Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Court Wednesday ... My PACE only defence
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
JohnnyBoy
Up for speeding and s172 on Wed ...

So I'm going to stand up and claim that there is no case to answer, based on the failure of the police to read me my rights as per para 10.9 of PACE Code C i.e. my right to silence.

Recent court cases have agreed that PACE is applicable to the RTA, how can it be possible for me to be found guilty of these alleged offences if Northants police have not done this and therefore have been in breach of their statutory duty ... QED ... no case to answer.

The rest of the prosecutions arguments are irrelvant after to this, and I will counter every subsequent point with my original defence argument.

This is the extent of my defence ?????? Thoughts???

6 points + £1000 R US, right sad.gif

Also has anyone got a copy of PACE Code C para 10.9?
dave99
unfortunately, the powers that be have decreed PACE does apply to RT offences but no caution is required as per the exceptions stated in Pace code C 10.1:
QUOTE
A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence, see Note 10A,must be cautioned before any questions about an offence, or further questions if the answers provide the grounds for suspicion, are put to them if either the suspect’s answers or silence, (i.e. failure or refusal to answer or answer satisfactorily) may be given in evidence to a court in a prosecution. A person need not be cautioned if questions are for other necessary purposes, e.g.:
(a) solely to establish their identity or ownership of any vehicle;
(B) to obtain information in accordance with any relevant statutory requirement,
see paragraph 10.9;


Yes, the word other in my view means other than for use as evidence in court, but that is not the definition the judges are using.


Here is PACE 10.9:
QUOTE
10.9 When, despite being cautioned, a person fails to co-operate or to answer particular questions which may affect their immediate treatment, the person should be informed of any relevant consequences and that those consequences are not affected by the caution. Examples are when a person’s refusal to provide:
• their name and address when charged may make them liable to detention;
• particulars and information in accordance with a statutory requirement, e.g. under the Road Traffic Act 1988, may amount to an offence or may make the person liable to a further arrest.
Blackbird
JohnnyBoy

With dave99 on this.
The clerk will simply state Idris proved that a signature is required and PACE is not applicable.
A guilty verdict will follow. Sorry to be blunt but this is how the situation is at present. Mika and the 'Commander' are taking PACE further, but in the magistrates this will simply go over their heads. IMO you must get rid of one of the cases first - logic dictates that you should not be convicted of both charges, but that will not stop the CPS trying. Normally the speeding goes first - but you need to dictate the direction - then form your defence strategy for the other charge. IMO for s172 what you need to do first is try and separate your case from Idris. For example were you asked by the CC to sign the NIP/s172? Also re-do the document check for errors.



Just a side thought, if you demanded to be arrested following an alleged speeding offence - you are after all 'a menace to society' CC Brunstrom - PACE should be applicable. Any volunteers to sort that one out!

Best Regards
JohnnyBoy
Thanks for the help.

Guess I going to have to argue that it applies anyway. I have nothing else to offer - post Idris.

In my favour, I did not enter into any correspondance with the CPS, or Central Ticket Office.

Has anyone tried this or is it a lost cause?
dave99
It probably depends a lot on how up to date the clerk is with recent cases - I wouldnt mind betting a lot have never heard of Idris' case etc. Someone on here said that a clerk has been adament PACE doesnt apply, and I saw a case a few weeks ago when the CPS lawyer and the clerk "had heard something about a case where someone sent in a signed letter instead of the form" and they ended up dropping his s172 case (and he wasnt even in court! - I wonder if the fact I was watching the proceedings affected this wink.gif). You could probably try your luck with lack of a PACE caution, but if the officials are up to date you havent got a chance.
Mika
Johnny,

I would suggest that, at some point during your submission you say the following, and that you make sure someone records the fact you said it:

“I submit that the Northants Police were in breach of statutory duty in the conduct of their investigation of the alleged offence from which this charge arises in the following crucial respect - that they failed to issue the warning required by PACE Code C.”

‘They’ will probably either try to tell you that you don’t know what you are talking about or, as Dave has said, that the caution is not required.

However, will the ECHR agree with their Lordship’s judgement icon_question.gif

The die is cast, because the appeal papers will be submitted shortly. icon_wink.gif
JohnnyBoy
My previous response was to Dave99 and not your response, Blackbird.

I thought the conclusion from Idris was the PACE IS applicable to the RTA?
JohnnyBoy
Blackbird ... Yes I did get a letter from the CC asking me to sign ... At this point I asked for clarification of my rights under PACE, by sending the PACE Letter.

I take it this is different form Idris.

Surely, the lack of anything signed negates the speeding charge unless I incriminate myself in court?
JohnnyBoy
"A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence, see Note 10A,must be cautioned before any questions about an offence, or further questions if the answers provide the grounds for suspicion, are put to them if either the suspect’s answers or silence, (i.e. failure or refusal to answer or answer satisfactorily) may be given in evidence to a court in a prosecution. A person need not be cautioned if questions are for other necessary purposes, e.g.:
(a) solely to establish their identity or ownership of any vehicle;
(B) to obtain information in accordance with any relevant statutory requirement,
see paragraph 10.9;"

HOLD IT, but it IS being given in evidence in court, so the next 'other' sentence is irrelevant!!!
cjm99
Johnyboy

There is not one person on this forum that dissagrees with you. Regrettably, the government,police,local authorities and the magistrates court administration all have thier hands in the till. icon_eek.gif

It willl take a European court to stop the scam.

Chris
Blackbird
JohnnyBoy

I think this thread about sums up the 'confusion' that abounds at present.
IMO cjm99 is correct on how this will be settled.
you said
QUOTE
Yes I did get a letter from the CC asking me to sign ... At this point I asked for clarification of my rights under PACE, by sending the PACE Letter.
I take it this is different form Idris
.
Sorry but the important part is that you were asked by the CC. Has that letter been listed in the proceedings?

IMO - and more than willing to be corrected
With PACE the problem lies in the courts. There is selective picking of PACE. Section 10.1 does not apply but s82 does (Y&M and Francis). dave99 I think that you may be referring to a previous post of mine - the CPS told me that PACE was not applicable and I had to refer to Maudsley and Francis.
you also said
QUOTE
Surely, the lack of anything signed negates the speeding charge unless I incriminate myself in court?

This is where (according to the courts) PACE is applicable and an unsigned form is acceptable as a voluntary confession under s82. Hence my suggestion that one case needs to be put out of the way.
Taking the worst scenario - and I have never heard it being used.
Voluntary confession s182 - guilty of speeding.
Francis PACE not applicable - judicious use of the English Language - guilty of s172.

I say again that I cannot imagine this happening, but it is possible - so be aware.

Finally as ever use Mika's suggested words - they certainly will make people look and listen!

While I think of it and not at all connected with this thread PACE code D includes sections on release of videos to 'identify people' it includes the release to TV companies and for general viewing. Might be of some use for those that are looking for disclosure.

Best Regards
dave99
QUOTE (JohnnyBoy)
"A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence, see Note 10A,must be cautioned before any questions about an offence, or further questions if the answers provide the grounds for suspicion, are put to them if either the suspect’s answers or silence, (i.e. failure or refusal to answer or answer satisfactorily) may be given in evidence to a court in a prosecution. A person need not be cautioned if questions are for other necessary purposes, e.g.:
(a) solely to establish their identity or ownership of any vehicle;
(B) to obtain information in accordance with any relevant statutory requirement,
see paragraph 10.9;"

HOLD IT, but it IS being given in evidence in court, so the next 'other' sentence is irrelevant!!!


For what its worth, I posed the question about the meaning of the word 'other' to some english language people and they agreed that when the whole section is read it makes sense for it to have the "additionally" kind of meaning. Anything not being used as evidence doesnt need a caution to be given - this is implied by the fact that anything that is used in court does need a caution, the exceptions listed in 10.1 must therefore be exceptions to the caution needed rule rather than emphasizing things that dont need a caution. As I have said before - all very confusing!
JohnnyBoy
Just back from the mags ... fully loaded with 3 points and lighter to the tune of 125 quid.

It wasn't as bad as I thought. My defence was going to be in line with Blackbird's recommendation, of changing my plea on the S172 to guilty for damage limitation.

I actually discussed this with the Clerk before going in - she brought it up. She told me that I would only be found guilty of one charge (speeding or s172). Prosecutor came in and I said I would cave to the guilty on the s172 if they dropped the speeding. He claimed he was only an 'agent' and would have to make a phone call to check this was OK?? Came back and said OK. Prosecutor mentioned he had planned on using Idris.

Magistrate asked me why I had changed my plea, and I went into the Idris findings which were after my original 'not guilty' plea, and before my hearing which had clarified some of my concerns. Nothing was recorded so I bottled going in to the Human Rights violation and PACE, but inferred my displeasure around the subject. Prosecutor did mention that I had written to the CC asking for clarification on PACE.

Smiles all round, and sorry looks from me, 3 points, £125 and out the door for S172 only. Think I did OK, and it could have been higher.

BTW, I was the only case on today, opened and closed up just for me. Usher did mention they were having a lots of S172s at the moment.

So I guess I can get this overturned, when the ECHR happens?

Also, I didn't fill in or send back the yellow income form with my orginal pleas, and wasn't asked for it today. The Usher asked the magistrate if she wanted clarification of my income, and she said not.

Done and dusted in 20 mins flat. Thanks for the help in this forum and let's keep fighting!!

Not sure how I feel .... a criminal I suppose sad.gif
dave99
I hope you didnt pay up the whole 125 quid in one lump - you want to be paying it on the drip over 12 months biggrin.gif
mikeh2000
12 months! If I get found guilty mines coming out of my pension(I'm 35!) icon_evil.gif
cjm99
First of all may I offer my comiserations on another traversty of justice

But , just a thought, If the clerk and CPS are getting into plea bargains, it would be far better to push as hard as you can for a speeding not a s172

Worth a try I think

Chris
Rosewell
Sorry to hear your result.

I have to say that cjm99 really is very sound here. Because of the greater insurance implications on a S172 against a SP endorsement on the licence. If I had to trade, I would definitly go for the speeding = pay less insurance hike
JohnnyBoy
I hear you, but if you do plead guilty on speeding, they could still push for a guilty on S172, claiming Idris. Harder to defend than the other way round.

So what %age will a MS90 add to my insurance do you think?
Atty
Johnnyboy
If you do plead guilty to speeding then surely they couldn't do you for the s172...could they? :x
Rosewell
QUOTE (JohnnyBoy)
...they could still push for a guilty on S172, claiming Idris. Harder to defend than the other way round.
So what %age will a MS90 add to my insurance do you think?


We were talking about plea bargaining though weren't we? We would have had the agreement of the CPS to drop the alternative charge first.

Don't know the ratio of hike you would have to shop around. But a MS90 endorsement might well be viewed as an attempt to hide something more serious.
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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.