PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

LTI 20.20: Judge States Garratt NOT Independent
blackdouglas
post Tue, 7 Nov 2006 - 20:18
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 685
Joined: 8 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,524



There has been an important Judgement in a recent case in Northampton.

Due to the ongoing delays in the case, the client aborted the appeal, and simply appealed to have the costs reduced.

In his Judgement, the Judge rules that the fine be reduced, and accepted the prosecution's costs.

HOWEVER

The Judge completely rejected the CPS expert witness costs because he ruled that Mr. Frank Garratt was not an independent witness.

This is written down in the Judgement, and I am hoping to get a copy of it. In the Judgement, the Judge was quite critical of Mr. Garratt. The Judge also expressed disappointment that the appeal did not go ahead.

Anybody involved in a case featuring Mr. Garratt (or indeed anyone from TeleTraffic or Laser Technology, such as Jeremey Dunne) should get a copy of this Judgement, and use it in their case. Whilst it does not set a precedent, it ought to be very persuasive when used in Court.

I will try to obtain a copy.

EDIT: Details of where to obtain a copy of the transcript now appear later in this thread, at post #24 which is HERE.

This post has been edited by blackdouglas: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 - 22:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 7 Nov 2006 - 20:18
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
g_attrill
post Tue, 7 Nov 2006 - 21:48
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,248
Joined: 12 Oct 2003
From: Hants, UK
Member No.: 412



Interesting, and most welcome.


--------------------
Found anything useful? Become a BB&G!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anton
post Tue, 7 Nov 2006 - 23:47
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,751
Joined: 12 Aug 2004
From: hampshire
Member No.: 1,514



send me a copy if it arrives, please


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdouglas
post Fri, 10 Nov 2006 - 19:45
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 685
Joined: 8 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,524



EDIT: Details of where to obtain a copy of the transcript now appear later in this thread, at post #24 which is HERE.

Reads as follows:

QUOTE
Appeal of Gregory Maroney Barnett

Judgment of His Honour Judge Morrell at Northampton Crown Court

Friday 3 November 2006

This appellant appeals against a conviction of the Northampton Magistrates Court on 22 August 2005 for driving on the A6 bypass at 60mph in a 50mph area. This appeal has had a chequered history and it is a matter of regret that it has not been disposed of long ago.

Mr Burton tells me that the delay is the reason for abandonment.

The Appellant was offered a fixed penalty of £60 but he decided to contest the case in the Magistrates Court where he represented himself with an unhappy and unsatisfactory result. He says he was not given the opportunity properly to present his case.

It is wrong in principle where a person has declined the offer of a fixed penalty and is subsequently convicted by the Court, to impose a large fine. There is a fundamental injustice in that. The imposition of a fine is a deterrent, but it should possibly not exceed the original penalty.

The Appellant is still appealing against the fine and costs imposed by the Magistrates. I am satisfied that the fine should be reduced to £60 and the costs (of £364) should be reduced by £35 to £329, giving a total of fine and costs of £389. To this must be added the Prosecuting Counsel's fees amounting to £210, giving a grand total of £599. I allow the Appellant three months to pay.
I totally reject the claim of the so-called expert who asks for £723 for his report plus £100 for a 2-hour conference. He cannot be considered an independent expert when the machine he markets, made in the United States, is under attack. It is not just whether his view is under attack, but he derives a substrantial financial interest from his activities with the device.

I express my disappointment at not being able to try this case.


This post has been edited by blackdouglas: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 - 22:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
g_attrill
post Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 00:38
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,248
Joined: 12 Oct 2003
From: Hants, UK
Member No.: 412



Judge Morrell icon_salut.gif


--------------------
Found anything useful? Become a BB&G!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dr Science
post Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 08:42
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,396
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
From: S.Yorks
Member No.: 8,288



QUOTE (g_attrill @ Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 00:38) *
Judge Morrell icon_salut.gif

And so say all of us.

Dr.S


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

Dr.S
Telephone calls may be recorded for the purpose of detection and prevention of crime.
I am an engineer/physicist, not a lawyer. My answers are based on The Laws 'O Physics (which ya' can 'ne change, Cap'n).
The law of the land is a much more slippery and changeable thing.

"The only way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden violence" - Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General of the United Nations
NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Captain A
post Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 08:51
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 925
Joined: 1 Feb 2004
Member No.: 836



Does this mean that the CPS will no longer be able to fly 'independent' witnesses over from the States at a cost of £4000 to the defendant ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdouglas
post Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 09:25
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 685
Joined: 8 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,524



Make no mistake this is a big ruling.

Whilst it does not set any precedents as such, the Judgement can be used in any case featuring Garratt or Dunne or anyone else from Tele Traffic or Laser Tec to convince the Judge these people are not independent.

The other interesting part of the Judgement is that the Judge states quite clearly that he thinks that a bigger fine should not be issued just because the defendent challenged the allegation, rather than taking the conditional offer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whizz
post Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 15:48
Post #9


Member


Group: Validating
Posts: 306
Joined: 11 May 2006
Member No.: 5,675



This is wonderful news!

Is there are source document some of us can get hold of ?- Cumbria like Mr Garrett a lot and it would be useful to use the document. Also, they set the highest fines sad.gif and some of us are a little worried about that.

QUOTE
Appeal of Gregory Maroney Barnett

Judgment of His Honour Judge Morrell at Northampton Crown Court

Friday 3 November 2006

This appellant appeals against a conviction of the Northampton Magistrates Court on 22 August 2005 for driving on the A6 bypass at 60mph in a 50mph area. This appeal has had a chequered history and it is a matter of regret that it has not been disposed of long ago.

Mr Burton tells me that the delay is the reason for abandonment.


Is this a typo? - sorry to be pedantic, you have done wonders highlighting this case and it will help a lot of us!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdouglas
post Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 19:17
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 685
Joined: 8 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,524



QUOTE (Whizz @ Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 15:48) *
This is wonderful news!

Is there are source document some of us can get hold of ?- Cumbria like Mr Garrett a lot and it would be useful to use the document. Also, they set the highest fines sad.gif and some of us are a little worried about that.

QUOTE
Appeal of Gregory Maroney Barnett

Judgment of His Honour Judge Morrell at Northampton Crown Court

Friday 3 November 2006

This appellant appeals against a conviction of the Northampton Magistrates Court on 22 August 2005 for driving on the A6 bypass at 60mph in a 50mph area. This appeal has had a chequered history and it is a matter of regret that it has not been disposed of long ago.

Mr Burton tells me that the delay is the reason for abandonment.


Is this a typo? - sorry to be pedantic, you have done wonders highlighting this case and it will help a lot of us!


No. The appellant was Mr. Barnett. The appellant's solicitor was Mr. Burton.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 19:21
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (Whizz @ Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 15:48) *
QUOTE
Appeal of Gregory Maroney Barnett
<...>
Mr Burton tells me that the delay is the reason for abandonment.


I assume that Mr. Burton is Mr. Barnett's solicitor. Mr. Burton may well be Clive Burton, who does seem to do a lot of motoring cases, and has often worked with Richard Bentley (signs expert).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Insider
post Sun, 12 Nov 2006 - 17:01
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,410
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
From: Inside somewhere ;-)
Member No.: 1,871



QUOTE
I totally reject the claim of the so-called expert


Cutting ohmy.gif

So this ruling completely f*cks the ACPO "So-Called" Dream Team then that ACPO were determined to ramp up costs with.

I'm fully and have always been of the opinion that the inherent greed of the police, acpo and the manufacturers of the equipment will completely f*ck themselves up.

At least "Some" of the Judiciary are impartial- Well done to the Judge in this case.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nip me baby one ...
post Sun, 12 Nov 2006 - 19:11
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 444
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
From: West Midlands
Member No.: 8,489



I like that about the costs.

Get the feeling you are better off with a judge than a bunch of magistrates.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anton
post Mon, 13 Nov 2006 - 11:20
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,751
Joined: 12 Aug 2004
From: hampshire
Member No.: 1,514



This is fantastic ruling but I must also bring your attention to the dove case.

Don't let the magistraites forget that the costs cannot be disproportional to the fine or more than the actual costs. In a case in salisbury the CPS called on ACPO for assistance and ACPO tried to add £3000 to the bill for legal advice and dealing with the media. The court decided that was not correct and reduced ACPOs costs to £600. (+ dealing with the media is nothing to do with the court case and should not be included in costs)

Page 88 of the magistraires guidelines sets this down in black and white and referes to case law the "dove" case. It also states that punitive costs cannot be allowed and that the fine should be increased not the costs inflated.

The Dove case (of which I have a copy) was an appeal in the crown court where 4.5 times costs were applied over the fine.

4.5 times costs was found to be grossly disproportionate.

Any one going to court after a long battle should also carry a copy of the magistraites guidelines and the dove case.

This post has been edited by anton: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 - 11:22


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clear Skies
post Mon, 13 Nov 2006 - 13:08
Post #15


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 2,869
Joined: 17 May 2004
Member No.: 1,213



I wonder if we can make contact with the chap (or his solicitor ) who had to pay for the wonder team from the usa and send him the details of this case..

maybe just maybe it allows him to open up his can of worms again..


rgds
bill


--------------------
QUOTE
God always has a custard pie up his sleeve....
Georgy Girl



Carbon Offset & support PePiPoo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jimmy ferrari
post Mon, 13 Nov 2006 - 16:21
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,474
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
From: Wales
Member No.: 299



You mean this CHAP


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clear Skies
post Mon, 13 Nov 2006 - 16:30
Post #17


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 2,869
Joined: 17 May 2004
Member No.: 1,213



QUOTE (jimmy ferrari @ Mon, 13 Nov 2006 - 16:21) *
You mean this CHAP



no some other chap biggrin.gif The one I am thinking of had to pay 4000 costs for the CPS having the american flown over as a witnesss..

rgds

This post has been edited by Clear Skies: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 - 16:30


--------------------
QUOTE
God always has a custard pie up his sleeve....
Georgy Girl



Carbon Offset & support PePiPoo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anton
post Tue, 14 Nov 2006 - 17:50
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,751
Joined: 12 Aug 2004
From: hampshire
Member No.: 1,514



I made contact with his solicitor who now has the full version of the case law biggrin.gif
he was concerned it was faily old case law, but it is refered to in the magistraites guidelines, which to me says it is the prefered case law.... untill another case changes it.....


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jimmy ferrari
post Tue, 14 Nov 2006 - 22:23
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,474
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
From: Wales
Member No.: 299



This CHAP then?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anton
post Wed, 15 Nov 2006 - 06:18
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,751
Joined: 12 Aug 2004
From: hampshire
Member No.: 1,514



Nick Cartmel (39)barrister, conservitive election candidate . Shouldn't be that hard to track down

Bingo http://www.thebardirectory.co.uk/home.cfm
Newcastle upon Tyne Cartmell, Nicholas James 0191 232 1980
New Court Chambers
3 Broad Chare
Newcastle upon Tyne,
NE1 3DQ
Telephone: 0191 232 1980
E-mail: bryandickson59@newcourt-chambers.co.uk

I will send him the info.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Closed 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: Monday, 19th February 2018 - 09:57
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.