Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: BEWARE!
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Chris-southampton
Sent off a completed PACE statement about 6 weeks ago...............not heard anything yet, so hopefully the story in MCN was correct!

Seems to me that if there have been any convictions of people who have submitted PACE statements, and the law is changed to cover this area, that anyone convicted would certainly be entitled to compensation etc etc..................

Chris
Chris-southampton
Was detected at 37 in 30 limit last December, received NIP, and responded in the manner laid out on this site. Heard nothing whatsover back since I sent the PACE letter. I wonder if there is anything else that I can or should do, or is it merely a matter of waiting and seeing what drops through the letterbox?

Chris
Blackbird
QUOTE
I wonder if there is anything else that I can or should do
well you certainly don't want to notify any officialdom of your quandry biggrin.gif
I trust you have proof of delivery (for your PACE), and if you do, the only thing you should do is keep reading the forums so if anything 'nasty' drops through the postbox you are prepared.

Strange but not unknown for there to be no follow up wacko.gif
Chris-southampton
Have a court appearance on 21st July, which supposedly relies on a PACE witness statement from myself. Can anyone confirm whether or not precedent has recently been established which suggests a PACE statement is now wholly legally acceptable?

Cheers

Chris
Maths For Fun And Insight
Click here and here for guidance.
Chris-southampton
Was cammed at 36 in a 30 on 1/12/05, responded to this with a PACE statement as recommended here. Have court date for tomorrow, apparently they seem to understand the PACE statement is evidence enough to gain a conviction!

Seems to me that unless the ECHR decides in the scammers favour, that a PACE statement is certainly not admissable, and the action has been brought in the forlorn hope that I will plead guilty, so avoiding any consideration of admissibility or otherwise.

Been reading about experiences of others in similiar situations to myself on here, and it appears that it may be that pleading not guilty means that many appearances in court are likely to be the order of the day. Obviously for the majority of people returning to court 4 or 5 times, means a great deal of hassle and expense, and reading about the numerous court appearances on here, is going to mean many are likely to reconsider a not guilty plea.

Be interested to hear any advice, regards my situation, and I would very much like to know the current situation concerning both the ECHR and UK High Court rulings on the PACE statement issue. Be very useful if 4 or 5 court appearances could be avoided, and as it seems to me law at the moment is in our favour, and case should be thrown out early on.................Publicising something like that on here, would certainly not do the scammers cause a lot of good.


Cheers

Chris
anton
You have a pm
Chris-southampton
Was in court today, and as I had submitted a PACE letter, felt it appropriate to ask that the case should be adjourned until the ECHR judgment had been made, pertaining to this particular area.

The response to this request was that as the date of the alleged offence (35 in a 30), was 1st Decmber 2005, this judgment had no relevance whatsoever to my case, and an ajournment would not be granted.

Seems to me that it would be extremely helpful to clarify the exact position in law, at the present time, relative to PACE letters. and to post this information on the site. If the judgment is relative to this then it would seem there is every reason for courts to adjourn if requested to do so. On the other hand if as stated today, the judgment is irrelevant in regard to certain cases, I feel very strongly that it would be helpful to make this clear.

Cheers

Chris
andy_foster
The UK law as it currently stands supports the admissibility of evidence obtained under compulsion persuant to s.172 RTA 1988.
It isn't expected to stand for very long...

Whether it would be appropriate to adjourn whilst the ECtHR (Francis & O'Halloran) and the ECJ (TBA) sort this out is largely at the discretion of the courts.
They are not necessarily obliged to second-guess what the Europan courts might decide, when the Divisional Court and/or Privy Council have ruled on the issues.
The ECtHR certainly believes that the appeals have significant merit (and therefore at least a reasonable prospect of success), and as Francis & O'Halloran is due to be heard on September 27th, cases would not become significantly more stale if they are adjourned pending the decision.
Chris-southampton
Was in court today, following submission of a PACE statement, after being cammed at 36 in a 30 on 1st December 2005.

They seemed to think the PACE letter is all the evidence thats needed for a conviction, and also that the forthcoming ECHR judgment has no bearing on this matter (due to the date of the offence apparently).

I entered a not guilty plea, but it looks as though I will have to end up pleading guilty, and paying the extra court costs.

Real shame that the PACE loophole now appears to have been nailed tight shut, and it not likely to be of any help to anyone in future.

Be great if the court is wholly wrong on these points, and there is a chance that I could get an adjournment until after the ECHR judgment.

Chris
Mr Rusty
QUOTE
Real shame that the PACE loophole now appears to have been nailed tight shut, and it not likely to be of any help to anyone in future.
,

Which is why some mags courts are adjouring cases until after the ECHR case. It most certainly isn't nailed tight shut. Make them convict you after a NG plea - you will then have more chance of compensation. If you plead guilty, you will have little or no come back later. Look at the cleveland cases.

I think the info re the cases being adjourned is in the members forum.
Broadsword
Chris, you are a bit thin on detail here.

How did this discussion and the conclusions all come about today at what was (i guess) simply a Pre Trial Review...................did they by chance conspire to wheedle your defence out of you with a cosy little chat?
Chris-southampton
Wonder if anyone would be able to help someone with any advice regarding court appearance, where PACE statement has been accepted as proper evidence as to identity of driver?


Chris

(Ps: 3 earlier posts of mine asking this same question have been deleted, so would advise anyone to be very cautious about anything posted on this site)
Jase00
Why ask then Chris?

dry.gif

Many people have had great advice from this site, have you read the stickys and posted in the desired format giving as much info as you can?

No one here can give any advice without more facts......
Do you understand the PACE statement?
You obviously dont or you would know what to say in this senario...
Read the forum....All the info is here.....
Missdaisy
QUOTE
Ps: 3 earlier posts of mine asking this same question have been deleted, so would advise anyone to be very cautious about anything posted on this site)


What do you mean by that?

Did you put in the PACE statement that you did not give permission for the PACE statement in the prosecution.

Is this the PACE statement appearing in the evidence bundle or is it a case of it actually being used in court?
andy_foster
You've started a duplicate thread!

Either you refrain from starting new threads for this case, or I'll stop you.
Missdaisy
Have you read this thread?
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...=pace+statement

The purpose of this site is to provide advice for motorists by motorists it does not suggest it is giving motorists a 'get out of your speeding offences' card by completing the PACE statement.

The use of PACE is being taken to the european courts and being heavily followed by this site. The use of PACE is based upon the premise that you should not be compelled under natural justice to give evidence that incriminates yourself.

Until that case (and others like it) establishes whether the principles of law apply to this area of law the use of PACE is not clearly defined or enshrined in law. I think you would be naive to think that its use would give you a rubber stamp route to getting away with speeding.

So I would be interested in what your comments were alluding to..........

(Ah now I see the threads weren't removed just not in one place - thanks moderators for clearing that one up was just getting miffed.........!!)
Chris-southampton
After being told by a legal advisor in court that any ECHR judgment pertaining to my case was quite irrelevent (due to offence having been committed Dec 2005), I took this up with the head of legal services.

This lady very helpfully informed me that the issue of relying on self incriminating evidence had already been dealt with by the house of lords, but was also able to confirm that a judgment from the ECHR would overide any earlier decision arrived at by the house of lords.

It seems to me that either the forthcoming ECHR judgment is relevent to those that have provided self incriminating evidence regarding speed scameras, or its not.................in my case this does not seem to be clear, and I am not comfortable with the fact that the head of legal services of the court dealing with my case, seems happy to obfuscate the issues here.

If its of any interest I will be taking furthur legal advice next week, and post a copy of the reply I get from the court in response to my letter asking for details of house of lords judgment, and why apparently legal advisors feel that ECHR rulings are of little consequence in matters such as this!

Chris
Mika
It would probably be a good idea if you consult someone who knows what they are talking about and in no particular order.
    1) The case that will be heard by the ECHR on 27th September is directly related to the issue of self-incrimination.

    2) The ECHR does not have the power to overrule the decisions of the UK courts and/or the House of Lords.

    3) The House of Lords Fudgement they are referring to is Brown v Stott and that case was decided by the Privy Council and not by the House of Lords. Brown v Stott forms the bases of the UK Government’s submission for the ECHR hearing on 27th September.

    4) Shortly after the ECHR case is heard, there will be an appeal in the UK High Court.
Chris-southampton
The fact is the head of legal services (court clerks) doesnt seem to have a clue about pertinant law relating to these matters, so it would follow that court clerks would not be in a position to provide accurate information to the bench (not legally qualified), regarding points they claim to know nothing about.

Seems to me a fair number of defendants are likely to plead guilty in the face of being told by a clerk (who is supposedly impartial), that forthcoming ECHR judgment is wholly irrelevent.

Chris
crystal
Hi,

The clerks are supposed to be unbiased but they are not they gave all sorts of bad advice which luckily I knew to be wrong from here and other places. You need to be sure of your own ground as they will bully you.

If you are found gulity (as oppose to plead gulity) you can appeal in 21 days of the trial and then ask for an adjournment. If you do not appeal in 21 days then you can only appeal at the discretion of the court and I suspect it might not be allowed.(but you never know)
If you plead gulity its game over. I decided that as I had got to the court stage There was no benifit to changing my plea to gulity.

Regards
Crystal
Chris-southampton
In this case the "legal advisor" told the court that the ECHR ruling was irrelevent, even though she was not familiar with the ruling in question, so was in no position to make any sort of informed comment one way or another!

I made a formal complaint about this matter to the head of legal services, and apparently in the view of the chairman of the bench "in no way had she behaved other than properly and in accordance with normal procedure"..................Maybe it is proper and in accord with normal procedure for legal advisors to talk out of their arses and advise courts on points of law they know nothing about?

Chris
Chris-southampton
On Wednesday 18th October, I ws found guilty of 36mph in a 30 after getting pigged by a fixed camera last December. This resulted in £60 fine, and £150 costs, but probably would have been quite a bit more had the matter been dealt with by magistrates, rather than a seemingly very fair handed district judge!

I had taken advice given on this site, and filled out and sent in PACE letter etc etc, but before the hearing had the opportunity to have a long conversation with the owner of a very sucessful local solicitors. He advised that signing anything, such as a PACE letter, would very likely result in being convicted of the original offence.

Apparently the speed camera/fines system works on the principle of a conveyor belt, and it is expected that some that have been pigged by the system are going to fall off, and be forgotten about. Looking at this objectively, in common with the poll tax, it would only take a relatively small number of people to entirely ignore the paperwork received, to make the conveyor belt grind to a complete halt!

If this site advocated binning the paperwork, and this was something that people did, rather than waste time with pointless PACE letters, there is a very good chance that something would have to give, and the scamera fruadsters would need to clean up their acts somewhat. However I dont think thats going to happen though................do you?

Chris
Insider
They are well geared up to deal with ignored letters as well.
Falcon_II
Sorry to hear that you lost your case.
Zapata
QUOTE (Chris-southampton @ Sat, 21 Oct 2006 - 07:03) *
On Wednesday 18th October, I ws found guilty of 36mph in a 30 after getting pigged by a fixed camera last December. This resulted in £60 fine, and £150 costs, but probably would have been quite a bit more had the matter been dealt with by magistrates, rather than a seemingly very fair handed district judge!

I had taken advice given on this site, and filled out and sent in PACE letter etc etc, but before the hearing had the opportunity to have a long conversation with the owner of a very sucessful local solicitors. He advised that signing anything, such as a PACE letter, would very likely result in being convicted of the original offence.

Apparently the speed camera/fines system works on the principle of a conveyor belt, and it is expected that some that have been pigged by the system are going to fall off, and be forgotten about. Looking at this objectively, in common with the poll tax, it would only take a relatively small number of people to entirely ignore the paperwork received, to make the conveyor belt grind to a complete halt!

If this site advocated binning the paperwork, and this was something that people did, rather than waste time with pointless PACE letters, there is a very good chance that something would have to give, and the scamera fruadsters would need to clean up their acts somewhat. However I dont think thats going to happen though................do you?

Chris


Hi9 Chris, I took the "ignore everything route" on one occassion. I binned all letters without opening them. I was fined in absentia £235 quid and the first I knew was when I received a warrant from the court. I called the court, negotiated a weekly payment and paid them over a one year period. It does delay things but so does the PACE statement and pleading Not Guilty and if this is done then the Scammers don't get the money.
Rgds
Zapata
Chris-southampton
After following advice provided on this site, and attending court several times, I ended up with having to pay £260, as well as wasting my time attending court, after being convicted of a speeding offence (36 in a 30).

My mistake was not going to see a solicitor before attending court for the first time, being of the mistaken belief that the information on this site was credible and worth looking at.

As it seems to me that nearly all of what is on this site is either wholly erroneous of flawed in some way, I wonder what purpose is served by putting it on the net? Certainly didnt help me in any way, and I wonder if anyone can let me know the reasons behind propagating material that seems to be entirely based on a hoped for ECHR judgement thats about as likely to happen as Bliar admitting to murder!
Mika
QUOTE (Chris-southampton @ Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 08:36) *
After following advice provided on this site, and attending court several times, I ended up with having to pay £260, as well as wasting my time attending court, after being convicted of a speeding offence (36 in a 30).

In the case that is currently being appealed to the high court, the defendant did not attend court – when they convicted him in his absence, he was playing golf.

If you appeal your conviction, you will probably find that the appeal is held pending the outcome of O’Halloran & Francis v UK.

If O’Halloron loses, which is considered unlikely, you can withdraw your appeal.
Bluedart
QUOTE
QUOTE (Mika @ Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 09:18) *
QUOTE (Chris-southampton @ Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 08:36) *
After following advice provided on this site, and attending court several times, I ended up with having to pay £260, as well as wasting my time attending court, after being convicted of a speeding offence (36 in a 30).

In the case that is currently being appealed to the high court, the defendant did not attend court – when they convicted him in his absence, he was playing golf.

If you appeal your conviction, you will probably find that the appeal is held pending the outcome of O’Halloran & Francis v UK.

If O’Halloron loses, which is considered unlikely, you can withdraw your appeal.

I wish there was someway we could help Chris-southampton, but reading through it all, he has been playing devil's advocate all along, so any advice will I think fall on deaf ears.
peterb
QUOTE (Chris-southampton @ Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 08:36) *
After following advice provided on this site, and attending court several times, I ended up with having to pay £260, as well as wasting my time attending court, after being convicted of a speeding offence (36 in a 30).

My mistake was not going to see a solicitor before attending court for the first time, being of the mistaken belief that the information on this site was credible and worth looking at.

As it seems to me that nearly all of what is on this site is either wholly erroneous of flawed in some way, I wonder what purpose is served by putting it on the net? Certainly didnt help me in any way, and I wonder if anyone can let me know the reasons behind propagating material that seems to be entirely based on a hoped for ECHR judgement thats about as likely to happen as Bliar admitting to murder!

You pays your money, you take's your choice.
You have to make the decisons what route you to take, PACE/solicitor/your defence.
There are no guarantees whatever route you take.

Sounds like you were railroaded into your conviction by the system, that's what it's there for.

peterb
Rallyman72
The PACE letter is not a get out of jail free card. There is work required to investigate other aspects of each individuals case and they need to do this and ensure that they are well prepared in attending court arming themselves with copies of all necessary documents etc to support their argument.

It is apparent that this thread is very thin on detail and some is contradictory (3 different speeds and two different outcomes in size of fine/costs alleged in the same case?). It is not clear what research and preparation was done.

I am only too aware of the research aspect having tried, not too successfully, to act as a MacKenzie friend in a speeding case - I did a lot of work but, in my view, still not enough. I now know better if there is a next time.
anton
I have to echo rallymans sentiments. Too many people ask for help and disapear untill a few days before the hearing. They do not share what they learned and where thier case went wrong, or right. Chris has a case taken to final conclusion yet we have around 45 casess in Southampton courts adjourned waiting the result of the Idris francis case.

I am very aware that a lot of threads do not get the attention from the other forum members that they deserve and need. that is why the faq's are there. There is no way that the 10 most knowledgable can follow them all.

If it is all about cash and days off work, any one reading this ought to pay £60 and take 3 points and drive like a snail for the rest of thier life! This is a fight back forum. It is about costing them as much as we legally can, clogging up the courts, Untill they give up this stupid game and return to proper policing rather than motorist bashing. On that front we are winning, they are not making much money out of this.

If Idris wins there will be an opportunity for chris to appeal. with a very high chance of success.
Barking Mad
Chris,

Were you asked to take the stand?

Did you take the stand?

And if you did, were you asked "Were you the driver?"?.
Bluedart
QUOTE
QUOTE (Barking Mad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 11:33) *
Chris,

Were you asked to take the stand?

Did you take the stand?

And if you did, were you asked "Were you the driver?"?.


Now we are talking.
If we do not know what he did, how can we form an informed opinion.
H&Ps
QUOTE (Barking Mad @ Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 11:33) *
Chris,

Were you asked to take the stand?

Did you take the stand?

And if you did, were you asked "Were you the driver?"?.


so if after using PACE and it get's to court and you are asked to take the stand and asked "were you the driver"?

what should you do?
cetdriver
i have read all this thread and even i ( as a novice ) can see the lack of information

my case ( thread title four letters in one here) is being held on the 16 feb 2007

what research do i need to do before the case please

you will find all the letters from the first nip to the summons on that thread

i cant provide any more information as i havent got anymore

please have a look and advise me as im willing to go all the way on this one i have nothing to lose as any fine will be paid at a nominal amount per week and i have a clean licence at present
Mika
QUOTE (H&Ps @ Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 20:35) *
so if after using PACE and it get's to court and you are asked to take the stand and asked "were you the driver"?

Why would you want to go to court in the first place? And if you were to go, why would you feel the need to take to the witness box?

QUOTE (Mika @ Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 09:18) *
In the case that is currently being appealed to the high court, the defendant did not attend court – when they convicted him in his absence, he was playing golf.


QUOTE (anton @ Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 11:31) *
we have around 45 casess in Southampton courts adjourned waiting the result of the Idris francis case.

wink.gif
H&Ps
"Why would you want to go to court in the first place?"

i wouldn't want to but what if you recieved a court summons after submitting your PACE?
Mika
QUOTE (H&Ps @ Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 21:52) *
i wouldn't want to but what if you recieved a court summons after submitting your PACE?

QUOTE (Mika @ Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 09:18) *
In the case that is currently being appealed to the high court, the defendant did not attend court – when they convicted him in his absence, he was playing golf.

Will it help if we get the above translated into Swahili?
Insider
QUOTE (Mika @ Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 22:41) *
Will it help if we get the above translated into Swahili?


How about Pidgin Conversion?

QUOTE
for di case dat dey currently bein appealed fo di high court, di defendant did no attend court – wen dem convicted am for e absence, e bi playin golf.
DefaDog
Seems a very long time between offence and court appearance. Did you check that the infromation was laid before the court within 6 months?
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.