Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: LTI 20.20: Judge States Garratt NOT Independent
FightBack Forums > Queries > Technical Discussion of Enforcement Devices
blackdouglas
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.
g_attrill
Interesting, and most welcome.
anton
send me a copy if it arrives, please
blackdouglas
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.
g_attrill
Judge Morrell icon_salut.gif
Dr Science
QUOTE (g_attrill @ Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 00:38) *
Judge Morrell icon_salut.gif

And so say all of us.

Dr.S
Captain A
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 ?
blackdouglas
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.
Whizz
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 sad.gif 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!
blackdouglas
QUOTE (Whizz @ Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 15:48) *
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 sad.gif 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.
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Whizz @ Sat, 11 Nov 2006 - 15:48) *
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).
Insider
QUOTE
I totally reject the claim of the so-called expert


Cutting ohmy.gif

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.
nip me baby one more time
I like that about the costs.

Get the feeling you are better off with a judge than a bunch of magistrates.
anton
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.
Clear Skies
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
jimmy ferrari
You mean this CHAP
Clear Skies
QUOTE (jimmy ferrari @ Mon, 13 Nov 2006 - 16:21) *
You mean this CHAP



no some other chap biggrin.gif The one I am thinking of had to pay 4000 costs for the CPS having the american flown over as a witnesss..

rgds
anton
I made contact with his solicitor who now has the full version of the case law biggrin.gif
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.....
jimmy ferrari
This CHAP then?
anton
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.
Whizz
Can he appeal the costs, even though he withdrew his appeal ?
cjm99
QUOTE ("Anton")
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.


This case was not in the Crown Court, it is a binding judgement of the Divisional court.

Moreover, it was Bingham when he was Lord Chief Justice. He is now the Senior Law Lord. They don't come any higher!!

If you look at my avatar, you will recognise him... rolleyes.gif

I have listed it and two other cases in which High Court decisions have consistently stressed the 'proportionality of cost prorata to the criminality element (the fine).

4.5 to 1 is described as "grossly disproportionate".. 2.5 to 1 whilst not binding, is a compelling example of the appeal courts opinion.


Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment
Clear Skies
yes that's the chap jimmy , biggrin.gif Anton Action ! & Cj brings home the bacon ... again..

I REALLY hope he has another go and gets his costs back..

rgds
bill
jimmy ferrari
A transcript can be obtained from;

Carmen Bradley,
Harry Counsell
Cliffords Inn
Fetter Lane
London
EC4A 1LD

Tel.02072690388

Case details
Northampton Crown Court
Case No. A20050106
November 3rd 2006
Appeal of Gregory Maroney Barnett
Judgement of His Honour Judge Morrell

I am informed that the cost would be in the region of £10 to £20. biggrin.gif

I've taken the liberty of editing Jimmy's post, to add the online details (Insider) wink.gif

Order transcripts/get a quote online

Or

QUOTE
Alternatively, you can email response@ubiqus.com telling us:

* The name(s) of the defendant(s)
* The court in which the case was heard
* The date(s) on which the case was heard
* The part of the transcript you require (eg, the whole case, the sentence, summing up to verdict, the evidence of Ms X, etc.)
* The judge’s name
* The indictment number, if you know it
* Your own contact details
* Your own reference number, if you have one
anton
can you get this for any case (not my own case)

I am particularly interested in one where the copper lied told a diferent version of the truth that I know to be fact
blackdouglas
Yes. Transcripts are generally available for Crown Court hearings (and Courts above).
roythebus
At last, a judge who can see through the scam to the common sense that lies some distance beyond. What a pity the mags still see the BiB through rose tinted spectacles and believe they never lie, and that speed cameras are always accurate.
nottoobad
QUOTE (roythebus @ Fri, 29 Dec 2006 - 23:23) *
At last, a judge who can see through the scam to the common sense that lies some distance beyond. What a pity the mags still see the BiB through rose tinted spectacles and believe they never lie, and that speed cameras are always accurate.


It's hardly surprising the mags have this attitude - don't forget the so called "Safety Camera Partnerships" are a partnership between the local authority, the police and....guess who?.....the magistrates!

Who was that saying "vested interest"?
Ahmed
I know I saw the full transcrpt for this somewhere on the net, but now I can't find it again !!! Grrrrr!

Anyone know where it is?

Cheers
ford poplar
"I express my disappointment at not being able to try this case."

Sounds more like Judge John Deed!
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 © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.