Well today was D-Day.

I arrived at Bath Magistrates and was informed by the court Usher that a District Judge would be hearing my trial in court 3.

I was first in court 3 this morning (and the last) as my trial took over 3 hours (including 1 hr for the Judge to retire and put his thinking cap on).

The CPS prosecutor was extremely intimidating at the start but I requested to speak with the Clerk before my hearing for guidance on how I should conduct my own defense (after all I am a taxpayer).

Feeling more confident, I heard the evidence from the CPS and their arguments as to why I was being charged for a S172 offence. Broomfield was the basis or their argument and para 24 in particular. Then it was my turn to hit the CPS with Jones vs DPP and what I believe was the correct interpretation of Broomfield. I threw in Y & M and a sprinkling of Pickford for good measure. The district Judge was clearly impressed with a layperson completey rocking the CPS prosecutor to the point that she even apologised for starting to get tongue tyed?!?!"?

Eventually the District Judge returned a NOT GUILTY verdict and awarded me costs, a result that even the Crown Prosecutor smiled at.!!

Had it not been for the excellent information and the healthy exchange of views on this site, I would have never dreampt I would be taking on the CPS on such a contentious issue and actually winning.

Special thanks to Mika, Jeffreyarcher and Observer are deserved for help with very objective views and interpretation.

Cheers guys and gals

Rich

Congratulations - outstanding result

Bath Magistrates seems to be getting a reputation.



Happy Days Are Here Again. Congratulations.

Lets Hear it for the DJ Hoorah. Hoorah. Hoorah.

Rich,

Well done, a truly excellent result.

It just goes to show what happens if the clerk is not allowed to misdirect (oops sorry – ‘advise’) the magistrates.

Your ‘result’ should "put the cat amongst the pigeons" at CPS Bristol, and I just can’t wait for the forthcoming Bristol Crown Court appeal.

My case was slightly different than most in that I had sent a letter to the scamera partnership stating the details on the enclosed NIP were correct.

This was a decision I regretted making at the time but with hindsight and Jones V DPP, it all went to plan.

That's a splendid result. Well done. I hope this is encouragement for everybody else out there running an unsigned form.

As Mika said, prospects are better where the trial is heard by a professional lawyer who will understand the legal argument.

Are you able to give any additional analysis of why you think the judgment went in your favour?

this_sith



Well done, great result

S2softy

Congratulations, although I'm guessing that the supporting letter that let you walk, will now be used by other Scameraships as evidence under PACE (darn sarf anyway...not for the Scots!) to 'prove' the speeding, but if we keep opening loopholes faster than they can shut them, all well and good!

Simon

Observer, as you quite rightly pointed out; The fact a district judge was residing, definately swung things in my favour.

Mere magistrates are guided mainly by the clerk to the court, who in my trial today, did not say more than a handfull of words.

I played heavily on the fact that I work away from home which meant that my partner had completed the original NIP, and that my letter confirming that I was the driver at the time was sent as I don't have a postal address when working away. I couldn't realistically be sent the form for completion and had supplied a signed statement confirming my details were correct. This I thought would discharge me of all legal obligations, especially in light of Jones v DPP. A couple of minor admin cockups from the sc partnership also helped.

I also used the fact that a district judge was presiding to my advantage and played on the fact that a Magistrates court are not competent enough to find an obligation on a person to sign a form where there is no specific judicial authority to do so. And that the chief constable's request for information and how it should be provided cannot be absolute.

I put together 7 strong points which were backed up by full transcripts of cases, quoted a number of acts supporting this, and finally challenged the CPS on Broomfield. I took a mountain of documentation with me so that the CPS, the Clerk and, what I thought would be 3 magistrates, with me to hand out.

Must have been a scout...'be prepared' good advice though.....

Simon

Great result - well done

Well Done


Chris

May I add my congratulations the the ever growing list.

Have we lost a member of the Bath naughty boys club?

Excellent Result

Best Regards

Got to add my congratualations.
However why on earth did they not proceed with the speeding if they had a signed letter confirming that you were the driver?
After all if you had lost the NIP and sent in a letter of confession then surely that would have done.
PS

Mika, I have PMd you re naughty boys club

I guess my question is the same as Nigel Dunne's: this isn't an unsigned form case at all, is it?

While I don't want to take away from your achievement in planning and execution of a highly effective self-defence, this case isn't any help to most of us who are going the unsigned route.

Sadly I don't think the rest of us can count on our police forces being so dim as to fail to prosecute for speeding when they have in their possession all the evidence they need from the driver -- a signed form equivalent admitting that he was driving when the alleged offence took place.

Likewise, we can't rely on having a CPS so stupid that they don't realise that a signed letter containing all the details requested on the NIP form is indisputable evidence that the driver is in total compliance with S172.

Nigel/Ker-ching,

I am not surprised that you have missed the significance of this ruling, and it would have helped if you had attended some of the previous unsigned form trials at Bath Magistrates’ Court.

The position of CPS Bristol, supported by their court clerk colleagues, is that Broomfield has decided that the S 172 notice must be signed. Therefore, if you do not sign that form, you are guilty of an offence under S 172 of the RTA 1988.

‘Their’ favourite (in fact their only) quote from Broomfield:

[24] Thus the requirement in the Notice of Intended Prosecution that the information should be given in written form and signed by the accused is not merely a whim of those who produce the form, but is specifically directed at enabling that document to be accepted as evidence that the accused was the driver of the vehicle on that occasion.”

=== end quote ===

Rich did not sign the S 172 notice, but a district judge (who was not guided by the clerk) found him not guilty of an S 172 offence; and why did he make that decision? In my opinion, because Jones v dpp has decided that there is no legal requirement to complete the S 172 notice in the first place. Therefore, Broomfield has been exposed as bad law.

As for why they didn’t prosecute him for speeding: remember that we are not dealing with “the sharpest tools in the box”.

I understand all that and I think I fully appreciate the significance of having a district judge involved instead of a magistrates' clerk.

Are you therefore suggesting that I now send a signed letter to the Chief Constable along the same lines as what was sent in this case? I think not.

I am sure that the word will quickly go out to those who may not be “the sharpest tools in the box” that, should you receive such a letter, issue immediately an FPN, and if you get no reply, send the papers to the CPS, who will have a water-tight case for speeding.

Ker-ching,

What I am suggesting is that Jones v dpp gives you something to undermine Broomfield, and not that you should write to the police.

However, some of the “tools” are a little sharper than others, and what would happen if you were to send the police one of these?

Could it be that CPS Bristol does not pursue the substantive speeding matter, because of PACE? After all, Yorke and Mawdesley enables them to introduce an unsigned form as a voluntary confession.

Mika



Don't you find those two sentences just a teensy-weensy bit contradictory?

When I suggested in a pm that I might send that witness statement letter to the police, you repeated John Joseph's advice about not engaging in protracted correspondence with the police. So I didn't send it.

Now are you saying I should send it? Or what? :?



Doubt it. Rich's signed letter is as good as a signed form, so there would be no need for them to even mention PACE or Yorke and Mawdesley. It's a straightforward speeding charge with signed equivalent-form, isn't it?

Ker-ching,

John Josephs is a qualified lawyer and I am not. As you say, John recommends not entering into any unnecessary correspondence with the police.

The witness statement, prepared by Observer and me, is as yet untested; so we don’t know what will happen if you send it.

However, I have discussed the idea with a very knowledgeable lawyer, and he is confident that the PACE arguments will cause total chaos in the very near future.

It may be worth me adding that my signed letter of admission was carefully worded. The letter basically said that the details contained on the NIP were correct.

It may be that this point is not relevant, but the letter and the S172 notice would have had to have been used in conjunction with each other to issue a FPN.

The administration within the North Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Office is terrible. Its a similar story around the country. Inefficient administration gives you another angle to play in court and District Judges do not like inefficiency from the CPS

Its not just the Bath Naughty Boys Club who are refusing to play ball with the SC Partnership and the CPS and the additional administration burden placed on the system is sure to fail in a percentage of cases.

Glad to hear good news, well done, after sitting in with Lordfoul I know it is a very intimidating experience, and I was only taking notes :!:

excellent job