LTI 20.20: Judge States Garratt NOT Independent |
LTI 20.20: Judge States Garratt NOT Independent |
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 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 7 Nov 2006 - 20:18
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
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
-------------------- |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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
-------------------- Found anything useful? Become a BB&G!
|
|
|
Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 08:42
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,397 Joined: 16 Oct 2006 From: S.Yorks Member No.: 8,288 |
-------------------- 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". |
|
|
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 ?
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 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! |
|
|
Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 19:17
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 685 Joined: 8 Mar 2005 Member No.: 2,524 |
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 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. |
|
|
Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 19:21
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 8,639 Joined: 5 Jul 2003 Member No.: 134 |
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). |
|
|
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 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. -------------------- Regards, Insider
Forum Moderator Your Help & Assistance Required Please sign the SafeSpeed online petition against Speed Cameras and make your views known as a motorist - CLICK HERE Please sign the online petition against road pricing/tolls and make your views known as a motorist - CLICK HERE |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2006 - 13:08
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 2,872 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 -------------------- |
|
|
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
-------------------- Jimmy.
Justice comes to those who persevere! A donation to the fighting fund will help us all. CLICK HERE |
|
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2006 - 16:30
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 2,872 Joined: 17 May 2004 Member No.: 1,213 |
You mean this CHAP no some other chap 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 -------------------- |
|
|
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
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..... -------------------- |
|
|
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?
-------------------- Jimmy.
Justice comes to those who persevere! A donation to the fighting fund will help us all. CLICK HERE |
|
|
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. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:08 |