lee37
Fri, 3 Sep 2004 - 12:57
40 IN A 30 , PRETTY SURE NO WAY MADE PRIOR JUDGEMENT OF SPEED AS IVE WATCHED THEM AT WORK AND THEY SHOOT AS YOU COME ROUND THE CORNER PRIOR TO A STRAIGHT .WITNESS STATEMANT SAYS VIDEO IS THE EVIDENCE .. SHOULD I ASK FOR THE WITNESS TO BE IN COURT ?? WILL I JUST PLEAD NOT GUILTY THEN GET AN ADJOURN ?WHEN CAN I ASK FOR THE VIDEO .. PLEASE HELP THANKS .. NOT TOO SURE OF THE PROCESS
dave99
Fri, 3 Sep 2004 - 13:06
no hurry, you will just plead not guilty (either in person or by post) on the 22nd and they will then set a date for the trial proper or pre trial review.
Once you have pleaded NG you can ask for disclosure of the video evidence - see the 'disclosure' sticky at the top of the forum.
cjm99
Fri, 3 Sep 2004 - 13:21
What you have to be carefull of, as in Dave99's case, is that some detection equipment prints a 'contemporaneous' photograph at the time. It is not taken from the video, and the video becomes unused evidence.
The policeman will trot out a well rehersed speel on training and 'prior opinion', and produce the contemporaneous note/picture to corroberate his prior opinion.
Be very carefull on the disclosure issue.
Chris
matt1133
Fri, 3 Sep 2004 - 14:43
if lee was caught by an lti 20-20, would the recent case of a speeding charge being quashed due to an incorrect reading have an effect on the outcome of his case?
lee37
Mon, 6 Sep 2004 - 16:04
only just had chance to log on today but thanks for the info , ive been looking carefully at the witness statement and at no point does the pc state he made any prior judgement that i was speeding .. purely that he was 'targetting vehicles ' ... im presuming i need to keep a lid on anything im going to use in my defence when requesting disclosure , the more confused they are on the day the better i guess ..
Bob_Sprocket
Mon, 6 Sep 2004 - 16:55
Hi Lee,
Do you want to get off and have the satisfaction of doing this by proving that they were not following the proper proceedures?
If that is the case unless they cock up severely on the paperwork I think that you might be pushing snow uphill. Magistrates seem to assume that everything that the Police tell them is true and assume that you are lying and trying to pick at small points in their cosy little relationship just to get off. You must be guilty because this nice Policeman and that nice highly trained prosecution lady think you are. Therefore you might be better off accepting a fixed penalty, if one is offered, or use the updated PACE statement (see the sticky above).
Best wishes
Bob
lee37
Mon, 6 Sep 2004 - 17:17
my arguement is that my vehicle is targetted without any prior opinion .. i have stood next to these guys working this site and one of them told me she didnt need to have an opinion just to shoot everything that came into view ... im 99 % sure you cannot form an opinion in the time it takes to come into view at this site , i just found it amusing to me that it was not even in the statement , doubtless i NEED the full video to check this out , i will change plea to guilty if i see no way out ... :?
Tamara-D
Mon, 6 Sep 2004 - 17:49
Hi Bob,
QUOTE (Bob_Sprocket)
If that is the case unless they cock up severely on the paperwork I think that you might be pushing snow uphill. Magistrates seem to assume that everything that the Police tell them is true and assume that you are lying and trying to pick at small points in their cosy little relationship just to get off. You must be guilty because this nice Policeman and that nice highly trained prosecution lady think you are.
This is true in ALL cases, not just in Lee's. If you want to fight then you should be prepared to save your pennies for the high court.
QUOTE (Bob_Sprocket)
Therefore you might be better off accepting a fixed penalty, if one is offered, or use the updated PACE statement (see the sticky above).
Why cave in? It would be useful if Lee posted all the circumstances around the case, but there are plenty of places that I drive every day where 40 in a 30 is acceptable.
Also as this is an LTI 20-20 case, it may be that he was not doing 40 at all.
Lee,
If you want to fight this, and they have confirmed the evidence IS the video, then go not guilty and request disclosure of the vid. If after the vid has been examined (if you get it at all) it shows you were over the limit, then you can change to guilty.
Are you being summonsed for speeding or s172 or both?
lee37
Mon, 6 Sep 2004 - 18:52
only speeding , been had same place before and wasnt too happy then either , this site is in our local paper EVERY week (aldershot news) , feeling is very bad and the scamera vans are far less frequent now , i also know i could have them tag along to court with me too , make great paper fodder and maybe put cps off a bit too ...??! im a taxi driver so i could do without any more points , i have 3 already which go in december so if nothing else ill be back to 3 points then ,, touch wood . I was travelling down a dual carriageway that is the only 30 section in a stretch of 40 , no one sticks to 30 its unrealistic , also in my case it was half 8 at night , dry and quiet , also i know they sit there so im amazed i missed them this time , i may have been going slower i may not , i'd need to check vid to test this , i'm pinning all my hopes on the operator targetting me the second i came into view .. :?
Bob_Sprocket
Mon, 6 Sep 2004 - 19:20
Hi,
My point is that whether the scammera operators are forming a prior opinion and then targetting you or tracking you while forming an opinion and then ensuring they collect the evidence as soon as the opinion is formed is a matter of fine judgement. Even an independant balanced opinion might be easily convinced to go along with the prosecution given the fact that the data collected does go on to show excess speed did occur. Its a fine point that you are arguing.
It may be that there are errors in the video and or the paperwork but why go through all of that technical stuff when, if you use the PACE witness statement instead of their NIP reply form, the thing will probably not even get to court. That's my point.
If you intend to fight it and plead not guilty, which you would have to do in order to see the video, then you might as well use the PACE statement. Then if it does not get to court you don't need to worry if they were targetting every car or not. If it does and you get convicted you would have very good grounds for an appeal.
Best wishes
Bob
lee37
Mon, 6 Sep 2004 - 19:52
i filled a nip in in march after i heard that it was no longer any point not doing so , the pace letter has come up later , i have already put my hands up to being the driver , maybe if their unsure they will not want to supply the vid and i can go on no evidence , no other person can drive my taxi so i would have been hard pushed to say 'not me' but would have had a go ,, presume i'm correct in assuming this is what you mean ??
Bob_Sprocket
Tue, 7 Sep 2004 - 06:29
Hi Lee,
If you have confessed already then I can now see where you are coming from and attacking the evidence of speeding is probably your only line of defence. Unless they cock up the paperwork which is quite possible.
Best wishes
Bob
cjm99
Tue, 7 Sep 2004 - 09:10
You mention earlier, that 'the witness statement refers to video'
If the witness statement refers to an exhibit, then a copy must accompany it or instruction on where it can be viewed. see below.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1967
1967 CHAPTER 80
PART I CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ETC
Miscellaneous provisions as to evidence, procedure and trial
Royal Assent [27 July 1967]
Criminal Justice Act 1967, Ch. 80, s. 9 (Eng.)
9 Proof by written statement
(1) In any criminal proceedings, other than committal proceedings, a written statement by any person shall, if such of the conditions mentioned in the next following subsection as are applicable are satisfied, be admissible as evidence to the like extent as oral evidence to the like effect by that person.
(2) The said conditions are--
(a) the statement purports to be signed by the person who made it;
(B) the statement contains a declaration by that person to the effect that it is true to the best of his knowledge and belief and that he made the statement knowing that, if it were tendered in evidence, he would be liable to prosecution if he wilfully stated in it anything which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true;
© before the hearing at which the statement is tendered in evidence, a copy of the statement is served, by or on behalf of the party proposing to tender it, on each of the other parties to the proceedings; and
(d) none of the other parties or their solicitors, within seven days from the service of the copy of the statement, serves a notice on the party so proposing objecting to the statement being tendered in evidence under this section:
Provided that the conditions mentioned in paragraphs © and (d) of this subsection shall not apply if the parties agree before or during the hearing that the statement shall be so tendered.
(3) The following provisions shall also have effect in relation to any written statement tendered in evidence under this section, that is to say--
(a) if the statement is made by a person under the age of [eighteen] , it shall give his age;
(B) if it is made by a person who cannot read it, it shall be read to him before he signs it and shall be accompanied by a declaration by the person who so read the statement to the effect that it was so read; and
© if it refers to any other document as an exhibit, the copy served on any other party to the proceedings under paragraph © of the last foregoing subsection shall be accompanied by a copy of that document or by such information as may be necessary in order to enable the party on whomit is served to inspect that document or a copy thereof.
You may be better, if no copies or stills have been disclosed, keep quiet, and object to the admissibility of the witness statement at trial.
Chris[/quote]
lee37
Wed, 8 Sep 2004 - 22:35
now thats interesting , but would they just adjourn and then disclose or can i hold my ground and demand it thrown out ???
cjm99
Thu, 9 Sep 2004 - 10:58
QUOTE
would they just adjourn and then disclose
No. The prosecution get 'one bite at the cherry' in our adversarial system. They need to evidence within thier case in cheif that a primea facia case exhists. By getting key evidence items ruled inadmissible, they then fail so to do.
Remember, that if exhibits mentioned in a witness statement are not attached, then aducing the exhibit it's self is also halted.
And, if the ehibit has not been disclosed at all, then it is automatically not admissible. (Common law... and see Attorney General's guidance notes)..
Chris
Chris
lee37
Thu, 9 Sep 2004 - 22:25
i may need that explaining in laymans terms but i get the gyst , how would i play that at trial , as soon as they produce the tape declare it un admissable evidence ?? also what would class as information with the witness statement to tell me where to view or obtain a copy of the video , seems to be missing from any of the paperwork ... sounds promising , can they supply me that info later or only with another copy of the witness statement ? if neither i take it i DONT ask any disclosure ... ?
lee37
Tue, 14 Sep 2004 - 12:41
????? is it really that easy that i can just declare the evidence not valid as i've not seen it , surely all the other people who are going for disclosure also had the evidence mentioned on witness statement with no copy attached ..... or do they have mentioned on it where to obtain it .. ?? help ....
cjm99
Tue, 14 Sep 2004 - 12:52
Lee37
In most cases, the witness statement is accompanied by still's. Often, the CPS declare the video to be 'unused evidence'. If the video is to be used, they usually only disclose a short snip showing the actual vehicle, not the full session.
Chris
lee37
Tue, 14 Sep 2004 - 12:58
ok , what happens if they say stills were supplied , i presume they couldnt do this as they are not mentioned anywhere ? correct ? if so sounds good to me , ill give it a go .
cjm99
Tue, 14 Sep 2004 - 13:08
The magistrates court rules, require that the 'bundle' of papers served on the defendent. An identical 'bundle' is placed before the court. So, the Clerk is your best ally on this one.
You object to admissibility on the grounds of disclosure, quoting s9 CJA 1967 and the Attorney General Guidelines. You may be asked to swear that you did not receive them, but you simply ask the clerk to show the court his 'bundle' which should be identical to yours.
Chris
lee37
Tue, 14 Sep 2004 - 13:28
this is a copy of my witness statement just so i know you guys are getting the right info from me to check against ...
"I am Police Constable xxxx xxxx of the Hampshire Constabulary stationed at xxxxxxxxxx with the Roads Policing Unit (formerly Traffic Division). I am a qualified operator and instructor of the LTI 20.20 Laser Speedscope and LASTEC Local video system, which are Home Office Typed Approved devices. Before commencement of use the equipment is checked for accuracy and correct operation. Each site/route chosen has additional signing indicating camera speed enforcement as a result of high casualty figures in the past. This is in line with the Constabulary Casualty Reduction Strategy.
Between xxxx and xxxx hours on xxxxxxxx xxxx 2004, I undertook speed enforcement on the A325 Farnborough Road Farnborough, in the 30 mph limit dual carriageway two lane restricted road section. I checked the speed of vehicles travelling between clockhouse Roundabout toward pinehurst Roundabout on both carriageways. Prior to commencement of the speed enforcement I checked the signing of the A325 which was all in order and clearly visible. The LTI 20.20 Laser/camera was positioned in the rear of the police vehicle facing toward Clockhouse roundabout. The police vehicle was parked in the 'old' section of Farnborough road outside number 176 adjacent to Pinehurst roundabout. It is a marked police vehicle and is clearly visible. Vehicles travelling on this particular section of road are restricted to a 30 mph speed limit.
The weather conditions prevailing at the time were that it was windy but dry, the road surface was dry.
During the period of enforcement, evidence of the offence was recorded on a VHS video cassette tape. At the conclusion of the enforcement period, I removed the video cassette from the machine and placed it into a bag and sealed it with seal number xxxx which was subsequently conveyed to the Safety Camera Unit, Central Ticket Office (CTO) at Police headquarters, Winchester. I exhibit this video tape as NEC/1. Each vehicle that I check is targeted by me through the viewfinder of the laser using a 'red dot' alignment marker which is also aligned to the centre of the crosshairs that show on the video tape. These crosshairs are to show anyone viewing the tape which vehicle I am checking, as the 'red dot' alignment marker is not duplicated on the video system. The original statement is held at the Central Ticket Office."
hopefully this statement will confirm your ideas .. thanks chris
cjm99
Tue, 14 Sep 2004 - 13:44
QUOTE
I exhibit this video tape as NEC/1. Each vehicle that I check is targeted by me through the viewfinder of the laser using a 'red dot' alignment marker which is also aligned to the centre of the crosshairs that show on the video tape. These crosshairs are to show anyone viewing the tape which vehicle I am checking, as the 'red dot' alignment marker is not duplicated on the video system. The original statement is held at the Central Ticket Office."
I could worry about this. It may be construed as identifying a place where the exhibit can be viewed. Albeit refering to a 'statement' not a video or indeed a 'document' as defined in RTA1988.
Chris
lee37
Tue, 14 Sep 2004 - 13:58
would the central ticket office be the normal place to find the video ?? presumably somewhere there is a legal term given that identifies evidence like this , would 'statement' cut it for a video ? surely a statement is exactly that .. or do their worships read what they like into it ?? :? :? :?
cjm99
Tue, 14 Sep 2004 - 14:07
At the conclusion of the enforcement period, I removed the video cassette from the machine and placed it into a bag and sealed it with seal number xxxx which was subsequently conveyed to the Safety Camera Unit, Central Ticket Office (CTO) at Police headquarters, Winchester
CTO is part of police force.
Video's are refered to as 'documents' in RTA. But, traffic videos are also refered to 'policemans notebook'. So could a fudge be made of these terms to deem 'statement' to equal video. Probably yes.
Chris
lee37
Tue, 14 Sep 2004 - 14:57
ok , so could i go to court and try it on anyway , then if they did decide i could have got hold of the video , at that point in the courtroom say i wanted full copy of the video for analysis, and an adjournment, or would they just view it and convict ???
anton
Wed, 15 Sep 2004 - 07:34
Lee, I expect to face Hampshire in a similar case, would you mind If I come along on 22nd to watch, See how they operate.
(May be help you celebrate (I promise not to wear my batman outfit, )
Was the copper thin and 80% bald? If so I have some pictures of him breaking health and safety regs!
Anton, Southampton
Andy L
Wed, 15 Sep 2004 - 09:15
QUOTE (cjm99)
Video's are refered to as 'documents' in RTA. But, traffic videos are also refered to 'policemans notebook'. So could a fudge be made of these terms to deem 'statement' to equal video. Probably yes.
Chris,
Sections 3 of the CPIA states that any material that (in the prosecutors opinion
) 'might undermine the prosecutors case' should be considered as primary disclosure - therefore the video falls within this and should be disclosed without the need of a defence statement. Also, the CPIA makes the prosecutor responsible to provide disclosure (once asked for) not provide a location where the material can be viewed
I know the 'prosecutors opinion' bit is seemingly the sticking point but by introducing the HRA into the defence statement (or in a letter) should sort this since once you have let them know they can be held to account they may stop trying it on and play by the rules as set in the CPIA and Attorney Generals guidellines..
Also, Section 8 of the CPIA states once a defence statement is written you can ask the courts to 'make an order' to the prosecutor for all primary and secondary disclosure of material.
Edit: Sorry forgot to mention the
recent case here, is I believe sufficient grounds for declaring the video to be capable of undermining the prosecutors case.
Andy
g_attrill
Wed, 15 Sep 2004 - 09:28
QUOTE (anton)
Was the copper thin and 80% bald? If so I have some pictures of him breaking health and safety regs!
Are you commenting on Hants Police officers not using flourou vests while doing speed checks? A few weeks back there was an officer on road nearby and he was operating an LTI 20-20 *handheld* and not wearing a flouro vest. It wasn't SCP work though, it's not a usual mobile camera route.
Gareth
anton
Wed, 15 Sep 2004 - 09:33
QUOTE
ok , so could i go to court and try it on anyway , then if they did decide i could have got hold of the video , at that point in the courtroom say i wanted full copy of the video for analysis, and an adjournment, or would they just view it and convict ???
Lee see the disclosure thread
[forum link]
In laymans terms.... "You wanted full unedited video so you can have this analised by experts especialy as this camera system was discredited by the fiat punto case.
As the police have evidence they have not allowed you to see you feel that any photographic evidence or vidio evidence is inadmissable.
as this was vital evidence needed to build your lawfull defence has been withheld by the prosicution you ask for the case to be dismissed"
Can someone put this into courtroom speak please!
anton
Wed, 15 Sep 2004 - 09:50
QUOTE
Are you commenting on Hants Police officers not using flourou vests while doing speed checks? A few weeks back there was an officer on road nearby and he was operating an LTI 20-20 *handheld* and not wearing a flouro vest. It wasn't SCP work though, it's not a usual mobile camera route
no, they were SCP van parked in very dangerous position. on point of flyover between lane 1&2 3-400 mm from carigeway. I will add photos tonight.
Inbreach of health and safety at work act and as he became part of a roadworks site possibly new roads and street works act (guarding) too.
link added.
http://www.seaton-uk.com/scp1.html
lee37
Thu, 16 Sep 2004 - 09:18
hi guys , only just got near computer this morning ,but thanks 4 all the replies .,
my date on 22nd is only at the local aldershot mag's , should i plead not guilty and let it be adjourned for trial or can i go for it there and then for the case to be dismissed ???
Im not too sure what a lot of the abbreviations for laws are that you guy's state , or which ones are mereley guidelines and which must be adhered to .. when they feel like it anyhow !!!
i guess what im saying is this , as it stands at the minute i only have 3 points on licence from dec 2001 , so i believe im correct in saying that this year they no longer count although still physically there for another year .. if i went guilty i'd get 3 points and minimul fine right now , i'm not really happy to do this as i feel pretty strongly about the bigger picture here , however if it was more than likely i'd lose then i could have my mind changed !! my original defence was going to be as you see at start of misuse and poor siting of the lti 20.20 , leading to no prior opinion , although as pointed out to me this is very much so at the mercy of the mag's at the time ... is this new arguement pretty reasonable , you lot seem to know about many cases i dont even after trawling this fantastic website for hours ,so i'm kinda gonna go with the majority view i think .. which links would i need so i can print off any laws or prior cases that i'd need to call off to the mag's ? ? i know some of you out there may have already put some on this topic and there all out there but i'm a bit overwhelmed with what i'm looking at at mo .... thanks again all you true fighters for real justice .. :?
edit : i still need to not ask for disclosure upon not guilty plea if going route of 'evidence not provided with statrement route ' right ??
cjm99
Thu, 16 Sep 2004 - 11:33
QUOTE (AndyL)
Sections 3 of the CPIA states that any material that (in the prosecutors opinion ) 'might undermine the prosecutors case' should be considered as primary disclosure - therefore the video falls within this and should be disclosed without the need of a defence statement. Also, the CPIA makes the prosecutor responsible to provide disclosure (once asked for) not provide a location where the material can be viewed
Andy,
The video would always be, in the opinion of the prosecutor, not to undermine the prosecution case.
My point in regard to exibits refered to in s9 witness statements requiring a copy accompanying it or instruction on where it can be viewed, relates to the admissibility of the S9. An error of disclosure here would be fatal, as the S9 could be ruled 'in-addmisable', so you don't go persuing disclosure.
Lastly, sec 8 compels the CPS to secondary disclose on receipt of a defence statement and request for specific disclosure (no fishing trips here).
But, if the offence was firearms related, you would not be disclosed the original weapon nor be disclosed a replica. You would be told where it can be securely viewed.
Chris
lee37
Fri, 17 Sep 2004 - 10:19
3 days to go till i need to put my plea , what are the CPIA ?? stands for what rulings exactly ?? anyone feel like answering my previous post ....??? i dont mind giving this a go but i want to be fully armed ..
:? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?
dave99
Fri, 17 Sep 2004 - 11:00
CPIA is the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 - you can read it online here...
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/ac...996/1996025.htm
lee37
Fri, 17 Sep 2004 - 12:07
thanks dave at least i can see what your all quoting from now .. this info is only really going to help me if and when i need to ask for the video though right .. Whats your view on chris's idea about there being no 'primary disclosure ? ' in or with the s9 statement ? if it looks reasonable could i say on monday that i cant enter a plea as evidence has not been offered so therefore inadmissable and i want case thrown out ?? i expect not but its my 1st time in court and i dont wanna crack up , if i have it all in black and white i think ill do ok ..
lee37
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 - 11:19
ive just been reading through the section 8 of disclosure law about the 7 day ruling and i'm slightly confused .. it mentions nothing about having to ask for the evidence to be disclosed so why do we have to ask for it ? is this because its not deemed evidence we need to see .. ??
Tamara-D
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 - 11:27
You need to request disclosure of everything you intend to rely on at trial to assist with your defence. If you don't then you can't use it.
If you request disclosure and you don't receive it at least 7 days before the trial then you will be in good shape.
lee37
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 - 11:49
mmm ... so i'd have to know for sure that going down the route of the evidence not being supplied with the s9 , or mention of a place to view it , was concrete then , as if that didnt work i could not then ask for disclosure as i should of asked for it at least 7 days before .. tricky , can i ask for adjournment aty that point so CAN ask for disclosure to aid my defence ?? :?
Tamara-D
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 - 11:54
The content of the s9 is evidence that the prosecution want to use against you. If they fail to disclose it then it can't be used against you - and you should not point this out to them.
If there is a video then you need to request its disclosure - not a viewing. You are entitled to a copy of the full session video.
lee37
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 - 12:09
if you have a look at the s9 witness statement i have put on this thread you can see they have mentioned the video , thats not in question , its just that they have not included a copy of the video , or any stills or ( i think ) any mention of how to obtain such items , with the s9.. so apparrently they cannot use that evidence as ive not been given it ?? this whole thread has me very confused now as to which way to go ... i understand the disclosure path and that was intended direction , but if this other way is feasable i'd have to NOT ask for any disclosure and declare the s9 and any evidence inadmissable on my trial date . i think thats it anyway !! ??
:?
Tamara-D
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 - 12:19
If they do provide the video as part of the prosecution case, (which I doubt) and you don't request full disclosure, then you may be in trouble.
The question then remains that if you request disclosure, and they refuse, but then introduce the video in court, is it then inadmissable?
lee37
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 - 12:33
i think the disclosure route is safest here really , at least i'm pretty sure the camera was not operated properly so i know what i'm arguing ..
I suppose i could ask the court solicitor about the s9 not being supplied with anything .. bet i know who's side he's on tho ... :!:
Blackbird
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 - 12:44
Hi lee
QUOTE
I suppose i could ask the court solicitor about the s9 not being supplied with anything
Unfortunately court solicitors are under instructions not to assist with speeding and or s172 cases. IMO not worth trying - don't forget that you are the lowest of the low in the eyes of the 'authorities'.
Stand your ground as has been detailed in this thread - just be prepared (which I think you are) - and don't worry about 'doing a Paxman'
'Where is my video?' 'Why are you predudicing my right to a fair trial?' 'Where is my video?' ...................
Best Regards
lee37
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 - 12:48
has anyone any idea on hampshires view on disclosure ??
Mika
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 - 14:05
Lee,
Hampshire cannot “take a view” on disclosure because they are obliged to comply with the
law.
You may find this recent post of interest.
Andy L
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 - 15:00
QUOTE (cjm99)
The video would always be, in the opinion of the prosecutor, not to undermine the prosecution case.
Chris,
Yes but there is no reason not to question or dispute this 'opinion' if shown to be clearly wrong then the prosecutor has some explaining to do under HRA.
Andy
Bob_Sprocket
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 - 19:00
Lee,
If and when you plead not guilty the case will be adjourned probably for a pre trial review. The CPS have to serve the evidence mentioned in the S9 7 days before the date set for the adjourned hearing. If they have not provided the full session video 7 days prior to the pre trial review then you will have to argue that it is important to your defence and ask for an adjournment until you are provided with the full session video.
They are supposed to make available and disclose any unused evidence which may be helpful to your defence but their opinion of what this constitutes will be different to yours. If the video is your main or only line of defence than you will have to argue very strongly for it. They may think that they have enough evidence on you based on still prints from the video of "edited highlights". That does not mean that the stuff that they have not used should not be made available to you. From what I have read here they are likely to fight strenuously to prevent you getting at the full session video.
Best wishes
Bob
Andy L
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 - 20:17
QUOTE (cjm99)
My point in regard to exibits refered to in s9 witness statements requiring a copy accompanying it or instruction on where it can be viewed, relates to the admissibility of the S9. An error of disclosure here would be fatal, as the S9 could be ruled 'in-addmisable', so you don't go persuing disclosure.
Hi Chris,
I may be missing the point :? but I don't see how the S9 witness statements would be inadmissible if you don’t ask for disclosure because wouldn't the S9 witness statements be taken as the only undisputable evidence which cannot and will not be challenged in court
Andy
cjm99
Mon, 20 Sep 2004 - 08:17
The 'witness statement' is accepted purely on the basis that it complies with the rules (sec9 CJA 1967). If it does not comply with the rules, then why accept it.
Remember, that in most cases the CPS go straight to trial, no PTR. If there was a PTR., then perhaps you would be obliged to challenge the omission, or request the non disclosed document then. But, if you are at trial, then this is your first oportunity. Importantly, you must not wait untill the prosecution has 'rested'. This would be seen as an ambush (see Gleeson). Challenge at the point that an exhibit is mentioned in the statement, whilst the CPS is reading it out.
Chris
PS. S9 refers to "exhibit".. Remember that photo's documents, tapes that the prosecution introduce are exhibits. Whether the statement uses this specific word or not, is irrelevant.
Andy L
Mon, 20 Sep 2004 - 13:58
Chris,
Thanks for the reference in your PM. Now I understand what you mean but when we talk about disclosing the video from (or other material relating to) the LTi 20-20 maybe the risk isn't so great, since it is likely to do them more harm than good and they definately don't want to disclose this stuff.
Andy
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.