Is it worth appealing magistrate court decision |
Is it worth appealing magistrate court decision |
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 18:32
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 40 Joined: 4 Jan 2012 Member No.: 52,158 |
Hi,
I've been charged with 6 points, a fine, and full court costs for speeding. This takes me over 12 points so I've been disqualified from driving with immediate effect so I’m considering appealing. I represented myself and pleaded not guilty because I was not speeding. The prosecution provided two videos as evidence: 1. a 2:09 video showing the police car going along at 50mph in lane 1 in a 60. It is overtaken by a black vehicle. The police car accelerates up to 86mph to catch up with the vehicle, which has slowed down due to traffic. Once the traffic clears, the vehicle accelerates away and the police car accelerates to 92mph in order to keep up. The vehicle ends with the police car slowing doing from 80mph being blocked off by two cars, one in lane 1 and one in lane 2. The video ends at 42.953m and 22:19:40 when the road changes from a 60 down to 40mph. 2. This video starts at 43.509m and 22:20:18, some 0.556 mile and 38 seconds later. This means the police car did an average of 52.7mph during the "missing film". There is a roundabout and three traffic lights in the "missing film" section. It shows the police car slowing down from 77mph down to 40mph behind me with its lights on. I’m clearly driving at the speed limit of 40mph. I pull over and get into the back of the police car. The constable asserts I’m speeding and I say I’m sorry. My defence was based on the fact that I wasn't the person driving in the first video. I also tried to argue that the police was not calibrated as it only showed the police car speed and not the vehicle it was following. The CPS objected and said I wasn’t allow to question that because I had just said I was pleading not guilty because I was not driving in the first video. The magistrate agreed. The constable admitted he was unable to identify the vehicle in the first video. He said he identified it once he pulled it over. He said they were two videos because that’s the way he downloaded it. He admitted there was a section missing but he claimed he did not lose sight of the vehicle. He said he was pursuit trained, which the magistrates felt added credibility to his statement. The videos show very poor driving condition, it is night and raining. The visibility was poor but the CPS argued that the constable’s vision was better than the camera due to the lens. I explained my apology to the constable in the back of the police car was not an admission of guilt but because I did not want to get into an argument with police constable telling me off for something he thought I did. The magistrates said they didn’t believe this and believed the constable’s claim that he did not lose sight of the vehicle. The constable said he had to wait to pull the vehicle over until it was safe to do so, i.e. wait until the 40mph zone. I said that the dual carriage way has got laybys and he could easily have pulled the speeding vehicle in the first video over safely beforehand. He said it wasn’t safe to do so and the magistrates lapped it up. I don’t know if this is relevant but in the section the constable conveniently cut out, he runs a red light. I went through at amber and he was way behind me. I clearly remember as I saw his car approaching really fast in my rear view mirror. I remember thinking what a lunatic smoking a red light at that speed. The second video starts with the police car slowing down from 77mph just after the lights he burned. I feel like I didn’t do a very good job with my defence but I also feel like the trial wasn’t fair. It felt like the magistrates were on the side of the prosecution from the beginning. I wore a suit, was polite and courteous but they clearly got annoyed with me not knowing the legal bits and kept telling me off. I apologised but they made it pretty clear they thought I was wasting their time. It didn’t help that I was given no time to prepare; as soon as I finishing watching the videos the trial started. The main things I could have done better on: 1. Whilst the constable admitted there was video missing I didn’t point out it was 0.556 mile and 38 seconds. I did the calculations later. The speeding vehicle was doing about 80mph before the police car got blocked off by the two cars. In 38 seconds at that speed, it would have travelled 0.844 mile. 2. I also was unable to question the calibration. The constable said it was calibrated but I don’t think it was: the video only showed the police car speed and not the vehicle is was following. My understanding is that it doesn’t display the vehicle’s speed if it’s not calibrated. I had prepared some material on this: that ACPO recommend 2/10 as the minimum distance and that the patrol vehicle speedometer should be check for accuracy at the end of a tour of duty after detection of an offending vehicle. At the end of the day the recording contains no evidence of the average speed of the vehicle in the first video. It’s pretty frustrating not to be able to dispute the evidence. 3. I did not bring up the red light burning – this only occurred to me afterwards. I obviously think there is reasonable doubt and therefore want to appeal the decision but there’s no point going through all this again if magistrates are always going to side with unsubstantiated and uncorroborated police constable statements. Is there any point appealing or am I wasting my time and money again? This post has been edited by thegentleway: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 18:34 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 18:32
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 19:04
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,007 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
There is only one thing that is very, very clear: If you appeal the verdict, get professional representation. You are clearly in no way equipped to deal with this on your own, it is not clear that you received (or even asked for) disclosure ahead of trial, you don't seem to understand that the viewing of the video evidence is part of a trial (the trial was not a separate event that happened after that), and you obviously were in no position to properly cross examine the police officer. As an aside, the police constable is entitled to go through red lights to follow a speeding vehicle, so it's good that you didn't mention it because it would have been a waste of time.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 20:22
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,263 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Poor defence strategy, it wasn’t my car but if it was the Police speedo wasn’t calibrated and it wasn’t speeding.
It either was or was not your car, if you argue it wasn’t then it’s speed is irrelevant, it’s a defence strategy pretty much doomed to failure. If you appeal the case is heard afresh in front of a judge, so you can change strategy. A Police cars speedo doesn’t have to be calibrated to be evidence. From what you say it was far from unexpected that you would be found guilty, you would have to concentrate on one defence but even then I think you’ll be found guilty. The video is a red herring, none is needed to convict you. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 22:19
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
It would be totally natural to deny an accusation if you KNEW it was not true. Did you deny being the driver when you were sat in the back of the cop car, or think of that later?
This post has been edited by peterguk: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 22:20 -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 07:24
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 8 Dec 2011 From: Bristol, UK Member No.: 51,661 |
Just checking one point... if you weren't driving in the first video, were you driving in the second video? If, as you say, the PC didn't lose sight of the vehicle then he would have seen the vehicle pull over, and change driver. Or am I missing something here?
|
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 07:28
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,586 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
This takes me over 12 points so I've been disqualified from driving with immediate effect so I’m considering appealing. Did you make an exceptional hardship plea? -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 07:33
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
Just checking one point... if you weren't driving in the first video, were you driving in the second video? If, as you say, the PC didn't lose sight of the vehicle then he would have seen the vehicle pull over, and change driver. Or am I missing something here? Maybe it's in the OP's mind that because there was not continuous video, that there is no evidence he was driving in the first video, despite there being witness testimony from the Police driver following that he never lost sight of the vehicle. But as already stated, video evidence is not required to secure a conviction. If he was not the driver in the first video, then he needs to explain how he became the driver in the 2nd video. This post has been edited by peterguk: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 07:39 -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 07:53
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,900 Joined: 2 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,040 |
Is your assertion that it was a completely different vehicle that was speeding?
If so is there not enough to identify that it is indeed 2 different vehicles in video 1 and 2. The different vehicle obviously vanishing in the missing 38 seconds. Alternatively it could have passed you during this time, but given you remember the light being amber and a following car apparently sailing through it on red at speed I would have thought you would have been alert enough to recall being passed at speed. I would have thought the resolution of the film really ought to be good enough to pick out a plate. The missing 38 seconds is very curious. Though i would tend to prefer cockup over conspiracy. |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 09:51
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 40 Joined: 4 Jan 2012 Member No.: 52,158 |
Thanks for the help.
It would be totally natural to deny an accusation if you KNEW it was not true. Did you deny being the driver when you were sat in the back of the cop car, or think of that later? No I didn't deny or confirm anything when I was in the back of the car. All I said was I was sorry. The CPS alluded this was an admission of guilt, i.e. “I’m sorry [I was speeding]”. I explained it wasn’t, i.e. “I’m sorry [you’ve got the wrong car.]” Just checking one point... if you weren't driving in the first video, were you driving in the second video? If, as you say, the PC didn't lose sight of the vehicle then he would have seen the vehicle pull over, and change driver. Or am I missing something here? Yes, I was driving in second video at speed limit and got pulled over. The PC did lose sight of the vehicle and mistook it for mine. This takes me over 12 points so I've been disqualified from driving with immediate effect so I’m considering appealing. Did you make an exceptional hardship plea? No. I don’t have really have a case as I walk to work. I use my car to go training and teach a class. Is your assertion that it was a completely different vehicle that was speeding? If so is there not enough to identify that it is indeed 2 different vehicles in video 1 and 2. The different vehicle obviously vanishing in the missing 38 seconds. Alternatively it could have passed you during this time, but given you remember the light being amber and a following car apparently sailing through it on red at speed I would have thought you would have been alert enough to recall being passed at speed. I would have thought the resolution of the film really ought to be good enough to pick out a plate. The missing 38 seconds is very curious. Though i would tend to prefer cockup over conspiracy. It didn’t vanish, it clearly took a different route through the roundabout or 3 sets of lights as I didn’t see anyone bomb it pass me. The resolution of the film is probably good enough to pick out a plate but the visibility is too poor due to rain. This post has been edited by thegentleway: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 09:52 |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 10:16
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,263 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Just checking one point... if you weren't driving in the first video, were you driving in the second video? If, as you say, the PC didn't lose sight of the vehicle then he would have seen the vehicle pull over, and change driver. Or am I missing something here? Yes, I was driving in second video at speed limit and got pulled over. The PC did lose sight of the vehicle and mistook it for mine. Then that should have been the thrust of your defence, if it wasn't your car he was following its speed was irrelevant to you and shouldn't have been bought up at all. Not saying anything in the Police car doesn't help but is understandable. You say the Officer lost sight of the speeding car and then spotted your car, did he admit that in his evidence? Did you ask him about that in cross examination? How much analysis have you done/had done of the video to see if you can find any differentiation? Is make/model even identifiable? -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 10:39
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 40 Joined: 4 Jan 2012 Member No.: 52,158 |
Just checking one point... if you weren't driving in the first video, were you driving in the second video? If, as you say, the PC didn't lose sight of the vehicle then he would have seen the vehicle pull over, and change driver. Or am I missing something here? Yes, I was driving in second video at speed limit and got pulled over. The PC did lose sight of the vehicle and mistook it for mine. Then that should have been the thrust of your defence, if it wasn't your car he was following its speed was irrelevant to you and shouldn't have been bought up at all. Not saying anything in the Police car doesn't help but is understandable. You say the Officer lost sight of the speeding car and then spotted your car, did he admit that in his evidence? Did you ask him about that in cross examination? How much analysis have you done/had done of the video to see if you can find any differentiation? Is make/model even identifiable? No, he maintained he never lost sight of the vehicle. I did challenge this and CPS went metal. The magistrates bollocked me for casting aspersions and being disrespectful. I hadn't done any analysis, I watched the video and then the magistrates came in. The make/model is not identifiable. |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 10:51
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,900 Joined: 2 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,040 |
Do you have copy of the videos ?
|
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 10:51
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,586 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Officers do not lie. However, he may have been mistaken. This should never have been self-represented in hindsight and any appeal would require professional help imho.
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 10:55
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,781 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
If you appeal the case is heard afresh in front of a judge, so you can change strategy. And two magistrates (from a different Bench to the one that convicted you). The judge rules on matters of law but all three have an equal say on matters of fact (on which your case depends). The judge can be outvoted by the magistrates. |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 11:41
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 1,668 Joined: 9 Nov 2008 From: Doldrums Member No.: 23,903 |
Rubbish deleted.
This post has been edited by Mayhem007: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 08:53 -------------------- STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING
Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about. |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 11:58
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
If you firmly believe that you were not speeding during any period of pursuit between your vehicle [or any other vehicle] and the police car, then you can request from the magistrates to state a case for the opinion of the high court. I recollect that you have to do do this within 21 days from your sentencing. However, the clerk to the justices will deal with your request on the magistrates behalf and will undoubtedly deny the request on the grounds that your request is frivolous. From personal experience high court will cost big £s. £12K+. I got most of my costs back, but system has changed since then. This post has been edited by peterguk: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 11:58 -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 12:17
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
The problem you have is that you can't just go in and say to the police "it was two different cars, case dismissed".
You have to question the officer on the first car, second car, line of sight between the two videos. E.g. firstly what distinctive features did you note on the first car. If there are few distinctive features, e.g. "black 4x4 car" are you certain that you could not have mistaken this for another car? Common type of car, etv. Then distinctive features on second car? Same questions but also for the second one people tend to make up extra features, "that sounds like a very distinctive feature, why did you not notice that on the first car?" Then on the missing 38 seconds, "you say you didn't lose sight of the car, but also that vehicles blocked the route. How did you maintain sight of the vehicle? During this time you passed through a busy junction, did you see which lane they took? Can you be sure they didn't turn off?" Finally if you have a Google phone, that normally tracks your movements. Can you go back and check your speed from that? Interviewing a witness is a skill that takes years to learn and undoubtedly the policeman will have years of experience answering. You have learnt that there is a fine line between being aggressive or being weak. You must aim for the police to be mistaken about the first and second vehicles being the same, not wrong. Bearing in mind the amount of money on the line leaving it to someone who does it as their day job may be a sensible option. Also in Peter's case it was about interpreting a piece of black and white legislation that the magistrates had interpreted in the police's favour. It seems like your case is much more shades of grey. This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 12:17 |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 12:17
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 1,668 Joined: 9 Nov 2008 From: Doldrums Member No.: 23,903 |
If you firmly believe that you were not speeding during any period of pursuit between your vehicle [or any other vehicle] and the police car, then you can request from the magistrates to state a case for the opinion of the high court. I recollect that you have to do do this within 21 days from your sentencing. However, the clerk to the justices will deal with your request on the magistrates behalf and will undoubtedly deny the request on the grounds that your request is frivolous. From personal experience high court will cost big £s. £12K+. I got most of my costs back, but system has changed since then. My costs weren't as high as that due to being a litigant in person. However, I had already served 4 months of a six month ban before I had the disqualification suspended. I can't really see the OP being able to handle such a complex procedure on his own. I most certainly would not have been able to get as far as I did without the advice from this forum and Andy Foster and not forgetting Desktop Demon. -------------------- STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING
Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about. |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 13:22
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,781 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
If you firmly believe that you were not speeding during any period of pursuit between your vehicle [or any other vehicle] and the police car, then you can request from the magistrates to state a case for the opinion of the high court. The "Case Stated" process is used when the Magistrates court want a higher court to rule on the interpretation of a point of law: "An appeal by case stated is an appeal to a superior court on the basis of a set of facts specified by the inferior court for the superior court to make a decision on the application of the law to those facts." Your matter does not turn on a point of law but on a matter of fact, namely were you or were you not driving the car at the time of the speeding allegation? There is no argument over the law. If you were found to have been driving you are guilty of speeding. The Magistrates considered the evidence presented to them, found that you were, hence their verdict. The only way to appeal that decision is by way of an appeal to the Crown Court. This post has been edited by NewJudge: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 13:25 |
|
|
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 13:23
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,581 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
If you firmly believe that you were not speeding during any period of pursuit between your vehicle [or any other vehicle] and the police car, then you can request from the magistrates to state a case for the opinion of the high court. I recollect that you have to do do this within 21 days from your sentencing. However, the clerk to the justices will deal with your request on the magistrates behalf and will undoubtedly deny the request on the grounds that your request is frivolous. From personal experience high court will cost big £s. £12K+. I got most of my costs back, but system has changed since then. You can only appeal from the magistrates' court to the High Court or Administrative Court on matters of law, as you did Peter. On matters of fact, which concerns the OP here, the appeal is to the Crown Court where a panel of a judge and two magistrates hear the case from the beginning, as described above. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 09:40 |