Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Pre trial review results
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
NigelO
Apologies in advance for the rambling, but I thought I'd best get this written down while its still fresh.

Attended a pre-trial review at Port Talbot today, following me pleading not guilty by post to 93 in a 70 on the M4 and Failing to privide details etc.

Whilst I was a bit nervous, I tried to speak slowly and clearly, and to my surprise, the clerk of the court and one of the Mags were very helpful and tried hard to explain what it was all about.

They asked if I understood the charges, and if I had read the witness statements. They then asked what my defence was.. I stated that I was not in a position to divulge the finer points of my defence in respect of the S172 charge (my actual defence is that they've charged me "as keeper of the vehicle... - I'm not the keeper. And also, I gave them all my details in a letter, just not on The S172 form, so I'll be using the "nowhere in law is it required that the info should be on the form.."

Anyway, when they came onto the speeding offence, they asked what evidence I would be using, to which I rather cheekily replied " I intend to use the prosecution's own evidence, in the form of the video, but only when the prosecution can supply it to me - I have already asked three times...!" The clerk turned to the Mag and then addressed the prosecution, who said that the camera unit's policy was not to produce copies, and if I wanted to see the video, it could be played in court. I repsectfully remarked that I had requested the evidence so that I could "have it expertly examined" so only allowing me to see it at court would not be allowing me sufficient time to examine it fully and compile a response. The mags agreed, and following a note from a friend that accompanied me (more of him later), the clerk suggested to the prosecution that given the distance (320 mile round trip) they should send the video to another camera partnership. I said this was still unacceptable, as my expert may need to examine at his leisure.

NOW HERE'S THE CRUNCH - the prosecution then said, "I don't know why the video is being requested, because it doesn't show the speed"

errr - pardon?

I was then told to formally request the video evidence in writing (again). I think the mags were trying to say to the prosecution "c'mon, he's asked three times already, just send it"

My question MUST be, if the video does not show the speed, what use is it, other than a medium to record tonight's Eastenders laugh.gif

Trial scheduled for 19th May @ 2:15pm. If CPS persist in going all the way with this, I could really do with a McKenzie friend there. Happy to pay for the priviledge.

Finally, through my currently nameless friend, I have become aware that the South Wales Camera Partnership are under threat of prosecution due to their repeated use of unmarked and covert camera locations, and the fact that some stretches of road used REPEATEDLY (they even have pre-printed statements showing the location) do not have the required number of accidents to warrant a camera presence.

I have been promised information that with a little bit of luck, should see me not even bothering to go to South Wales again on 19/5.

Incidentally, the "Welcome to Wales" signs on the A449 have been removed. Speaks volumes. In fact, just to make all the non-welsh feel a bit better:

QUOTE
Three guys, one Welsh, one English, and one Scottish, are out walking along the beach together one day. They come across a lantern and a Genie pops out of it.

"I will give you each one wish, that's three wishes in total", says the Genie.

The Scottish guy says, "I am a fisherman, my Dad's a fisherman, his Dad was a fisherman and my son will be one too. I want all the oceans full of fish for all eternity."  

So, with a blink of the Genie's eye, "VAFOOM" the oceans were teaming with fish.

The Welshman was amazed, so he said, "I want a wall around Wales, protecting her, so that no one will get in for all eternity.  

Again, with a blink of the Genie's eye "VAFOOM" there was a huge wall around Wales.

The Englishman asks, "I'm very curious. Please tell me more about this wall."

The Genie explains, "well, it's about 250 feet high, 50 feet thick, protecting Wales so that nothing can get in or out."

The Englishman says, "great - fill it up with water!"  

icon_wink.gif
cjm99
Well done so far. biggrin.gif

Keep the pressure on, and keep us all posted


Regards Chris
firefly
QUOTE
NOW HERE'S THE CRUNCH - the prosecution then said, "I don't know why the video is being requested, because it doesn't show the speed"  


The defence rests. icon_redface.gif
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (NigelO)
And also, I gave them all my details in a letter, just not on The S172 form, so I'll be using the "nowhere in law is it required that the info should be on the form.."

Jones v DPP (see sticky) says that you can use a letter.
Did you sign the letter? If so Jones v DPP gives you a solid defence (assuming that you also provided the info).

As to the speeding. Apparently, on a 70 MPH motorway, one policeman's 'opinion' is sufficient; they do not require corroboration. However, I believe that Mika may have an idea on this subject, and if he doesn't post on this thread, you may wish to pm him.
The Rookie
Why do you say 'I am not the keeper'? I presume you are not the registered keeper, but if you have been nominated further up the NIP chain as the driver, you are by default the 'keeper' at the relevant time, more info here please! Presume they are prosecuting you for not signing?

Simon.
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (The Rookie)
Why do you say 'I am not the keeper'? I presume you are not the registered keeper, but if you have been nominated further up the NIP chain as the driver, you are by default the 'keeper' at the relevant time, more info here please!

No he's not. He's an 'any other person'. There is an argument that a long term 'lendee' may be a 'keeper', however, there is nothing to say that this is the case here.
NigelO
Not having visited this site, I wrote a letter telling the camera unit my name and address, and confirming I was driving the car, and signing the letter.

Before the Idris case, this had seemed like a big mistake, but now it seems like a perfect defense against "failed to supply information.."

However, the only bit of info I didn't supply was date of birth, but that was already on the summons, so they must have known it (seem to recall that it was given when the wife filled in her NIP - it was her car I was driving).

Feeling a fair bit more hopeful than I was this morning.

Will the CPS be mad enough to let it reach trial? I've fired off another letter today, saying that despite the Camera Unit's policy of not issuing copies, I have a legal right to have any Prosecution evidence, even if it undermines the Prosecution's own case. Will be interesting to see the outcome.

Rookie - I also read the bit somewhereon this forum about the driver being the "keeper" at least for that moment in time. However, I don't see how I should be expected to know the difference, and in any event, the NIP / summons does not mention "registered keeper", just "keeper" so I'm taking it as meaning the same.

Jeffrey - I understand the camera operator is a civilian, so therefore cannot give uncorroborated evidence - is this right?

BTW - a BIG thanks to everyone on this forum - without you, I wouldn't have had the knowledge, confidence or balls to take them on, and I would probably have rolled over at the first B&B letter. Cheers biggrin.gif
Mika
Nigel,

Well done and here are a few points of clarification:

When the prosecutor said: “I don't know why the video is being requested, because it doesn't show the speed"; he could have been referring to the fact that, the speed recorded on the LTi 20-20 traffic video, may have very little to do with the actual speed of your vehicle. icon_eek.gif

This link may help you to understand the civilian operator argument. It has to do with a civilian offering the primary opinion evidence, rather than the operation of the equipment – the corroboration evidence. Can you make it to Bristol Crown Court on 2nd April 2004?

I may be able to assist help you to find a McKenzie friend, so send me a PM. icon_wink.gif

Incidentally, if you think that the South Wales Safety Camera Partnership are in a bit of trouble at the moment, just wait until after the LTi 20-20 appeal hearing that is being held at Cardiff Crown Court on the 20th April 2004. icon_redface.gif
TomP
QUOTE ("jeffreyarcher")
 
As to the speeding. Apparently, on a 70 MPH motorway, one policeman's 'opinion' is sufficient; they do not require corroboration. However, I believe that Mika may have an idea on this subject, and if he doesn't post on this thread, you may wish to pm him.


I was told in writing by the ACPO that it required two police officers, one to colaborate the others opinon, in the absenec of another police officer an approved Sppeding device can be used!

Tomp
NigelO
I wish I'd hung around after my pre-trial review, as the Magistrates were clearly in a VERY lenient mood. In fact it would be nice if I could get the same trio for my trial.

Straight after my session, this happened:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3568245.stm
Craig
Nigel0

QUOTE
Have you got any details of this prosecution?  I'm due in court in Port Talbot tomorrow and it's always nice to have as much ammo as possible.

Cheers
NigelO
Craig, unfortunately, there are no details at the moment, as the threat of prosecution of a certain Mr Rowling is not yet in the public domain.

Suffice to say, there are several cases where certain legal bodies do not take a kind view of the scamera units tactics and are taking action

PM me your phome number and I'll call you - don't really want to post on here, just in case "the other side" are watching
cas
im also involved with the welsh scameraship for an offence on the A449. Is there anything you guys could tell me that might help? Pm me smile.gif
The Rookie
'Jeffreyarcher' apologies, but I am sure the conclusion that had been reached, and seemed to be being aplied (although not legally defined) was that the keeper referred to the person in 'control' of a car at the time in question, and not the RK...when a co car driver is summonsed for an S172 is it as a 'keeper' or as an 'any other person'?

Simon.
firefly
Hi Simon,

QUOTE (The Rookie)
when a co(mpany) car driver is summonsed for an S172 is it as a 'keeper' or as an 'any other person'?


Oh no! Not this again! icon_wink.gif
Red Shiney Wheels
QUOTE
Finally, through my currently nameless friend, I have become aware that the South Wales Camera Partnership are under threat of prosecution due to their repeated use of unmarked and covert camera locations, and the fact that some stretches of road used REPEATEDLY (they even have pre-printed statements showing the location) do not have the required number of accidents to warrant a camera presence.
QUOTE
Suffice to say, there are several cases where certain legal bodies do not take a kind view of the scamera units tactics and are taking action  


I thought the marking & placing of scamera guidelines were just that: guidelines not law.

Lincs police do this all the time according to family & friends of mine who live there. I myself have seen them hiding out in dark blue unmarked vans - be nice if they eventually got theirs!

RSW
jimmy ferrari
This link is the Dft's guidelines
And this is a link to a Times article that should help you understand how they are getting away with the placement of certain cameras under their 15% rule :!:
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.