Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Outcome of Unsigned NIP in Court Today
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Neo
Hi all,

This is a bit long winded but I thought it worth mentioning as much as possible in case anyone else is due in Court and getting nervous or thinking of giving up and not fighting. It goes to show that when you stand up for yourself, they dont expect it. When you dont roll over to them, they dont know what to do and most of all, that you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, something the CPS fail to understand!! rolleyes.gif

I went to Court today for Speeding 57mph in a 30mph and Failing to identify the Driver:

I had been requesting the evidence against me since the 16th October from the Chief Crown Prosecutor and CJU and over the last week had written twice to the Listing Clerk copying him in on those letters I sent along with the correspondance I had from the Essex Safety Camera Partnership.

It was quite long and involved with the Magistrates not being present for the majority of the case as the Clerk of the Court, Prosecutor and I argued the points.

I was served the evidence (section 9 Statements and Photos) in Court whilst the Magistrates were not present. The prosecution argued that I was not entitled to see the evidence before then.

I argued under the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996 Para 1 (1) (a) as mentioned on this site that I should have had the evidence at least Seven days prior to the hearing. This was denied by the Prosecution.

I also argued to back it up that I had rights under the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome 4.XI.1950) specifically Article 6 (3) (B) that I should have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of my defence and that I had been denied this.

The prosecution argued that they would ask to adjourn 14 days. She intended to ask for an adjounment also as their Police Officer had also not turned up.

The Clerk pointed out that there was no evidence for the speeding as I had not signed the form and I could not be identified from the Photographs.

The only one to argue therefore was the failing to identify and heres where it turned into a circus:

The Prosecution argued that it is implied that the form should be signed in Law otherwise there was no point in sending out the form.

I gave the Clerk copies of the entire Judgments for Broomfield, for Yorke and some info I found on Pickford just to head off any attempt by the prosecution to use only parts of the judgment in their favour.

The Prosecution then argued that the system was flawed and that everyone caught on camera should automatically receive a fixed penalty and if it wasnt them, appeal the decision later (Guilty till proven innocent) icon_eek.gif

I showed at this point a letter from Essex Safety Camera Partnership to the Clerk, sent to me stating and I quote this directly:

"I accept that it is not a requirement in law for the form to be signed".

The letter is signed by an Enquiry Administator for Essex Police.

The Prosecution argued at this point that The Police had no right to tell me what was and was not the Law and further that she DID NOT KNOW WHO THE ESSEX SAFETY CAMERA PARTNERSHIP WERE or what authority they thought they had, but clearly as they were not the CPS or a Magistrate they did not in actual fact have any authority. icon_eek.gif

She also argued that the Police were not allowed to interpret the Law. icon_eek.gif

The Police should not have advised me that there is no requirement to sign the form.

I asked the Prosecutor why, as a person who respects authority, should I not respect the word of someone acting for Essex Police.

She informed me that the Police simply could not interpret the Law, that was the job of the CPS and the Magistrate to do so. :!:

I asked what I should do the next time a Police Officer directs me to obey their instruction to pull over and stop or to move along in the street. She told me to obey them. I asked at what point I should believe the word of a Police Officer and at what point I should disregard everything they say.

At this point, she sat down and stopped listening and in actual fact speaking to me. :?

The Magistrates then came back. Prosecution asked for an Adjournment and I was advised that I need not submit to their request if I did not want to and that they would have to go ahead today. I chose to go ahead today.

The Prosecution was told they could not submit the evidence they had just served on me.

The Prosecution then basically received a rap on the knuckles from the Magistrates for conducting the case badly and keeping them waiting out back.

Both Speeding and Failing to Identify were dismissed on the basis of no evidence. I was asked if I wanted costs, but decided not to cos I had enjoyed my day so far and the Magistrates then asked if they could keep the Broomfield, Pickford and Yorke Judgments as they had not seen them and there were two more unsigned NIP cases that morning they had to deal with and wanted to read up on it!!! laugh.gif

I have to say the Clerk to the Court and the Magistrates were weighted seemingly against the Prosecution and were arguing any points I missed for me.
FastShow
Fantastic story and nothing to say except; WELL DONE! biggrin.gif
Mika
I’m just glad that I live in Monaco. icon_eek.gif
lgdshares
Absolutely brilliant - well done for arguing your case so well and for having the courage to stick it out.
I am due in court in a couple of weeks with an identical story - you have re-awakened my enthusiasm and confidence.

LGDSHARES
Neo
Thanks all and Good luck with your case lgdshares. tongue.gif
dave99
excellent - well done. Hopefully if the mags werent impressed with the cps they would also drop the other cases later in the day smile.gif
millasur
well done smile.gif
DW190
laugh.gif And So Say All Of Us laugh.gif

One for Monster!

QUOTE
I asked what I should do the next time a Police Officer directs me to obey their instruction to pull over and stop or to move along in the street. She told me to obey them. I asked at what point I should believe the word of a Police Officer and at what point I should disregard everything they say.


When should we disregard what the police say?

A. All the Bl**dy Time
tasterealale
Neo. Congratulations! Brilliant result!
My trial is looming. One question that's bothering me if I'm asked at my trial, is "were you driving the car"? I presume you were questionned by the CPS? Did this question ever crop up? If it did, how did you reply?
Neo
QUOTE
I'm asked at my trial, is "were you driving the car"? I presume you were questionned by the CPS? Did this question ever crop up? If it did, how did you reply?
I was not asked if I was driving but had I been I would have declined to answer on the grounds that I have rights and would not want to incriminate myself. I was lucky I didnt have to test the point of replying!

QUOTE
excellent - well done. Hopefully if the mags werent impressed with the cps they would also drop the other cases later in the day
as I was leaving the Usher who had sat in came and showed me the Christine Hamilton "I cant remember who was driving" clipping and said thats another way to get away with it. He then mumbled about not being allowed to do it, but.... and went off and showed it to the next two waiting to be called we saw him point at us also but do not know if he was telling them what I just did.

I know they were out very quick though as we only had a two minute walk to the car park and driving back in the direction of the Court, the two chaps were walking away from the Court smiling and laughing. Im guessing they got off by the way they were acting but who knows! icon_question.gif
Tamara-D
Congrats Neo!

I wonder, now that this type of case is becoming more frequent in Mags Courts accross the country, how long it will be before the system breaks down completely? laugh.gif

Tamara
James170
Well Done !! Goes to show it can be done .. I wish I had your confidence !! Excellent !

J
Observer
Excellent result Neo and congratulations.

Some lessons and cautions (for others).

1. It seems the speeding charge was not really 'tried' at all - just dismissed because the clerk said there was no evidence. If it had been, there is risk that Neo would have been invited to give evidence, declined (to avoid being asked if you were driving) and mags could have drawn adverse inference.

2. It seems that the Essex Police letter saying "no requirement in law to sign" may heve been decisive or at least persuasive. Other people may like to use the Essex Police letter as collateral even if they're not in the area and haven't received a similar letter. At worst, it tends to show that there is uncertainty (which of course there is because no higher court has yet ruled there is an obligation to sign). There's a copy of one on the unsigned_forms files section. If anybody can post a more recent one with a date it would be better.

3. The prosecutor was clearly out of her depth - made no attempt to argue the case for signature. I guess she was shaken by the Police letter and unable to think fast enough to counter it. Lesson is - if you're WELL prepared it's very likely you'll be much better prepared than the opposition. So do your homework, marshal the facts, evidence, legal arguments etc. (as Neo did) and rehearse the presentation of them. Make sure you have multiple copies of material you wish to use for distribution.
Blackbird
Congratulations
Need I say more

Regards
BCNR
Well done Neo, great result biggrin.gif
Shax
Su-bloody-perb!
I was also in the dock on Wednesday and these long postings with regards to the events in court help a great deal.
Excellent work, well done m8.
James170
Hope the author of the below post does not mind _ but I'd be interested in people comments......

Still don't know whats best to do ... Sign or Not ??



The existing loophole is almost closed and this man was extremely fortunate given the most recent case law to have "got away" with this. The magistrates and the prosecutor were utterly clueless as the judgements he handed over actually contain cast iron rebuttals to his defence in case law! A switched on magistrate, clerk or prosecutor would have easily secured a conviction.

There is a lot of pub talk about points of law but those who have their cases dismissed these days are succeeding by wearing down incompetent law enforcers or making prosecution too costly. The Idris Francis case should clarify s.172 and the inevitable appeal to ECHR will decide the final result.

PACE specifically allows for voluntary confessions without a caution in more than one section (ss.76(1), 78(2) and 82(1) apply), unsigned NIPs can be admitted as evidence except in the limited circumstances of dpp v Yorke & Mawdesley. The legislation is a mess and the motivations behind it are unconstitutional and venal - good law this ain't.

The best course of action is to take the unsigned NIP route as far as you can and if the court summons arrives get a solicitor to handle your case from there. If dpp v Francis results in successful prosecutions under s. 172, ask for your court hearing to be deferred until the ECHR clarifies european law.
Observer
James,

It would help to understand the post if we could read it in context. Where did it come from?
Mika
James & Observer,

I may be able to help – the post was probably written by a lawyer who does not have a working understanding of PACE.

A caution may not be required; however, an explanation of your rights and a check that you understood the implication of those rights is required before you make a “voluntary confession” under PACE - that is implicit in the legislation.

In my opinion, it is not a coincidence that the CPS are not citing dpp v Yorke & Mawdesely, and that the “loophole” is in fact the opposite of “almost closed”, following the ruling in that case. icon_redface.gif

As I keep saying, the ruling [dpp v Yorke & Mawdesely] may have been an unmitigated disaster for the police and CPS. Furthermore, PACE is, by implication, very closely linked to the ECHR and that’s not good – trust me. rolleyes.gif
Neo
James - He who dares......
James170
Observer the post is from piston heads - I think jeferyarcher posted Neos success there and that was a reply to the post. Its in context with this thread.....

Hope that makes sense...

J170
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (James170)
Observer the post is from piston heads - I think jeferyarcher posted Neos success there and that was a reply to the post. Its in context with this thread.....

The fifth post on page three.
snowy rodent 2
QUOTE (Neo)
I went to Court today for Speeding 57mph in a 30mph and Failing to identify the Driver:


Yeah
That's all very clever but 57 in a 30.

Anyone doing that should have their testicles removed by a plod with a bazooker and not be given the privilege of a court appearance.

If it wasn't you, fair enough, if it was then you should feel ashamed.

Cheers
Neo
In reference to the post on the Pistonheads website, heres some information you all may like to know. Jeffreyarcher may also like to place this on the other site so some of the comments Ive made also respond to questions raised there.

First someone mentioned I got off on a technicality, another replied this was down to the technicality being "no evidence". Whatever way it was, I say this: Prove me Guilty. Do not expect that someone else will find me guilty just because you got me into Court in the first place. Provide a solid prosecution case without reasonable doubt, BUT supply me with the evidence you will use so that I may reasonably defend myself and throw in doubt where your allegations are not good enough. I will not accept finger pointing as a valid prosecution argument!

Yes it was a mobile camera.

The 30mph speed limit was on a road where each carriageway is wide enough for 1.75 vehicles, so you could overtake if sensible without danger. It is not near a school. There are no houses that open onto that stretch of road. There are fences to back gardens, not gates. there are no parked cars on the road. There is a pavement either side, but between pavement and road there is a large patch of grass. Large enough to park a van on funnily enough without encroaching on the pavement or road! There was one elderly pedestrian on the opposite side of the road, on the pavement when I was driving. (How can I be sure? (1) she was in the photographs the prosecution provided on the day (2) I am very aware of my surroundings when driving (see below for reason) and can remember the job because the flash of the camera made me check all mirrors and double check what was around me.

The road is straight and there is excellent visibility.

The van was not clearly marked and looked like a contractors van on approach hence I did not slow. I WAS doing around the speed alleged but it was safe in my honest opinion (given my standard of driving -see below) to do so.

I drive covert surveillance vehicles in the private sector, (for purposes of investigation of Fraudsters).

I am trained to the same standard of driving as police qualified to drive vehicles under emergency conditions. I was trained to drive by ex-spec ops personnel and ex-police area car drivers to this standard. My training took place over several weeks and was conducted on both public and private land. (not incidentally by these fly by night £3000 for three days learn everything there is to know private schools, but by my employers at the time, who invested their own time effort and experience into bringing me up to spec prior to my even driving on a job for them) There is no recognition of my standard of driving being equal to that of the police as my work is in the private sector and clearly you are only deemed safe if you wear a uniform which is a nonsense.

I was working at the time of the alleged offence. I do not as a rule speed when I am not working. I have no need to. I generally only drive above the speed limit when my work requires it of me although Im not infallible and yes there are occassions I do speed when perhaps I shouldnt such as an empty motorway at 3am in the morning.

and if anyone needs reminding the prosecution believed that everyone should get a fixed penalty instead of a NIP and they could appeal if they felt it was unjust and of course if they have the time and money, therefore intimating that everyone is guilty without even knowing if it was the person driving at the time that gets the fixed penalty. Its this mentality I feel its worth fighting against. Its this mentality that confirms the whole speeding camera issue is a revenue generating issue and not for the genuine concerns of safety.

I thought I would put people in the picture as Im not registered on the other site and Ive seen a few comments made on there. I also note that some people claiming to be Police on this and the other site are looking at these things very black and white and from a negative viewpoint. Yes, we all know you have a job to do, but take a step back. You are not judge and jury. What does your own common sense tell you ?

The main message is that if people think that they are treated unjustly, no one should just accept such treatment (In any aspect of life). You wouldnt put up with bad service in a restaurant, so why put up with bad service in the legal system?

The law quotes in many things, "The test of the reasonable man", which is to say, what a reasonable man would expect in any given situation, yet when it comes to revenue, we are not considered to be reasonable men and women with reasonable common sense and intelligence that enables us to distinguish in our own minds what is safe and what is not.

Its also worth pointing out that on the Autobahn where there are no limits, people can still get pulled over for driving at speed in a manner which is dangerous. SPEED DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EQUATE TO DANGER. This means, that for the most part, the German Police consider that on such stretches of road, the German motorist is quite able to decide for him or herself what is safe and what is not. The ones that cant decide, which are the minority of drivers, get pulled over and subsequently prosecuted. They do not tar all drivers with the same brush, but actually let people think for themselves and only prosecute the "GUILTY" not the "INNOCENT". Its this distinction that our Legal System needs to take notice of. For example: Just because a speed limit is raised by 20mph, would not see everyone driving differently. The majority would not change their driving habits at all, but we cannot be allowed or trusted to decide for ourselves.

When you take on the system and win, its not just a win for yourself. Its a win for every other person who wants to see the law defined and applied fairly. With enough people mounting a challenge the government have no option but to take notice. The Courts have no option but to take notice. The country has no option but to take notice and from definition, a better legal system, a better standard of application of the law and fairer treatment for all is the only outcome.

The Police DO sometimes forget as I have mentioned above that they are NOT the judge and jury. Not everything is Black and White. There is a whole area of Grey that they need to take notice of.

Im not condoning speeding but Im also not saying that speeding in every case is a danger. Im saying that people can morally decide in most cases what is safe and what is unsafe. A 30mph limit in a residential street, may not lend itself to driving at 30mph. With parked cars, a bend in the distance and children playing at the side of the road, most people would slow to 10mph or so. People dont want to kill other people just because the speed limit is 30mph. They use common sense.

As for going to Court, I was worried. Anyone would be. I was on the verge of conceeding days before and I started to question myself plenty over whether I did the right thing by standing up for my rights, but I did it and as soon as I got into the Court I realised the prosecution were not prepared as they really did expect me to fold even up to the point they asked if they could speak to me without the Mags being there. They expected me to fold although they had no specific evidence. They expected me to fold even though they had denied me my rights. They expected me to fold even though they had not given me the oppportunity to prepare a defence. They expected me to accept they would ask to adjourn and didnt make it clear that I could object and ask for it to be dealt with on that day, just because they realised I would not roll over. They expected me to say, "well if you are going to adjourn I will just plead guilty because I dont want to come back a second time". They believed finger pointing was enough by which to convict and they expected me to accept their negligence in presenting a case and roll over like a good sport! They expected me to accept that the law was poorly defined in this area and to forgive it and accept conviction because if the law was worded differently in their favour I may be convicted. I accepted nothing from them and asked them to prove it.

Stick to your guns. They probably only know as much as you, if you do your homework. In most cases because they deal with a variety of actions and you (if you are sensible) will have done your research thoroughly on just this one subject, you may know more than they do!
Neo
Snowy Rodent.

See, you have judged me without knowing the facts.

Im as competent as any police driver and take my driving seriously. I constantly undertake to keep to best practice for my work and to continually undergo any training I can with respect driving. Its an ongoing obligation I have to other road users.
DW190
Well said NEO

If you were able to get waivers like plod it would not have wasted all that tax payers money.

Plod uses his privilage to get his breaks on time.
jenks
Well done NEO

I applaud the way in which you stood when you were expected to fall and the way in which you so eloquently defended yourself in court and now by all accounts here!

Let's not forget how many of these scams are targeted in areas where NSL previously applied, coming from Suffolk I know at first hand how these roads have been converted overnight to 30 mph by an over zealous anti car local authority.

I live in Milan having left the UK due to the activities of both national and local government (anti motorist policies included) I am sick to my back teeth of politicians, they are ALL corrupt in one form or another (at least in Italy there is no pretence).

My two speeding offences (well above the NSL on both occasions) were committed in the ‘good old days’ when the trafpol were in evidence, the officers were able to advise where I went wrong, this education has stayed with me.

Ne illegitimi carbunculi tibi in facie sint – mate.

Keep the faith
malcy
Where can we get a sample copy of the Essex letter?
DW190
Your wish is my Command:

Try this link:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/essex001.jpg
Mika
Malcy,

If you try and introduce the letters, as evidence at your trial the prosecution will probably object - they did in Idris Francis' case.

This link will take you to a copy of the Essex letter.

And this one will take you to the Avon & Somerset letter.

However, were you to ask a recipient of such a letter to provide you with a Section 9 witness statement, that may be allowed to be submitted as evidence; although the Crown hold the right to call that individual as a witness. rolleyes.gif
JELLICO
Well neo,

Looks as if your letter from the police could help or at least muddy the water. Although I would'nt ask you to appear in court, what are the chances of a Section 9 witness statement from you.

Mika ,how do you go about this.

Cheers JELLICO
Observer
QUOTE
The existing loophole is almost closed and this man was extremely fortunate given the most recent case law to have "got away" with this.  The magistrates and the prosecutor were utterly clueless as the judgements he handed over actually contain cast iron rebuttals to his defence in case law!  A switched on magistrate, clerk or prosecutor would have easily secured a conviction.
 
Several points on this.
 
First, the 'loophole' is not "almost closed".  It is either closed or not.  It is not closed until a higher court, which can bind magistrates' courts, rules that s.172 compels the driver to provide the information AND sign the form.  That has not yet happened.
 
Second, in relation to Neo's case, it seems that the court concluded that there was no case to answer on the speeding charge, either because no evidence of the identity of the driver was offered (the unsigned s.172 form being insufficient under s12 RTOA) or that the evidence of the offence was inadmissible because it hadn't been served on the defence.  In relation to the first, certainly the prosecution could have introduced the unsigned form as a confession, following JO's ruling in Mawdesley & Yorke.  But, from all we've seen so far, CPS seems reluctant to do this.  If the unsigned form is NOT introduced as a confession but as evidence of identity of driver (albeit not conclusive because of s.12 RTOA), can there be a case to answer?  If not, the charge never gets started.  If it can, then there is a risk of adverse inference if the defendant chooses not to give evidence or, having taken the stand, refuses to answer a question ("Were you the driver?").
 
Third, if the reference to "cast iron rebuttals to his defence" is intended to mean Broomfield and/or Mawdesley and Yorke, I would disagree.  There is nothing cast iron in Broomfield which applies to an unsigned form case, except information must be in writing if so requested.  M&Y allows the unsigned form to be introduced as a confession but doesn't help the prosecution on the failure to provide charge.
 
Fourth, I'm not sure that magistrates and clerks see it as their job to secure a conviction.  Or that it is their job to assist an incompetent prosecutor. 
 
QUOTE
There is a lot of pub talk about points of law but those who have their cases dismissed these days are succeeding by wearing down incompetent law enforcers or making prosecution too costly.  The Idris Francis case should clarify s.172 and the inevitable appeal to ECHR will decide the final result.

 
Idris' appeal should clarify s.172 although the judgement may be appealed anyway.  Idris' appeal to ECHR is on the issue of "right to silence" which is a separate issue.  AIUI, that will proceed anyway. 
 
QUOTE
PACE specifically allows for voluntary confessions without a caution in more than one section (ss.76(1), 78(2) and 82(1) apply), unsigned NIPs can be admitted as evidence except in the limited circumstances of dpp v Yorke & Mawdesley.  The legislation is a mess and the motivations behind it are unconstitutional and venal - good law this ain't.
 
PACE does NOT make "specific"  provision to allow for "voluntary confessions without a caution".  Perhaps I'm being pedantic.  PACE does allow for a confession to be admitted where it is given otherwise than during police interview or questioning (so the question of a caution wouldn't arise).  This admits the sterotypical case of a remand prisoner who "confesses" to a fellow inmate and is overheard by a prison warder.  Otherwise agreed.
 
QUOTE
The best course of action is to take the unsigned NIP route as far as you can and if the court summons arrives get a solicitor to handle your case from there.  If dpp v Francis results in successful prosecutions under s. 172, ask for your court hearing to be deferred until the ECHR clarifies european law.

 
Agreed on first course of action.  Whether to engage a solicitor or not is a personal choice which should be made on assessment of prospects and affordability.   A good solicitor with relevant motoring law expertise will have more credibility but an average to poor one is arguably no better than a well prepared defendant in person, and possibly much worse.
Mika
Jellico,

You ask your 'witness' to complete and sign a document that looks this.

However, if you submit a completed Section 9 statement and Neo does not appear as a witness, the prosecution will probably request that the evidence be ruled as inadmissible on the grounds that it is “hearsay”.

The prosecution may try and stop you from introducing the letter, even if he appears in person. rolleyes.gif
Observer
Concerning the use in a s.172 case of a letter from Police or a fixed penalty office stating "the law does not require a signature" I would offer the following.

If the letter is not addressed to the defendant, I think that there is no application for such a letter to be used "in evidence". Evidence of what? That s.172 does not require a signature? That is a point of law, not an issue of fact. As I understand it, "evidence" in a legal sense has to relate to matters of fact with certain specific exceptions such as "expert opinions". It is not possible that it could be used as an "expert opinion" as it was not intended as such. So I think in such a case it has no evidential value whatsoever.

However, such a letter does indicate that there is uncertainty about whether or not s.172 does require a driver to sign a s.172 request for information. So, if the prosecution argues that the requirement to sign is unambiguous, in law or because of Broomfield, it MAY be possible to rebut that assertion by reference to such a letter.

Clearly, if the letter is addressed to the defendant, a different analysis applies.

IANAL so these comments should be taken with that in mind.
TomP
Quote
If the letter is not addressed to the defendant, I think that there is no application for such a letter to be used "in evidence". Evidence of what? That s.172 does not require a signature? That is a point of law, not an issue of fact. As I understand it, "evidence" in a legal sense has to relate to matters of fact with certain specific exceptions such as "expert opinions". It is not possible that it could be used as an "expert opinion" as it was not intended as such. So I think in such a case it has no evidential value whatsoever.
Unquote

This is basically the line my solictor took, such that the CPS would say just because Essex does doesn't mean we do, sort of thing!

Tom
TomP
Just a thought has anybody got a Thames Valley Police Letter saying you do not have to sign the form, they can send me a copy of?

TomP
Neo
On the subject of the letter I got from Essex Police, here are my thoughts.

The Failing to Identify was based on the prosecutions argument that I failed to sign the NIP. Its a point of law that there is no requirement for me to sign, but the prosecution wanted to say that it was implied that I was required to sign and therefore I failed to obey the direction of the Chief Constable and/or his servant or agent to sign which thereby created the offence.

The letter stating that Essex Police accept there is no requirement, allowed me to introduce into the discussion that I had in fact followed the direction of a Police Officer who advised me that it was essentially voluntary on my part to sign or not to sign. Therefore I had in my opinion (and seemingly the opinion of the Clerk) complied with the direction of the Officer by choosing not to sign. The decision was left with me.

I would tell you more on the Prosecutions further arguments but as I mentioned already, she got the hump and wouldnt speak to me soon after that.
The Rookie
Excellent..well done, the Essex mob must be good shots to hit themslves bang in the foot so comprehensivley!

Simon
davleigh
What a result - it made me check the pictures they have sent me - one black and white photo with the number plate burnt out and totally illegible and another 'negativised' version of the same image in which - miraculoso - the letters are absolutely clear !

I use Adobe Photoshop a lot, and it took me all of 5 minutes to do the same myself......

I will now be asking the Court to send me the evidence.

Thanks !
davleigh
Observer, I think you are wrong when you write: 'mags could have drawn adverse inference', as magistrates may not draw adverse inference unless the accused has been cautioned (PACE Code of Practice, Notes for guidance )

'10G Nothing in this Code requires a caution to be given or repeated when informing a person not under arrest they may be prosecuted for an offence. However, a court will not be able to draw any inferences under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 34, if the person was not cautioned.
Observer
QUOTE (davleigh)
'10G Nothing in this Code requires a caution to be given or repeated when informing a person not under arrest they may be prosecuted for an offence. However, a court will not be able to draw any inferences under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 34, if the person was not cautioned.


No - you are mistaken on this. There are separate, and unrelated, "adverse inferences".

The adverse inference under s.34 CJPO 1994 applies where a person suspected or charged with an offence, having been cautioned, fails to mention something he later relies on in his defence.

The adverse inference under s.35 CJPO applies where a person at trial does not give evidence or, having been sworn, refuses to answer a question put to him. The caution doesn't apply in these circumstances although the court is required to satisfy itself that the accused understands that such failure may result in the court drawing an adverse inference, which is, I suppose, analogous to a caution.

Also note PACE Code C:
1.3 The provisions of this Code:
• include the Annexes
• do not include the Notes for Guidance.


I'm not sure whether the substance of Guidance note 10G is given effect in some other way but the point is academic because I don't see how the s.34 adverse inference is likely to apply to a speeding case.
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.