for your previous convictions.


Have I not already posted those?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
funkynut
post Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 15:43
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,409



The court hearing was very rushed and the judge had no time for anything I had to say due to it being late in the afternoon and another case to be heard after me. The result here is that if a police officer says you are speeding and you have no CCTV or dash cam to prove otherwise then you are screwed.

I could appeal it based on the fact the officer was beside a car that could affect the laser maybe?

A memorable part of the case was when I cross examined the officer on his measurements. He claimed to have measured the length of the road with his laser device at being 230metres long where as google maps measurement device calculated it as 200metres. Judge said that was irrelevant lol move on!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 15:44
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,630
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



Also have a look at your latest offence information (if it's there yet). You should a have an "SP30" endorsement for the latest speeding offence. If you were disqualified under the "totting up" procedure you should also have a "TT99" offence code against your record. If you do not have this you will have been disqualified for the single offence alone and not under the totting up rules.

As far as appealing against the conviction goes you face an uphill struggle. You need to show that the measuring device and/or its method of operation was so flawed as to be inaccurate to such a degree that they could not be relied upon to show you were exceeding the speed limit. Police officers have no need to fabricate or falsify evidence to secure convictions. They have plenty of opportunities to detect speeding motorists without having to resort to that.

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 15:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AntonyMMM
post Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 15:52
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,346
Joined: 17 May 2010
Member No.: 37,614



QUOTE (funkynut @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 15:43) *
The result here is that if a police officer says you are speeding and you have no CCTV or dash cam to prove otherwise then you are screwed.

No - the officer believes you are speeding and confirms that using an approved device (the laser) - you would need to show that reading was wrong (which is extremely difficult)
QUOTE (funkynut @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 15:43) *
I could appeal it based on the fact the officer was beside a car that could affect the laser maybe?

No you couldn't - you would need to produce real evidence to show how that happened, not just "it might have"
QUOTE (funkynut @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 15:43) *
A memorable part of the case was when I cross examined the officer on his measurements. He claimed to have measured the length of the road with his laser device at being 230metres long where as google maps measurement device calculated it as 200metres. Judge said that was irrelevant lol move on!

It is irrelevant.
If you want to do anything - check the code for your disqualification as recommended - IF you have been wrongly treated as totting up 12 points, you may have grounds to appeal the sentence. Otherwise ...move on.

This post has been edited by AntonyMMM: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 15:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ocelot
post Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 19:21
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,844
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Member No.: 1,326



QUOTE (funkynut @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 15:43) *
The result here is that if a police officer says you are speeding and you have no CCTV or dash cam to prove otherwise then you are screwed.


They need some sort of corroboration, such as the measurement on the officer's device, and that is their evidence, along with the officer's assessment that you were speeding. You have to refute that evidence if you disagree. They don't need a smoking gun, as such, such as continuous video of you breaking the speed limit.

As the others have said, you weren't banned by totting up. Presumably there was some sort of aggravating factor in the incident.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
captain swoop
post Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 01:10
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,640
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Member No.: 18,956



QUOTE (funkynut @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 15:43) *
The court hearing was very rushed and the judge had no time for anything I had to say due to it being late in the afternoon and another case to be heard after me. The result here is that if a police officer says you are speeding and you have no CCTV or dash cam to prove otherwise then you are screwed.

I could appeal it based on the fact the officer was beside a car that could affect the laser maybe?

A memorable part of the case was when I cross examined the officer on his measurements. He claimed to have measured the length of the road with his laser device at being 230metres long where as google maps measurement device calculated it as 200metres. Judge said that was irrelevant lol move on!



How would being beside a car effect the laser?

A laser measuring device used at the location will give a more accurate distance than the ruler on google maps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
funkynut
post Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 02:00
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,409



personally I thought that being 30 metres different is something worth addressing sorry. I thought google map was fairly accurate to at least 20 metres on close range zoom.

Here is a basic diagram of the officers claim. He was standing beside a car on the opposite side of the road having just finished dealing with another customer when he saw me flying around the corner and zapped me at 43 metres away. To say the car he was standing next to may have caused interference to the laser may not be worth mentioning because apparently the laser device will not give a reading if the signal is not clear, according to the officer presuming he did get a good clean hit for example. Is there anything obvious to be noted from this diagram please?



thanks
Claire
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 02:34
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,491
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (funkynut @ Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 02:00) *
personally I thought that being 30 metres different is something worth addressing sorry. I thought google map was fairly accurate to at least 20 metres on close range zoom.

Even if the officer got the length of the road wrong, I don't see how this casts doubt on the fact that you were speeding.

QUOTE (funkynut @ Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 02:00) *
Here is a basic diagram of the officers claim. He was standing beside a car on the opposite side of the road having just finished dealing with another customer when he saw me flying around the corner and zapped me at 43 metres away. To say the car he was standing next to may have caused interference to the laser may not be worth mentioning because apparently the laser device will not give a reading if the signal is not clear, according to the officer presuming he did get a good clean hit for example. Is there anything obvious to be noted from this diagram please?

No, as others have explained there is an assumption at common law that a device such as a computer, speed gun and so on works correctly unless the contrary is shown. To cast any doubt on the matter you would need expert evidence rather than a DIY diagram. If being near a car were to impact speed guns in the way you suggest, literally millions of speeding fines would need to be over-turned, but first you'd need to find an expert (as in someone competent to give expert evidence in court) willing to testify that a parked car can interfere with a speed gun in the way you suggest. I'd put your chances as close to zero as it can get.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 02:35


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ford poplar
post Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 02:40
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,753
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Member No.: 24,962



Judge can consider your previous driving record when considering length of ban to award-provided length does not exceed sentencing 'guidelines' for that offence as with aggravating factors for current offence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baggins1234
post Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 05:50
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 831
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Member No.: 39,849



QUOTE (funkynut @ Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 02:00) *
Is there anything obvious to be noted from this diagram please?



Yes, you were doing more than 43 in a 30. The cosine effect has brought your true speed down to one measured at 43mph

Hope this helps?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 06:06
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40,233
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (funkynut @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 16:32) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 13:45) *
So go to the DVLA website and find out the exact offence dates for your previous convictions.


Have I not already posted those?

No, because the MS90 offense couldn't have been committed until at least 30 days later than the speeding, unless of course the court made a cockup in reporting the offence date.

Begs the question how you managed to achieve 9 points when its almost impossible to make that big a hash of it of course.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
superSmiffy
post Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 11:34
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: 18 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,099



QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 05:50) *
QUOTE (funkynut @ Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 02:00) *
Is there anything obvious to be noted from this diagram please?



Yes, you were doing more than 43 in a 30. The cosine effect has brought your true speed down to one measured at 43mph

Hope this helps?

Yes, assuming the standard lane width then your offset was about 7m so the measurement angle was about 9.3 degrees so at an indicated speed of 43, assuming that the laser had no truncation of decimals your true speed would be a maximum of 43.6mph. Because the device truncates the speed you were probably doing a speed between 44.5mph and 43.6mph or thereabouts.

Does the laser become inaccurate because it is used next to another vehicle? No.
Is the difference in road length of 200m and 230m make any difference? No.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 13:18
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,630
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



I think the time has come to ask what the point of all this is.

You began by saying

“The officer lied his ass off and the judge ignored all witnesses who supported me” and

“…judge was pals with the policeman”.

Both of these are unlikely, and the second extremely unlikely. In short, the District Judge preferred the evidence of an experienced police officer using an approved device to measure your speed over that of some other people who had no such experience or device.

Your other suspicion

“Thats a long time to get to court dont you agree? i wonder if they deliberately delayed it to dry up witnesses”

is also groundless. Many motoring matters that end up in court are usually laid with the court close to the six month time limit and a Not Guilty plea cannot be dealt with at the first hearing. So to have your trial heard in under seven months is not excessive. To suggest that a delay may have been engineered to “dry up” the witnesses is absurd. The prosecution do not know that you plan to plead Not Guilty until the matter reaches the court stage. As well as this, of course, any delay affects defence and prosecution witnesses equally.

You finish with “so I write to the court tomorrow to sort this crap out”.

If you have not already done so I wouldn’t bother. The magistrates’ court is no longer concerned with this matter. You have been convicted and sentenced and that’s where their task ends. Your only avenue to challenge those decisions is by way of appeal to the Crown Court. If you do this (which you must do within three weeks of conviction) you will face a re-run of your trial but it will be before a Crown Court judge and two magistrates. You face the same problems when trying to overturn the conviction and these have already been well explained to you. If the basis of your appeal is that the officer was lying and was pals with the District Judge (without even mentioning that you were “behind a slow bugger doing 28mph”) you may be in for a rough ride. If the conviction is upheld your sentence is unlikely to be touched as it is within the sentencing guidelines.

Unless you intend to pursue this matter by way of such an appeal (and I think you received more than enough advice to help you with that decision) further debate here is pointless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
funkynut
post Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 13:29
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,409



Thanks for your comments. I will wrap this up with details of a mistake the court made which everyone should look out for.
As stated before my points had expired. A solicitor confirmed this for me yesterday and told me to get the court to correct it because DVLA output now shows me to be banned under TT99 code which is totting up. It is odd seeing my license output now showing 0 points, 9 expired points and a ban for totting up. When I spoke to the court about this previously they are sure that their way of totting up was correct via conviction date because they have been doing it for years. My only hope was to email the county manager who forwarded my concern to the courts legal adviser who today confirmed that the judge made an error. Today it is before the judge again so maybe maybe might get the ban removed. But he could still ban me under the other rule I know.

What makes it more strange is that my license also shows the new speeding offense but no points? If you get banned for totting up is that normal?

What is worrying is that the court have been totting up speeding offenses by conviction date for many years apparently. It might be worth putting a post out there to see who has fallen victim to this so they can correct it as I am doing.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
funkynut
post Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 13:41
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,409



I wont ramble on sorry but the cosine effect may actually work in my favor although too late I know. I was travelling from a junction towards the officers position which was 100m from the junction on a bend. My main defense was that my car could not have got to 43mph from the junction to 43 metres from the officer as he clocked it. That would mean I got to a speed of 43.6 mph in 57 metres which is a record breaker I think. The officer challenged this by saying I could have taken the junction corner very fast upto 30mph possible in good conditions.

But really the lesson learned here is that I should get a dash cam. In fact I have CCTV of the officer when he personally served the NIP to me shining a torch on the dashboard of my car which I now believe was to see if I had a dash cam.

I feel that one officer should not have the power to give out speeding tickets on his own without secondary evidence such as photo at least.

It is a fact that I was not speeding, I was behind a slow car and the officer lied 100% because he denied the car in front of me. Getting fitted up does happen as it happened to me and probably to a lot of others who are scared to talk about it. I am not appealing this now just buying a dash cam so there is no reason for me to be lying here please accept my words here as true
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 14:18
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,250
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (funkynut @ Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 13:41) *
I feel that one officer should not have the power to give out speeding tickets on his own without secondary evidence


He did have secondary evidence.


QUOTE (funkynut @ Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 13:41) *
In fact I have CCTV of the officer when he personally served the NIP to me shining a torch on the dashboard of my car which I now believe was to see if I had a dash cam.


Can you suggest why a cop would risk his carreer and freedom by fitting you up when catching speeders is like shooting fish in a barrel?

This post has been edited by peterguk: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 14:18


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
funkynut
post Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 15:38
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,409



Given the way he tried to serve me personally I can only guess he was annoyed at me not stopping for him. It was not clear he was shouting at me specifically as there was no physical indication like a hand gesture in my direction and there was a car in front and behind me. Why did the officer not do me for failing to stop I wonder? He could have got in his car and caught up with me.

Secondary evidence? I see what you are getting at but evidence of what? I presume the camera is evidence of the speed and the officer is evidence of the camera working. But what use is a laser gun if the officer can just point it at someone and say they were speeding without even pulling the trigger. Thats a lot of power for one guy
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: Tuesday, 18th December 2018 - 22:12
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.