The beginning of our salvation?
Discussion
In this, arguably the darkest hour for the British motorist, an avenging angel may have come to our rescue.
An amazing Crown court appeal case has come to light which could send unparalled shock waves through the world of speedtraps. According to Pepipoo, who have recently published the details, the Metropolitan Police attempted to take legal action to prevent any information on the case being revealed to the public. The potential repercussions of the judge's ruling are enormous as the quashing of this conviction may have rendered untold thousands of speeding convictions unsafe.
In summary a conviction of speeding at 59mph in a 30mph zone (nearly 30mph over the posted limit) was overturned in Croydon Crown Court in November 2000 when the Police were unable to prove that the speed recorded on the LTi 20/20 laser gun was that of the defendant's vehicle. The Judge decided NOT to accept the basis on which nearly all speeding convictions involving the police are based - the police officer's word (TWO officers were present in this instance).
Full details of the case are here:
www.pepipoo.com/Case_Files/Case_file_12.htm
For further information, especially if you or someone you know may have grounds for an appeal, may I suggest you contact Pepipoo directly.
An amazing Crown court appeal case has come to light which could send unparalled shock waves through the world of speedtraps. According to Pepipoo, who have recently published the details, the Metropolitan Police attempted to take legal action to prevent any information on the case being revealed to the public. The potential repercussions of the judge's ruling are enormous as the quashing of this conviction may have rendered untold thousands of speeding convictions unsafe.
In summary a conviction of speeding at 59mph in a 30mph zone (nearly 30mph over the posted limit) was overturned in Croydon Crown Court in November 2000 when the Police were unable to prove that the speed recorded on the LTi 20/20 laser gun was that of the defendant's vehicle. The Judge decided NOT to accept the basis on which nearly all speeding convictions involving the police are based - the police officer's word (TWO officers were present in this instance).
Full details of the case are here:
www.pepipoo.com/Case_Files/Case_file_12.htm
For further information, especially if you or someone you know may have grounds for an appeal, may I suggest you contact Pepipoo directly.
Yes, well hopefully when you've sobered up you'll take the opportunity to read the information again and realise
a) why it may have took so long for the information to reach the public domain and
b) that far all being lost, the ramifications of the judge's ruling are as potent now as they were when the case was originally heard.
Remember it is incumbent on the defendant to take up any appeal. Oddly enough the CPS/Police don't usually offer any encouragement here.
This case does have the potential to keep the "no win no fee" brigade in gameful employment for the next few years.
a) why it may have took so long for the information to reach the public domain and
b) that far all being lost, the ramifications of the judge's ruling are as potent now as they were when the case was originally heard.
Remember it is incumbent on the defendant to take up any appeal. Oddly enough the CPS/Police don't usually offer any encouragement here.
This case does have the potential to keep the "no win no fee" brigade in gameful employment for the next few years.
sober - sorry if a bit curt previously
This could be useful if you're done by a laser and no video/photo with it but what's the betting that plod have equipped all their cameras in the past 2 years.
This won't really help anyone done in the past either. If someones been done with a laser gun and pleaded guilty that's it, no appeal. (You can't turn round and say you're not guilty now because there was no video)
"darkest hour, avenging angel, amazing Crown court appeal, unparalled shock waves" - cut down on reading the Sun
This could be useful if you're done by a laser and no video/photo with it but what's the betting that plod have equipped all their cameras in the past 2 years.
This won't really help anyone done in the past either. If someones been done with a laser gun and pleaded guilty that's it, no appeal. (You can't turn round and say you're not guilty now because there was no video)
"darkest hour, avenging angel, amazing Crown court appeal, unparalled shock waves" - cut down on reading the Sun
How very interesting indeed.
I often wondered exactly where the law stood concerning a policeman's word against a member of public, in the absence of other officers.
This may change my mind of an up-and-coming "situation".
With no disrepect to the officer in question how can you possibly be convicted on the back of the "word" only if no further evidence is submitted/available.
I often wondered exactly where the law stood concerning a policeman's word against a member of public, in the absence of other officers.
This may change my mind of an up-and-coming "situation".
With no disrepect to the officer in question how can you possibly be convicted on the back of the "word" only if no further evidence is submitted/available.
It reads to me like it's a precedent you should only entertain using if you are CERTAIN you were not travelling at the speed of which you were accused.
I wondered why the evidence was considered "proof" when I was stopped with a non-photographic LASER reading. Didn't challenge it because I was sure the officers would be believed, and that has not changed after reading the pepipoo case.
The case mentioned revolves around two separate motorists who appear to have been sure they had not been travelling at the speed for which they were stopped; and on all motorists stopped on that occasion having been within a reasonably tight speeding band - why was nobody caught for 51mph or 61mph, for instance?
Pretty specific circs.
I wondered why the evidence was considered "proof" when I was stopped with a non-photographic LASER reading. Didn't challenge it because I was sure the officers would be believed, and that has not changed after reading the pepipoo case.
The case mentioned revolves around two separate motorists who appear to have been sure they had not been travelling at the speed for which they were stopped; and on all motorists stopped on that occasion having been within a reasonably tight speeding band - why was nobody caught for 51mph or 61mph, for instance?
Pretty specific circs.
Hold on a minute dude. All that anyone is really saying is that no matter if you are guilty of speeding or not then it should be proven, in a court of law, with evidence to back it up, just like any other offence.
Am I confused or something or does everyone just want to roll over on their backs and give up?
If this is not the case then surely we could (not intending to insult everyone here honest) get a hell of a lot of harrassment from plod - which of coarse I am not saying they would do :-)
Am I confused or something or does everyone just want to roll over on their backs and give up?
If this is not the case then surely we could (not intending to insult everyone here honest) get a hell of a lot of harrassment from plod - which of coarse I am not saying they would do :-)
Its all a matter of creibility and reliability. If the cops sound credible and reliable and you don't, it has in the past been enough for them to say "He looked to me as though he was driving in excess of the speed limit" and that would be sufficient to convict.
Given improved reliability of speedos, that is legally still sufficient, but very easily challenged to create a reasonable doubt, hence more technical speed measuring devices are used by CPS. Many of these are also open to challenge, but if you roll over and don't challenge them, you get 3pp on your licence, that's the rules.
That's why instruction books for all these devices are closely guarded. They're all questionable, it's just a case of knowing which questions to which devices.
Given improved reliability of speedos, that is legally still sufficient, but very easily challenged to create a reasonable doubt, hence more technical speed measuring devices are used by CPS. Many of these are also open to challenge, but if you roll over and don't challenge them, you get 3pp on your licence, that's the rules.
That's why instruction books for all these devices are closely guarded. They're all questionable, it's just a case of knowing which questions to which devices.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff