welshy
Tue, 2 Mar 2004 - 18:11
Hi.
I have recieved the photo evidence of the offence. It doesn't help in identifying the driver as there was 3 of us sharing the driving that day. Whats the next step? I would like to ask for a map showing the position of the device to help us in determining who was driving at that point. Who do I write to? Avon and Somerset Police or the Saftey(!) Camera Unit again? Then if that doesn't help do I send a blank NIP with a covering letter............
QUOTE
Re: Notice of Intended Prosecution - *******
Dear
I have done everything in my power to help identify who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence but to no avail. That said, I can confirm that the people who drove the vehicle on or about that time were the following:
· Name and address of driver number 1; and
· Name and address of driver number 2, etc.
Each has seen the photographic evidence but neither is able to be clear as to who it actually is. (or - Each was prepared to view the photographic evidence, but as you said in your letter of ***** "the photographic evidence is not intended to identify the driver, it is simply a means of identifying the offending vehicle".) I acknowledge my responsibilities under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but as is required by subsection 172(4) I believe that I have done as much as I possibly can to identify the driver, but that I have not been able, having exercised at the very least “reasonable diligence”, to ascertain who it was.
So other than reiterate what I have said in my previous letters, and having provided the details of the two individuals above, there is nothing else I can do. I very much hope that this matter can be avoided from going to court.
Yours sincerely,
Who does this go to? Some posts have said the police force in question? Or is it the SCU?
Thanks
nigeldunne64
Wed, 3 Mar 2004 - 09:07
Welshy, if on looking at the photos you are sure that the driver cannot be identified, and no-one is willing to admit being the driver or able to remember who was driving, then send that letter direct to the Central Ticket Unit that have sent all the rest of the correspondence.
Ensure that you keep a copy of the letter, that you name everyone in the car, and that you send the letter SPECIAL DELIVERY.
Best of luck
firefly
Wed, 3 Mar 2004 - 09:54
Hi welshy,
Firstly, (and it is just a minor point) it would be helpful if you kept your case history on just one thread rather than opening up a new one every time there is a development. That would ensure everyone has a full brief of what has happened to date, rather than have it spread over multiple posts. You are not the only one to have done this so it isn't a dig at you alone!
Anyway......
QUOTE (welshy)
I would like to ask for a map showing the position of the device to help us in determining who was driving at that point.
In my view and experience, a good thing to ask for. I fancy you won't get a map however! No problem. If they send a letter back saying, "we cannot supply a map" then write another letter asking for a map
reference. If, as happened in my case, a letter comes back and says they are unable to do this, then it is another string to your bow in the "reasonable diligence" defence. I did all of the above in my request to Kent police and was told on each occasion, "We cannot do this."
When my case was ongoing I spoke to a solicitor friend of mine and was told to leave no stone un-turned in ascertaining the driver identity should it ever go to court. If you show willingness to co-operate by investigating as thoroughly as you can then it can only be to your advantage. In my case, the police (or scameraship, one in the same anyway) refused me the information for whatever reasons. In effect, they were hampering me in my enquiries. The police had the information that quite possibly could have led to me identifying the driver, but chose not to provide. In the end my case was dropped just as I was expecting the summons.
QUOTE (welshy)
Who do I write to? Avon and Somerset Police or the Saftey(!) Camera Unit again?
Write to the Safety Camera Unit, they will hold the information.
Don't write the "reasonable diligence" letter just yet. Write away
immediately and ask for a map. If you get a letter back saying "not possible" then write and ask for a map reference. If you still get no joy then write the letter in your post. Keep copies of everything and send any correspondence recorded delivery (at least). When any correspondence is received, deal with it as quickly as possible, this also looks good.
Good luck, and post the results on
this thread!!
ps If you need a hand drafting any letters, then give me a shout.
keycare
Wed, 3 Mar 2004 - 10:16
You would have thought that if you are obliged to know who was driving your car at any time, any place, you'd think the scameras would have to excercise 'due dilligence' by logging the exact location of their scamera vans everytime they are used...by map reference! It would not be difficult to do.
welshy
Thu, 4 Mar 2004 - 09:33
Firefly.
Ok will do regarding the post.
Sent letter asking for a map showing the position......just wait for a reply now. Should I be worried about the 28 day deadline running out, as they stated on thier last letter that any request for information or any correspondents do not extend the 28 day deadline?
Cheers
The Rookie
Thu, 4 Mar 2004 - 09:44
No need to worry, you cannot name the driver at the moment, but are exercising due dilligence as required by law! Can't find the exact details, but there is a caveat about within 28 days or "as soon as reasonably possible" I believe.....
Simon
Lance
Thu, 4 Mar 2004 - 09:56
It's subsection (7) of
s.172:
QUOTE
(7) A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post; and where it is so made—
(a) it shall have effect as a requirement to give the information within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, and
(b) the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.
firefly
Thu, 4 Mar 2004 - 13:11
Hi welshy,
Don't worry too much about the 28 day deadline. As long as you are seen to be co-operative and are persuing lines of enquiry then I don't think there will be an issue.
What I would say is that you should deal with any correspondence as quickly as you are able. This advice will not be adopted by the Ticket Office unfortunately.
welshy
Wed, 17 Mar 2004 - 10:35
Just a quick up date....
1) Caught on 08/02 - 71 in a 60
2) Recieved NIP on 17/02.
3) Asked for Photo Evidence - Recieved, no hlp.
4) Asked for map showing device, Couldn't/wouldn't send this but gave me location over the phone.
5) Checked map, no help in ascertaining who was driving.
6) Gonna send a letter with the signed NIP (driver details not filled out) identifying possible drivers.
Spoke to SCU after no reply to my letter asking for map showing the device. They won't/can't send that out but did give me location over the phone. Checked road map with the other possible drivers but no luck in finding out who was driving. Guy at SCU said I should send in a letter listing all possible drivers and it WILL go to court where it's for the judge to decide If I have done everything in my power to ascertain who was driving.
Just wait for the court date now I guess. Seeing as it's the Avon and Somerset Constabulary I guess thats where the court appearance will be. Anybody fancy a day at court with me offering help and guidance??!
Anything else I can do now?
Cheers all
firefly
Wed, 17 Mar 2004 - 10:50
Hi welshy,
QUOTE (welshy)
Anything else I can do now?
Not much I would venture.
The "reasonable diligence" letter, complete with details of other drivers, should now be sent.
QUOTE
6) Gonna send a letter with the signed NIP (driver details not filled out) identifying possible drivers.
I wouldn't bother with the NIP. Best to leave it alone. Unless there is a specific section on the back that is pertinent to your case then I would leave it.
QUOTE
Anybody fancy a day at court with me offering help and guidance??!
I am round that area from time to time so let me know! I fancy it won't get that far though.
welshy
Thu, 18 Mar 2004 - 10:04
FF.
Why shouldn't I send the NIP with the letter? All I have put down is my address and signed it. I haven't ticked any boxes as none are relevant and I haven't filled out any driver details. This will be in the covering letter. What harm could it do? Just want to be seen to be trying to comply with what they want.
Cheers for the help.
firefly
Sat, 20 Mar 2004 - 13:24
Hi Welshy,
I don't suppose there is a reason why you shouldn't, but I worked on the assumption that if they did not have the NIP returned by me, then there would be less ammunition for them to fire, regardless of what is contained therein.
Personal preference I suppose.
welshy
Thu, 1 Apr 2004 - 16:54
Got a letter from the SCU today. Says....'Your papers will now be prepared for prsecution for Failing To Supply.....'
So it's a day in court I guess? Anything I can do now? Any letters I can send to help avoid this going to court?
Cheers in advance.
firefly
Fri, 2 Apr 2004 - 08:20
Hi welshy,
What
exactly does the letter say? I doubt whether they have written to you to tell you only "Your papers will now be prepared for prsecution for Failing To Supply".
Is there one last chance for you to sign and avoid this from going to court included in this letter???
If so, it is their last throw of the dice. Stay strong 8)
nigeldunne64
Fri, 2 Apr 2004 - 08:43
Welshy, you sent them the letter detailing the possible drivers didn't you?
If so, did any of the other drivers get any correspondence from the A&S scammers. If they didn't even bother contacting the possible offenders, do you think that THEY have shown due diligence in tracing the actual offender?
If they haven't heard anything, and you can be absolutely certain of that, then I believe that will help your cause. If you can imagine the CPS trying to prove you have failed to all you can to ID the driver, you then run through all you have done and ask why the Police haven't even written to the named other possible drivers. Why didn't the Police, who are trained interviewers, pay your friends a visit?
With the right Mags sitting you should easily walk free - and don't forget to ask for costs
welshy
Fri, 2 Apr 2004 - 09:17
Firefly.
Yep, thats what it says. I will post the whole letter tonite. But it doesn't mention anywhere about one last chance to sign.
welshy
Fri, 2 Apr 2004 - 09:21
Nigel
QUOTE
Welshy, you sent them the letter detailing the possible drivers didn't you?
Yes.
QUOTE
If so, did any of the other drivers get any correspondence from the A&S scammers. If they didn't even bother contacting the possible offenders, do you think that THEY have shown due diligence in tracing the actual offender?
If they haven't heard anything, and you can be absolutely certain of that, then I believe that will help your cause.
Definetley haven't heard anything yet. I know for certain as my brother lives with me and spoke to my mate last night.
QUOTE
If you can imagine the CPS trying to prove you have failed to all you can to ID the driver, you then run through all you have done and ask why the Police haven't even written to the named other possible drivers. Why didn't the Police, who are trained interviewers, pay your friends a visit?
With the right Mags sitting you should easily walk free - and don't forget to ask for costs
All the letters I have got have been from the SCU, nothing from the police. Does it get passed to them and they then investigate?
Cheers
firefly
Fri, 2 Apr 2004 - 09:29
Hi welshy,
QUOTE (welshy)
All the letters I have got have been from the SCU, nothing from the police. Does it get passed to them and they then investigate?
The SCU and the police are one in the same. The SCU will now pass your papers to the CPS, or they should do. But, as in my case, they may decide not to bother and put it in the bin. It's hard to call what they will do.
QUOTE
Firefly.
Yep, thats what it says. I will post the whole letter tonite. But it doesn't mention anywhere about one last chance to sign.
Fair enough, must be a procedural thing. If I were you I would keep a dignified silence. Remember one very important point : Can you name the driver beyond reasonable doubt? If not, you
cannot sign the NIP. The magistrates court (in theory at least) is there to serve justice. If you have a good case and have been thorough in your investigation (you have) then you have a
very good case. Remember that even if it does get passed to CPS and you get a summons, it still has to pass a pre-trial review. They may decide to drop it before it gets to a full trial.
welshy
Fri, 2 Jul 2004 - 16:18
Chaps.
Thought it was gonna be to good to be true. Recieved summons from Avon and Somerset Mag. Court today. Section 172 - Failure to supply.
Just a quick up date....
1) Caught on 08/02 - 71 in a 60
2) Recieved NIP on 17/02.
3) Asked for Photo Evidence - Recieved, no help.
4) Spoke to possible drivers of the car but no-one can't remeber who was driving.
5) Asked for map showing device, Couldn't/wouldn't send this but gave me location over the phone.
6) Checked map, no help in ascertaining who was driving.
7) Send a letter with the signed NIP (driver details not filled out) identifying possible drivers.
Summons is on 21st July. I intend to plead not guilty.
The device was an Lti 20-20 if it helps!
All details seem correct on the summons.
Advice on what to do now would be most appreciated. If these bar stewards are getting money out of me they are gonna have to work for it.
Thanks all
peteturbo
Fri, 2 Jul 2004 - 18:39
Blimey,
I cant see you've put a foot wrong. Plenty of due diligence, anything else would have been a worse offence (illegally blaming someone else), the others haven't been contacted.
What do you have to do to get justice, or even a fair hearing?
Best of luck, you cant be anything other than right from the posts.
Peteturbo
sl0ggs
Fri, 2 Jul 2004 - 18:59
It also taken them 3 months to get this sorted and send the summons. Is that normal?!
nigeldunne64
Sat, 3 Jul 2004 - 11:54
Welshy, go not guilty by post. There should be somewhere on the paperwork for you to show your intention and just tick Not Guilty and return the form Special Delivery with a covering letter confirming your not guilty plea and confirming that you will not be required to attend Court on 21/7/04.
What will then happen is they will set a date for either a new trial or even an adjournement hearing which is a hearing to deicde on the trial date as if there are witnesses to be called they can work out a date that suits everyone and doesn't clash with holidays etc. You don't want any witnesses called so let them know that on the forms and that will make the hearing date easier to arrange.
Now up until now the CPS - allegedly qualified solicitors - have never seen your papers. IE no-one with a legal brain has seen your efforts to ID the driver nor looked at the probability of winning this case. I personally reckon CPS would not have bothered with this as you have done all you can. Once you have entered your not guilty plea and get your next date let us know. A letter to the CPS may persuade them to look at your papers and save a day in Court.
firefly
Sat, 3 Jul 2004 - 18:02
Hi welshy,
Summons huh?! I tend to agree with nigeldunne64 in that no-one with any legal brain has been over your case.
The fact of the matter is as simple as it gets: Can you name the driver? No. Plain and simple. Have you been reasonably diligent in trying to find out? I would venture more than reasonable, but it is up to the court to decide.
I would still be surprised if this goes the distance. Fingers crossed and well done on sticking to your guns. Many would capitulate.
immy
Mon, 5 Jul 2004 - 12:35
After pleading not guilty to ur summons, and being set a trial date, it might help to write a letter to the chief prosecutor to review your case. Enclose all your correspondence that you gave to the camera unit and explain how you have made every effort to comply and feel theres nothing else you could have done. It will most probably be the first time a legal eye has been cast over your case otherwise they will probably only look at the case on the morning of the trial. So you've got nothing to lose by writing a letter.
My own case reached a trial date, but after writing a letter to the prosecutor stating my efforts to identify driver, they dropped the case with explanation of insufficient evidence to guarantee a conviction.
firefly
Mon, 5 Jul 2004 - 13:01
Good advice. Cheers immy.
TheSpongle
Tue, 6 Jul 2004 - 11:50
Hi folks,
This is fairly similar to my own predicament up the other end of the country in Aberdeen:
Car caught on camera.
Not sure who was driving so couldn't fill in NIP.
Sent letter with possible drivers.
Exercised due diligence and was then told that officer would be sent to investigate. "Bring it on", I thought to myself.
Then it gets interesting...
I was thoroughly disgusted that when - a couple of months later - a police car arrived at my house not containing any police officers... it contained 2 BL**DY TRAFFIC WARDENS!! :x Clearly I am not worth valuable police time. They tried to extract a name from me, which obviously I wasn't sure of and so couldn't give. Their badgering tactics were very poor compared to the finely honed interrogation skills of a proper officer. So....
After radioing back to base to find out what to do(cos they didn't know), they were told to charge me! They read the charge out to me, and I can't be sure, but it sounded like they were charging me with speeding, not S172. I will know for sure when/if they issue a summons.
Anyway, being absolutely unprofessional muppets, they came back to my house five minutes after they left as they had forgotten to ask my date of birth.
I will keep you up to date on what happens with this.
This is entirely separate from my other alleged offence, which I shall be posting about very soon.
BA21
Tue, 6 Jul 2004 - 12:14
Does a Traffic warden even have the authority to question you, never mind charge you with a criminal offence?
If I was in your shoes, firstly I'd have established EXACTLY what they were (ask to inspect their warrant cards - Police/Traffic Warden/Scam Clerk), and if they weren't Police, I'd have slammed the door in their face without even answering a single one of their questions.
If they were real Police, name rank & serial number - err I mean Name Address and DOB. Then refuse to answer any questions without having your solicitior present (who is on holiday in the Andies for 3 months). If it's serious enough they'll caution and/or arrest you - unlikely for a speeding offence.
BA21
firefly
Tue, 6 Jul 2004 - 12:32
QUOTE (TheSpongle)
Hi folks,
This is fairly similar to my own predicament up the other end of the country in Aberdeen:
Car caught on camera.
Not sure who was driving so couldn't fill in NIP.
Sent letter with possible drivers.
Exercised due diligence and was then told that officer would be sent to investigate. "Bring it on", I thought to myself.
Then it gets interesting...
I was thoroughly disgusted that when - a couple of months later - a police car arrived at my house not containing any police officers... it contained 2 BL**DY TRAFFIC WARDENS!! :x Clearly I am not worth valuable police time. They tried to extract a name from me, which obviously I wasn't sure of and so couldn't give. Their badgering tactics were very poor compared to the finely honed interrogation skills of a proper officer. So....
After radioing back to base to find out what to do(cos they didn't know), they were told to charge me! They read the charge out to me, and I can't be sure, but it sounded like they were charging me with speeding, not S172. I will know for sure when/if they issue a summons.
Anyway, being absolutely unprofessional muppets, they came back to my house five minutes after they left as they had forgotten to ask my date of birth.
I will keep you up to date on what happens with this.
This is entirely separate from my other alleged offence, which I shall be posting about very soon.
Right. That's it! This is the most jaw-dropping story I have ever read on PePiPoo and that really is saying something. Where do you start? Can someone clarify the powers that traffic wardens have please?
Captain A
Tue, 6 Jul 2004 - 12:37
QUOTE
I was thoroughly disgusted that when - a couple of months later - a police car arrived at my house not containing any police officers... it contained 2 BL**DY TRAFFIC WARDENS!! They tried to extract a name from me
Did they caution you ?
TheSpongle
Tue, 6 Jul 2004 - 13:01
I don't think so. I am not to familiar with the being charged process, so I don't know which bit would be classed as a caution. I remember them reading the usual blurb about, "you do not have to say anything but anything you do say..." and then when he finished and asked if I understood the charge I said, "No."
I genuinely didn't understand it though. As I said previously, I can't be sure if they were charging me with speeding or S172.
Do muppet wardens even have the right to charge me?
Thanks.
Captain A
Tue, 6 Jul 2004 - 14:20
QUOTE
“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
PACE Code C 10 5
Did they say this (or very nearly this ?
10D If it appears a person does not understand the caution, the person giving it should explain in their own words PACE Code C 10 (notes for guidance).
After you said that you did not understand, did they explain further ?
TheSpongle
Tue, 6 Jul 2004 - 14:57
Yes, they said the whole "You do not have to say anything..." bit, albeit rather stilted, being read from a little card that he clearly hadn't read very often.
However, they most certainly did not explain further after my "no."
They pretty much left straight after. Does this make things interesting?
Captain A
Tue, 6 Jul 2004 - 16:05
QUOTE
2 BL**DY TRAFFIC WARDENS!!
Well, it does seem interesting, because as far as I am aware (not really very far compared to some on this forum) Traffic Wardens do not have the power to issue cautions.....
Anyone else got a view ?
welshy
Tue, 6 Jul 2004 - 16:36
Thanks for all the great advice chaps, as usual.
I have filled out my plea (NOT GUILTY as you could have guessed)
It asks for the name of my solicitor. I haven't one yet as I don't want to pay unless this goes all the way. Can I introduce a solicitor at anytime? Other than that is there anybody around the Bristol area who would be willing to act as my McKenzie friend for some beer tokens?
There's also a part for mitigating circumstances. Should I fill this in detailing what I have done to ascertain who was driving? Or leave it blank?
Thanks as always.
matt1133
Tue, 6 Jul 2004 - 17:34
pm mika he may be able to assist as your mackenzie friend
welshy
Wed, 21 Jul 2004 - 20:10
I have sent my not guilty form off for the s172.
I have drafted a letter to the chief prosecuter at the CPS should I send this to him and should I send it now?
Cheers all
Glacier2
Wed, 21 Jul 2004 - 19:25
post the letter here first so that we can advise you first.
welshy
Wed, 21 Jul 2004 - 23:30
David Archer
2nd floor
Froomsgate House
Rupert Street
Bristol
BS1 2QJ
Mr. Ian Welsh
??????????
Plymouth
Devon
?????????????
19th July 2004
Dear Mr. Archer.
Case No : ?????????
I would be grateful if you could have a look at the above case. I am being charged with a S172 offence. As I have pointed out in previous correspondents to the Safety Camera Unit I cannot be certain as to who was driving at the time of the speeding offence. I feel I have done everything in my power to help identify who the driver was but to no avail.
I provided the names and addresses of the three possible drivers that day.
I requested photographic evidence, which was subsequently shown to each of the possible drivers, but this was of no help in identifying the driver.
I have requested a map showing the location of the device but this was declined. I was given its location over the phone. We then looked at a map and tried to retrace our steps as to help identify who was driving.
We have checked bank statements hoping it would show who bought petrol and where but this has not helped.
Please see enclosed document showing the course of actions taken over the last 4 weeks to ascertain who was driving. I acknowledge my responsibilities under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but as is required by subsection 172(4) I believe that I have done as much as I possibly can to identify the driver, but that I have not been able, having exercised at the very least “reasonable diligence”, to ascertain who it was.
Other than reiterate what I have said in my previous letters I feel there is nothing else I can do. If there is anything else you can suggest that would help me to find out who was driving at the time of the offence then I would be grateful if you could let me know by way of reply.
Yours sincerely,
(Mr. Ian Welsh BSc, MBCS)
Date Action Notes
17/02/04 Received NIP
18/02/04 Spoke to other drivers of the vehicle that day. No one can remember who was driving at that point or remembers seeing a camera/police officer with a speed device. Need to see photo to help identify driver.
24/02/04 Request for Photo sent to Safety Camera Unit, Bristol.
26/02/04 Request Received by Safety Camera Unit, Bristol. Spoke to Jane @ Safety Camera Unit on 26/02/04 @ 10:55.
02/03/04 Received Photo Evidence No help in Identifying the driver.
03/03/04 Looked at bank statements of all possible drivers to maybe help show who was driving at the time by checking when petrol was bought and by whom. Petrol purchased once in London so no help.
03/03/04 Asked for a map showing the position of the Speed Device so we can retrace our steps to help find out who was driving at that point.
17/03/04 Phoned Safety Camera Unit and spoke to Derek. A map cannot be sent. Told location over the phone. Spoke to Derek @ Safety Camera Unit on 17/03/04 @ 10:00. Gave me some helpful advice and reassurance.
17/03/04 Checked a road map with other drivers but due to the number of stops and the day in question being over a month ago now we cannot ascertain, with certainty, who was driving.
19/03/04 Sent NIP and covering letter outlining the problem.
firefly
Thu, 22 Jul 2004 - 08:02
Hi welshy,
Hercule Poirot would be proud!
Reasonable diligence? I would say thoroughly diligent.
welshy
Thu, 22 Jul 2004 - 18:47
I'll send this off then.....................
welshy
Wed, 4 Aug 2004 - 10:49
I have received the following back from the CPS....
-------------------------------------------
Thank you for letter blah blah blah....
Of course it is crucial for the Police to be able to discover whom the driver of a vehicle is so that they can prosecute offences. That is the case for this potential speeding matter but there might be a more serious matter. Accordingly the owner of a vehicle should ensure they know who is driving.
If you wish to raise due diligence that is a matter, with respect, for trial. you will have your opportunity to convince the court that you could not find out with the driver was.
I know you have asked what more you could do. The court might want to know why the vehicle was passing along the road, where it had come from and where it was going to in case that might identify the driver by his activities.
You have the potential names of the drivers as yourself, ?????? and a ?????? all from Plymouth. The court might want to know why the vehicle was in Somerset and why those names people cannot say where they were at 12:44 on 8th February 2004.
If you have a defence that is a matter quite rightly for the Magistrates to rule on. It would be wrong to the case against you at this stage.
------------------------------------------
I like the bit about why car was in Somerset and why the named people cant remember where they were. Looks like someone didn't read all my letters. We were all coming back from a bike show in London which is why the car was in Somerset and everybody can remember where they were....in the bloody car. Just can't remember who was driving....Muppets!
Still going ahead so best get a solicitor.....Any more advice greatly appreciated. How to approach the court and what will happen next (Pre-trial etc).
Thanks as always.
nigeldunne64
Wed, 4 Aug 2004 - 12:35
Welshy, I have said many times that no-one with a legal brain gets to see your papers until the day of the trial. In your case whilst someone at CPS has done half a job, they haven't been thorough!!!
I would suggest dropping them another polite letter. Point out that you have previously supplied ALL the information, but to reiterate explain how you were all on the way back from London Bike Show and you all know where you were - in the car. The only bit you don't know is who was driving which is what you have been trying to ascertain.
Politely suggest that you are not wishing to ridicule the CPS, nor would you wish to do so in open Court in front of the press, but you feel that their latter has simply added to your feelings that the system are not assisting you carry out your legal duty.
Request again that someone senior review your file and see what more you and your friends could have done. IF you have legal insurance either through home/car insurance or from the car manufacturers warranty do mention this so they know that you will put up a fight on equal footing - not of course that I am recommending lying about the cover
welshy
Sun, 24 Oct 2004 - 22:03
Hi all.
Just an update, after all efforts I am due in court this Tuesday coming (26th). Just wanted to ask for advice as I haven't been able to secure a solicitor (Car insurance and House Insurance Legal cover doesn't cover court trials!!! Waste of bloody money!!)
So, can ppl please let me know what to expect Tuesday, things not to say, how to address the court etc. Anything that might help me defend myself!
Thanks as always.
andy_foster
Sun, 24 Oct 2004 - 22:24
In a magistates' court, you will either be tried by a bench (usually 3) of lay magistrates (JPs) or a single district judge (stipendiary magistrate).
JPs should be addressed as "Your Worship(s)" or Sir/Ma'am.
A DJ should be addressed as Sir or Ma'am.
It isn't crucial to get it right, but calling a male judge "Ma'am", or a female judge "Sir" might not go down too well
Always stand when speaking, even to answer the shortest yes/no question.
The clerk will prompt you if you forget.
Speak clearly, slowly and deliberately.
Prepare what you wish to say in advance whenever possible. Don't waffle. Never "hint" at anything - if you want to make a point, make it properly, dotting the i's and crossing the t's.
welshy
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 - 18:46
Cheers Andy.
Anyone else.....last chance to help
I'll let you all know how it goes tomorrow.
Bath Magistrates Court tommorrow, if anyone fancys it.....!
matt1133
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 - 19:05
i had my case in bath
the advice written above is very good, just remain calm and speak clearly,
make sure you have all relevant law (s172 para 4 etc) as proof, and everything you have to show due dilligence, letters/all communication, notes/receipts etc. and mention you have done everything you possibly could to have identified the driver. you appear to have a very strong case.
just tell it like it is 8)
cjm99
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 - 19:41
Welshy, remember that in a parra 4 defence, there is a reverse burden of proof. That means that you need to show 'reasonable diligence'. If you show evidence enough to display an issue. viz the court see that a doubt as to possibly identifying the driver exists, then the CPS have to then proove to a 'criminal standard' that you did not exercise "reasonable diligence"'
NB.. s172 uses reasonable NOT 'due'
read below
QUOTE
Sheldrake -v- DPP
Neutral Citation Number: [2003]EWHC 273 (Admin) wrote:
As Lord Hope observed at paragraph 92 in Lambert, Parliament has recently recognised the force of the argument that as a general rule statutory provisions which require the accused to prove something as a defence should be read and given effect to as if they imposed only an evidential and not a legal burden. He added:
"The Terrorism Act 2000 contains several provisions which say that it shall be a defence for a person to prove something. For example section 57(2) provides that it shall be a defence for him to prove that his possession of an article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism. But section 118(2), which applies to a number of provisions of the Act including section 57(2) which say that it is a defence for a person to prove something, provides:
"If the person adduces evidence which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the matter the court or jury shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not." "
cjm99
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 - 19:43
Forgot to mention
Best of luck for tomorrow.
Captain A
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 - 20:13
All the best for tomorrow.
JackieA
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 - 20:37
Best of luck,
JackieA
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.