Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Court date - 20th Jan.
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
doublej
Court date - 20th Jan. CPS calling the constable who provider a witness statement ?

Anyway - doesn't look they they want a pre trial review. Just straight to it. Finally.

At the risk of repeating myself :

Unsigned NIP

No S271 charge (and has expired...)

the form was completed by my girlfriend in my absence - I will obtain a witness statement to confirm.


additionally - CPS have a witness statement saying that "the person signing the form" admits to being the driver - but in any case - its NOT signed so the statement is false.


I was advised here that they have no evidence - and so there'll be no case to answer. Anyone care to add ?

At what stage should I seek disclosure of the photos and concede disclosure of my own witness statement ?






There is another issue in that I am being pursued by bailiffs for non payments of fines from the first outcome of this case (heard without me) even though i have had the case re-opened under s142. I'll do this in another thread I think.


cheers.
cjm99
QUOTE
CPS have a witness statement saying that "the person signing the form" admits to being the driver - but in any case - its NOT signed so the statement is false


Can you post the exact wording of this statement?
doublej
here we go

"I am Jxxx Bxxxx, Senior Clark employed at the Central Ticket Office, [address]. This office is concerned with the processing of fixed penalty matters.

I am able to state from my knowledge of the operation of the system, that it was operating correctly at all material times and I have no grounds for for believing any of the statements produced by the equipment are inaccurate.

i like this one

the information contained within this statement has been obtained from records ans documents held at the Central Ticket Office in Birminhgam, which have been created or received by persons in the course of a trade, business, profession or occupation, who would have had, or may reasonsably be supposed to have personal knowledge of the matters dealt with. The person(s) who created the records / statements cannot reasonably be expect (having regards to the time, which has elapsed since making the records / statements and to all the circumstances) to have any recollection of the matter dealt with.


I am able to say from computer records held by me that on 02/12/2003 information regarding a speeding offence was received at this office. The details of the speeding offence were entered onto the computer system and the CTO reference number Cxxxxx was allocated.

I am able to say that the notice was sent by 1st class post on 03/12/2003 to (my mothers address...) = being the registered keeper oF ABCD123

I now produce that notice which states that :

In accordance with Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 I hereby give you notice that is is intended to take proceeding against the driver of motor vehicle numbe ABCD123 for the alleged offence of Exceeding Speed Limit 30MPH, recorded speed 46mph at 20:35 on 22/11/2003 at [camera location] - contrary to Section 89(1) RTRA 1984.

On 15/12/2003 there was received within the Central Ticket Office a communication in reply this the notice in which the person signing the communication admitted being the driver of the vehicle described in the notice at the time of the alleged offence, which I now produce.

A conditional offer of a fixed penalty was made on 23/1/2004 to (,my name, moms address ) . On the 23 /2/2004 - a warning letter was sent to which there was no reply.

"



phew.
cjm99
QUOTE
in which the person signing the communication admitted being the driver of the vehicle


Take copies of relevant legislation, and enjoy your day out. biggrin.gif
doublej
That confident ??? biggrin.gif re-assurance like that is priceless !


So - what should I go with : The duff statement from the Ticket Office ?

The unsigned NIP and S9 from my girlfriend ?

Both ?

And which legislation should i take ?

And...

And..

Sorry - I just want to finalise my defence in plenty of time. Should I pursue the "the prosecution have no evidence, or "the prosecution's evidence is flawed/unreliable ?"
cjm99
The CPS are not intending to suggest that the NIP is a 'confession within the meaning of PACE'. They will not have read the case, nor will they intill a few hours before trial.
They expect to read the witness statement, and adduce the NIP as a document compliant with sec 12 RTOA. (have a copy with you).
If they notice that it is unsigned atall, they may well keep quiet as you are an unrepresented defendant. If this happens, do not challenge the reading of the witness statement, allow them to 'lead' the exhibit. Then point out the non compliance with sec12 and the falsehood contained in the statement. This would then be very difficult to change direction to a confession as per Yorke and Mawdesley (take copy). You would object as per Gleeson (take a copy) as being 'ambushed'. the case now dies or you demand an adjournment to obtainain a witness statement from your 'agent' who completed the form for you.

You will enjoy it. Good preparation will ensure a fun day.
doublej
Got it.

So chances are they'll proceed with a standard opening - as if it were signed ? We'll hear from the Constable they've said they'll call, read all their statements, and wave the photos around..


When my turns comes... I point out it isn't signed and the statement is false.

I assume it might end here ? Should I finish here ?

If not -and as you say- , once they've gone this route it's hard for them to say "Even though it's not signed it's still valid"

... but if they do I have RTOA sec 12 (NIP must be signed to be valid), plus Gleeson (to get the an adjourment) plus Yorke & Mawdsely ("it doesnt have my signature because i didnt complete it , it was completed on my behalf" ) if necessary.


If the DO notice it's unsigned ? Might they drop ?

Hope you dont mind me going on about it....I'm prepared to be nervous in court and so want to be fully re-hearsed.
cjm99
QUOTE
We'll hear from the Constable they've said they'll call,


Where have they said this?
doublej
....at the adjournment hearing the CPS indicated they'd call PC Benjamin rolleyes.gif

There's a S9 from him, that says no more than 'a car caused the camera to flash and the camera was working ok etc etc.'

I offered that it was a automated camera (bit generous of me , loooking back) , the prosecutor approach the the bench and asked for a minute from the the magistrate...then came over to me and said "Yes iits a camera case but we're calling the officer as witness who will have the photos of your car".

I had no problem with that but cant figure out why ? It proves (as you pointed out) they havent read the case at all and It would only take 10 mins.

Would it be as base as to :

a) bump up costs ?
B) intimidate me with a uniform on the stand ?


or is

c) just clumsy ?


I'm happy to type up his statement - but even on close inspection , it just says "the device triggered, a photo was taken, it is a good camera, so we passed the information along"

jj
cjm99
i think they were just a bit twitchy about calibration or corroberation type questions which would be easy to satisfy if the PC. was giving oral evidence.
Remember, you have pleaded not guilty, you have not, nor will you give them a reason why you believe you will win. I'd be nervous and covering as many options as I could forsee in thier position.
doublej
Whilst I'm happy with my case and defence,  I wondered is anyone had any personal tips for the court appearance.  Yes, I know to be respectful and yes, I'm smart enough not to turn up in tracksuit.

I'm even prepared to address the prosecution as 'my friend'

I just wonder if anyone had any personal tips. Thats all.

jj.
Observer
Don't know why I hadn't spotted this before but the prosecution argument you need to be prepared for is that the unsigned response, although not satisfying s.12, is sufficient to give rise to a case to answer.  If the prosecution can get half-way, you would be in trouble because, for obvious reasons, you cannot take the stand so it would be possible for the court to draw adverse inference.  

Is there sufficient evidence of driver identity to give rise to a case to answer?  That's arguable either way.  It seems to me the court could infer that you completed the form and you can not rebut this without giving direct testimony.

Not saying this will happen - just pointing out a risk you should prepare against.
andy_foster
QUOTE (Observer)
Don't know why I hadn't spotted this before but the prosecution argument you need to be prepared for is that the unsigned response, although not satisfying s.12, is sufficient to give rise to a case to answer.  


The judgement is Mawdesley seems to imply it does more than raise a case to answer.


edit:  Oops! Didn't notice that he is Yorke compliant  :oops:
Patch
Much the same as my case last year, my wife completed the form as I was away and did not sign it. She took the stand and was well grilled by the prostitution trying to get her to admit that she completed it under my instruction and that i therefore had confessed through her. Mrs Patch made no such admission maintaining that she had simply been told to "deal with it".

They still found me guilty at Magistrates court. But as we know the lower courts are fundementally corrupt.

Took an appeal to Crown Court and the caved in the evening before the hearing.

I was represented for both by JJ. My costs were covered.
patdavies
Not wanting to rain on anybody's parade, but.......

Could it be that for once the CPS are on the ball and calling the PC is to obtain testimony from him of identification?
Mika
QUOTE (patdavies)
Not wanting to rain on anybody's parade, but.......

Could it be that for once the CPS are on the ball and calling the PC is to obtain testimony from him of identification?


In my opinion, it would be a good thing if they were.

It’s about time the CPS started to use their resources more wisely and treated the prosecution of speeding motorists, with the gravity that the crime deserves.

All this: “well, I didn’t read the file until this morning…” and “what traffic video?” just isn’t good enough.
doublej
Catch up everyone .. This has been knocking around for a year and I'm in court this afternoon - no last minute doubters if you dont mind ! :-)  I'm here for a confidence boost !

1. Although I haven't sought to examine the photographs - I've not heard of people being identified by a GATSO.  Also at this late stage,  if they identify me from a picture - it's ambush.  Their case is built on my - supposed self incrimination.

Mikas is right though, and I expressed this opinion elsewhere :  a 'fair cop' is a 'fair cop', automatic and unlawful convictions are not.

2.  Yorke compliance is neither herre nor there :  S172 timed out sometime in the summer.

3. Observer :  good spot, and I do need to be on my toes.  However,  as cjm99 as stated, if they decide to try establish that an unsigned form is admissable, it represents a change of direction and again - I should be able establish ambush (due to their  other S9's )  and get adjournment to obtain my own S9 - which I don't have yet.

4.  While I shall avoid taking the stand, i can answer in good conscience "I dont know"  to almost everything because the camera flashed on 22/Nov 2003.  

My challenge is to keep the proceedings on my track, and not be diverted.  And thats why I have copious notes and a stubborn Missus  coming with me.


Thanks Gents.
FastShow
Not a lot to add, but all the best mate - what time's your hearing (I hope it wasn't yesterday, as per the topic title tongue.gif)?
doublej
Show starts at 13:45 COurt 18 in the second City of Birmingham ( now with not one but two Michelin starred eateries http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-...1449915,00.html )


 I'm taking the train becuase I'll almost certainly have drink afterwards.  If not Champagne, then vodka.

There's a wine bar over road, called Mckenzies believe it or not :-)
cjm99
Good luck DoubleJ

Post as soon as you get back.  :D
Observer
QUOTE (Mika)
It’s about time the CPS started to use their resources more wisely and treated the prosecution of speeding motorists, with the gravity that the crime deserves.



Indeed.  After all, as Caroline Flint said, "There is no doubt that speeding is a serious criminal offence."

Of course, there are not enough CPS lawyers in the country to properly prosecute the number of speeding offences for which tickets are issued, even if they all did nothing esle.  So they have to rely on (at a guess) 98% of their victims accepting without protest a fast-track enforcement mechanism, underpinned by procedural and evidential irregularities and shortcuts, that would not bear judicial scrutiny in any other area of law.
Mika
QUOTE (Observer)
Indeed.  After all, as Caroline Flint said, "There is no doubt that speeding is a serious criminal offence."


Perhaps we should consider calling her as a witness, when the Crown is trying to argue that The Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984, does not apply to this “serious criminal offence”. icon_redface.gif
doublej
Verdict from Birmingham Magistrates

No case to answer.

laugh.gif

Write up in another thread.

(Firefly :  you'll have to bill me :-)
madmish
Well Done!! Have they given you costs?  :D
DW190
icon_pidu.gif  :drinkers:  :supz:  :occasion5:
SM125
Cogratulations doublej  :hello1:
BritishBlue
QUOTE (doublej)
Verdict from Birmingham Magistrates
No case to answer.  :lol:


Fantastic news!  :lol:

Well done  :drinkers:
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.