I wonder if you can help me.

I was zapped doing 43 in a 30ph zone in November 2003. Due to unclear signing I was unaware of the speed limit.
I chose to fight this.
Upon reciept of the police evidence, I was issued with two Statement of Witness. The serial number of the LTI 20/20 was different in both statements. The officer at the Magistrtes Court explained this away as computer generated evidence and chose which one he wanted to use. The Magistrate found in favour of the police and acted, in my opinion, outside of his legal requirement.

My Crown Court date for appeal is looming and wonder if anyone can give me advice on whether I have a case or whether I should drop it before incurring huge court costs. I am fighting this case without legal representation as I cannot afford to pay for a solicitor.

Would probably help to have a lot more detail.

What facts/points of law were disputed? What did the beaks decide, etc.

You hinted at an issue regarding unclear signage. Was this part of your defence?

Andy

bill has some knowledge in this specific area regarding signage as well as access to an expert who may be able to advise you,

you could get john josephs to look over your case for £117 and will give you a detailed breakdown of your strong points and the prosecution weaknesses,

where is your case and date?

Hi

The Pc said that there were 30mph signs up either end of the road but I entered the road before the end so didnt see the signs.

I am really trying to find out if the different serial numbers on the statements have any legal come back.

The magistrates accepted the Pc's reasoning for the two statements being different.

There were no points of law discussed they just accepted why two signed statements differed.

My Case is in Mold, 22 October.

Quetion here is what was the speed limit on the road you entered from?

Quetion here is what was the speed limit on the road you entered from?

To which I can only say - HOW?? Surely any inanimate object, especially one as perfect as an LTi 20/20 can have only one serial number, so how can there be two ? Forget any confusion about the signage.

I would argue strenuously that if the numbers are different then the evidence is fundamentally flawed .

Not too sure on the speed of the road I entered from but i think it was probably 30. It was an awkward junction but I joined the A547 where the the majority of it is 40mph so just assumed that this stretch of road was 40.

Dear Capatin A

Thanks for that. That is the point I am trying to make. The two signed statements were by the same PC. One, Serial number, 440878 was dated 2nd march 2004, the other, serial number 447364 was dated 18th June 2004.

Can anyone tell me what legal argument I can use.

If the road you are travelling was 30 then it remains 30 on any road you enter unless otherwise sign posted.

I think that i would go along with Captain A and challenge the evidence from the witness statements which the mags should have relied on.

One of the statements was definately FALSE. I wonder if someone will get fined up to £2000 for knowingly or recklesly tendering a false to be used in evidence.

sign expert, richard bentley, 01723 862948 .

u need pictures, I am sure he will discuss in brief before charging, we should all remember this is how people like richard make their living, so ask him how it works. I don't think he is outragously expensive

Bear in mind he can appear as an expert at your trial . I am not quite sure, but I believe, win or loose, the court will pay "the experts costs" . Again plse ask him.

let us know how u get on ..

rgds
bill

rgds
Bill

How have you initiated the appeal?

From what little info available, it sounds as though it should go to appeal as 'case stated' and that you should by now have already requested the magistrates so to do, based on your assertion that they were wrong to accept the evidence adduced in the witness statements? Can you clarify.

I refer my learned friend to the case of Them V Us...

"The police never lie, or make mistakes. Their memory of the incident (one of hundreds that shift) is much clearer than that of the accused who may have been caught speeding several times that year.
Their evidence is therefore accepted accordingly."

"Of course the police are human, and as such occasionally make mistakes. It would be absurd to punish them for a simple genuine mistake."

The police/CPS aren't going to instigate proceedings against their own in these circumstances without a lot of media pressure.
I've yet to find out how they respond to complaints lodged by victims/potential victims of perjury.
I suspect that the solution may involve a private prosecution.

Andy

I have appealed against the conviction and sentence stating that the magistrates had acted outside their legal requirements by allowing the police to choose which statement to use on that day.

Thanks Bill but I'm not fighting the case on the signage. They had that well sorted at trial. Following their slim guidelines as the speed signs only have to be on the beginning and end of the designated route.

Ian, have the CPS re-disclosed all the S9 statements or have you had any other contact from them since your appeal application?

Dave99, No I have had no contact at all since the magistrates appeal. The only contact was to give me my appeal date which is 22 October. (What is an S9 statement) forgive my ignorance.

an S9 statement is what the camera operator or postal clerk etc. makes and should have been prvided as part of your original trial (there is plenty of info on the forums about them if you want more info). I was just curious as I was reading the cps website appeals page the other day which said...

Ian

The appeals process is something I have only read in passing. But, from what I have gleaned.

An appeal to Crown court is on the basis of 'conclusion' reached by magistrates or sentence inflicted by them based on the evidence placed before them.
Your case, sounds to me as though you are challenging the decision of the magistrates to allow a particular piece of evidence to be placed before them. This would be an appeal by way of 'case stated' to the Administrative Div. High Court., not to Crown Court?????

As I asked before, what have you actually asked for? and how?

[quote]Following their slim guidelines as the speed signs only have to be on the beginning and end of the designated route.[/quote][/quote]

Ian, were there street lights on the route in question?

Chris,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I was away for the night.

I am appealing against the fact that the magistrates accepted one of two conflicting statements supplied by the police officer. Not necessarily any particular piece of evidence placed before them. Since being convicted at magistrates all I have done is send a letter appealing against conviction, explaining that the magistrates acted outside their legal requirements. I think they should not be allowed to dismiss one statement on the say so of the police. The officer used the excuse of it being a simple mistake generated by the computer. In hindsight I should have asked for the video tape of the two cameras that they have stated serial numbers for.

Since I asked for appeal all I have received is a letter confirming my appeal date and another stating that the same officer will be attending court as a witness.

Thanks for your help

Ian

I have just returned form my Crown Court Appeal against conviction and sentence at the Magistrates Court in July.

All you legal experts try and work this one out!

My £60 and 3 points still stand but North Wales police are picking up all costs.

The original witness statement was proved not to have been personally signed by the officer or even seen by him.

The Judge knows this and accepted that it was a false statement. He halted proceedings and stated "This case cannot continue."

However, it did!

The officer in the witness box explained this is computer generated evidence and the further true statement produced seven months after the offence was the one to be relied on. (As I understand from this site would be timed out)

Sadly all this written evidence has been ignored, and conviction and sentence stand because there is a video and the officer in the witness box said I was doing 40mph in a 30 zone.

Case closed.

I told the judge that the outcome was farcical and that he was backtracking to protect his own. I told him that if I had turned up with 2 different statements, I would have been marched down to the cells and prosecuted.

I fought this case without legal representation but what it needs now is a Brief with balls who knows they can overturn this decisiion and gain healthy remuneration for their trouble.

Any offers?

Ian

As a side note, the judge did say that he would put a stop to all computer generated statements, as cases like this could not happen again. He is also writing a damning letter to The Chief Constable of North Wales police.

I was approached outside the court by a free lance journalist who said that I didn't know what I had done and that it was going to help thousands of people. He was ecstatic. Watch out for the press!

This is music to my ears, I cannot speak for others.
Well done

Why not have a plug at the paper to assist and offer them exclusive rights to your story.

Its only you who can appeal this and only you who can create the story.

Work out the cost of appeal v exclusive story.

It was a free lance journalist who approached me. When I asked him about payment for the story he laughed at me and said it was a public court and he could report it regardless of what I say.

very well done for taking it this far 8)

are you taking this to the high court?

Of course he can but he wont know were any further appeal may be held to continue the story to conclusion.

Have you ever read half of a good story?

Ian, if the case was halted, and a statement declared as above, under what circumstances was it allowed to continue?


It will make very interesting reading!


Peter

A transcript of that hearing would make good bedtime reading. How long did the case last. Transcripts I have had in the past have cost around £100.00 per hour of recording.

The case was allowed to continue because The judge later said that what he meant was "not to continue" was the continuation of computer generated statements.

I was certain he said "this case cannot continue"

The whole case lasted only half an hour!

Must be worth a transcript

North Wales Daily Post, Saturday 23rd October 2004, p. 7

"Slow down your speed trap paperwork"

Judge attacks computerised 'signatures' of PCs

By ELWYN ROBERTS


THE controversial speed campaign pioneered by North Wales' top cop Richard Brunstrom suffered a severe setback last night.
A judge warned a new streamlined system of preparing officers' statements must stop.
Judge Derek Halbert, sitting at Mold Crown Court, said he would refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions if another such case came before him.
The statements are prepared under a new automated procedure using the latest technology.
They purport to show police officers have signed a legal declaration and that their statements are honest and true.
But the officers have never seen them and their signatures are scanned in.
The practice came to light during a speeding appeal which was dismissed by Judge Halbert, sitting with two magistrates. Upholsterer Ian Edward Smith, 42, of Seaforth, Liverpool, appealed against his Prestatyn Magistrates' Court speeding conviction.
The judge branded it an unusual and disturbing case.
The bench was "unanimously and firmly" of the view the officer involved had given truthful evidence in court.
But the judge added: "Having said that, this court is unanimously of the view that the procedure adopted of preparing witness statements is utterly inappropriate.
"This procedure will stop. If it comes before me again I shall report the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions," the judge said.
Last night, Supt Michelle Williams, head of the force's criminal justice department, said the automated processes had been developed with the CPS and the courts."

It's amazing how a 'witness statement', can be seen by the police to be properly authenticated without signature, yet a sec 172 notice most definately is not..

Ian,

This sounds as though it could be job for the House of Lords and the ECJ.

Perhaps the last sentence of the article should have said:

“The automated and completely unlawful processes had been developed in collusion with colleagues from other parts of the Safety Camera Partnership."

What gets me is the total contempt for the law shown by this 'procedure', and the fact that no one who implemented it even thought that there was anything wrong with it.
It just demonstrates that the statement contained in the S9 statement (perjury if untrue etc.) is treated with total contempt by those who enforce the'law'.
If, as the judge / magistrates believed, the policeman's evidence was true, why is the person who fabricated the falsehoods not up for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

We should all prepare a scanned signature for the purpose of authenticating the s172 computerised witness statement.

Play them at there own game.

What's this; 'if it comes before me again ....' crap?

....Dear judge, I know i done 200mph, but please let me off until I come before you again......?

I suggest this isn't the first time and he's probably already had this, it just hasn't come to light.

Can we ask the great general public if it might have happened to them, then send the evidence to the fudge?

Peteturbo

The way the system works(sic) is that the defendant is on trial, not the scammers.
What we need is for the victims of perjury to take action against those that commit perjury. There are many of us who have contemplated it, but don't really know where to start, or just think they can't "beat the system".

Surely it would only take 1 person with big hairy ones to stand up and have a go back. If they suceeded then they would have to overturn or at least review EVERY similar case and think how much time and money that would cost.
Maybe a 'fund' should be set up so we can all contribute a couple of quid to get the ball rolling?
One senses that the scameraships time is running out...

pug,

currently, there is a way to donate through a few methods quickly and easily, any amount, here is the link, scroll half way down the page :
http://pepipoo.com/Site_info.htm

And you get a very cool yellow star. Which is nice.

8)

Thanks Pug

I am the one with big hairy ones! I have fought this on my own so far without legal representation, risking high costs on the way.

I agree that my case would be a test case but this time with the right legal minds guiding me. It does, however, need funding. I cannot afford to do this on my own. I would gratefully receive any donations and would happily post every donation, I receive at my home address, on this site to show that I not on the make or as Matt is saying make donations to Pepipoo. Does this mean that Pepipoo will then fund my fight?

Thanks to everyone for their valued opinions and advice up to date.

Speeding ticket fiasco Nov 26 2004


By Carl Butler, Daily Post


THOUSANDS of motorists could demand their speeding cases be reheard - after to a legal blunder by North Wales Police.

Letters were last night sent out to 6,500 people caught speeding on the region's roads.

Many may ask their case be reviewed, resulting in costly court chaos.

The move came after a crown court judge last month threatened North Wales Police with legal action over its streamlined Arrive Alive anti-speeding campaign prosecution system.

The system saw police officers' signatures scanned on to statements, which they were supposed to have read and signed personally.

The automated system was scrapped in the light of Judge Derek Halbert's attack and dozens of speeding prosecutions delayed while fresh statements were prepared.

The letters were sent to drivers across Britain summonsed to a North Wales court since June 6 last year on speeding charges, failing to furnish information, or associated offences.

It affects those caught by mobile speed cameras who either pleaded not guilty and were found guilty, or who were convicted in their absence.

They were approved by North Wales' top cop Richard Brunstrom, whose tough anti-speeding policies have sparked much controversy.

In Police magazine, the official publication of the Police Federation in England and Wales, the chief con-stable was dubbed "the godfather of the speed camera".

Last night a North Wales Police spokeswoman said the force could not predict the cost of potential re-trials.

Last month Judge Halbert, in a case he branded unusual and disturbing, attacked the use of sworn statements prepared under the new automated procedure.

This is the out come of my appeal case.

Hi Ian,

You're a star!! Even the BBC are in on the act!

Your case was the catalyst for all of this.

Well done Ian

What a great result!

well done, you have started something, the sun newspaper is really going to town on unfair fines and speeding now

Everybody can see what is developing now on a national basis and you must agree that this case has got to be fought, now, through the courts. This could prove to be the case that could overturn ALL convictions where copy signatures have been used.

I cannot do this on my own I need financial and legal backing.

Pepipoo ask for donations to help to fund the fight. Whose fight do they fund?

I would be quite happy to become a member if I thought Pepipoo would help me! The membership fee is a spit in the ocean to what I have already lost and risked to get this far.

You can make donations to Pepipoo specifying that they use it to see this case to its rightful conclusion.

Lets not waste this opportunity to see Brunstrom and his heavy handedness become a thing of the past.

Ian

Ian,

First, congratulations on making the news. I sympathise with your position but I'm unclear why you think you have good grounds for appeal. AIUI, you were convicted on the strength of direct testimony which substituted for the dodgy witness statement. The fact there was a dodgy statement indicates contempt for justice on the part of the police but is not a good reason to appeal your case. I may be missing something so please correct me if I'm wrong.

ian s,

you could try dropping the sun an e-mail/phonecall as they are running an anti fine/camera thing at the moment, read here for details:

[forum link]

Dear Observer

If direct testimony substitutes written evidence we must ignore any papers laid down and direct testimony seven months after the offence, is that not timed out?

If papers are served with statements found to be illegal, how can the CPS begin proceedings?

The CPS rely on evidence supplied by police to begin prosecution. If this is false evidence - NO CASE.

Cases are now being dismissed at magistrates level stating my circumstances of scanned signatures in North Wales. Verbal evidence cannot override contemporaneous statements.

Do you think you could enter any court in this country with a sworn statement and say:

"Sorry guv I never actually saw or signed this statement but, honest, I will tell you what happened"

I think not, you would prosecuted for contempt of court.

Do you think North Wales police would have gone to this much trouble and expense if they did not know that all the witness statements had been issued illegally?

The letters which have been sent out (I have one) contradict what actually happened in court. This will be proved with the transcript.

Is it one law for them and one for us?