good local motor lawyers in newport/cardiff? 104 in70mph M4
Discussion
It depends what you hope to achieve.
In my experience, Magistrates approach it this way - if you can afford a lawyer, you can afford a big fine. Most lawyers can't say anything you can't say better yourself and Magistrates aren't impressed by lawyers woffling on. Nothing annoys them more than having to wait for your lawyer to finish in another court.
Contrition is the best approach, attendance on time, preferably early, is essential and spare the Bench the excuses they've heard a million times before - a simple error of judgement will do, no "fake emergency" etc etc.
If there is no law involved then they just want to talk to you, listen to your explnation, consider anything you want to say in mitigation and send you on your way. Persuading them to let you keep your licence is as much down to luck of the draw as any lawyer.
In my experience, Magistrates approach it this way - if you can afford a lawyer, you can afford a big fine. Most lawyers can't say anything you can't say better yourself and Magistrates aren't impressed by lawyers woffling on. Nothing annoys them more than having to wait for your lawyer to finish in another court.
Contrition is the best approach, attendance on time, preferably early, is essential and spare the Bench the excuses they've heard a million times before - a simple error of judgement will do, no "fake emergency" etc etc.
If there is no law involved then they just want to talk to you, listen to your explnation, consider anything you want to say in mitigation and send you on your way. Persuading them to let you keep your licence is as much down to luck of the draw as any lawyer.
also make sure to get a copy of the pic they took of you and also ask for a calibration certificate fthe camera on the day of which it happened if the police dont give these to you there is a chance the case will be throwen out as you havent been provided with the evidence you need to see in order to defend yourself
Callyuk said:
also make sure to get a copy of the pic they took of you and also ask for a calibration certificate fthe camera on the day of which it happened if the police dont give these to you there is a chance the case will be thrown out as you havent been provided with the evidence you need to see in order to defend yourself
This isn't true. It has recently been clarified that calibration has never been a requirement contrary to what had previously been taken to be the case. It is also a central tenet of court procedure that if you indicate a not guilty plea, there will be a trial and the evidence to prove the case has to be served on you in advance.HOME OFFICE LETTER
Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group
Public Order Unit
Fifth Floor, Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Telephone: 020 7035 1801
E-mail: geoffreycharles.biddulph@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Web Site: www.homeoffice.gov.uk
DCC Adam Briggs
Chair, ACPO Road Policing
Enforcement Technology Committee 2 February 2009
North Yorkshire Police
Newby Wiske Hall
Northallerton
North Yorkshire
DL7 9HA
I am writing to you in your capacity as Chair of the ACPO Road Policing Enforcement Technology Committee. Copies go to Trevor Hall, Secretary to the Committee, and to Chief Constable Mick Giannasi, ACPO roads policing portfolio holder. My purpose in writing is to clarify the position with regard to the type approval of traffic law enforcement devices and the consequent admissibility in court of evidence from such devices
Section 20(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (the ‘RTOA’) as amended provides that a record produced by a prescribed device, together with an appropriately signed certificate as to the circumstances in which the record was produced, is admissible as evidence in court proceedings for certain specified road traffic offences. Under s20(4) of the RTOA, a prescribed device must be of a type approved by the Secretary of State and any conditions subject to which the approval was given must be satisfied. The granting of type approval and the setting of any conditions are matters for the Secretary of State to decide in each particular case.
As regards conditions, the Secretary of State may, under s20(5) RTOA, impose conditions as to the purposes for which, and the manner and other circumstances in which the specific type approved device is to be used. For the avoidance of doubt, the Secretary of State wishes to make it clear that in respect of any type approved device the only such conditions are any that might be contained in the type approval order, in the agreement between the Home Office and device manufacturer or manufacturer’s agent and in any schedule to that agreement
From time to time, the Home Office Scientific Development Branch (formerly Police Scientific Development Branch), the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service issue guidance documents relating to type approval issues. These documents are for the information of manufacturers, police and CPS prosecutors respectively. [b]Nothing said in these documents constitutes or has ever constituted a condition of type approval nor has it ever had any bearing on a device’s type approved status.
We are aware, in particular, of claims based on statements in such documents that annual calibration is a condition of type approval. It is not. No type approval order sets such a condition, nor indeed is such a requirement imposed in any agreement between the Home Office and device manufacturer or manufacturer’s agent, including any schedule to such an agreement. [/b] The accuracy and reliability of speed meters are guaranteed by the secondary check or by the supportive opinion of a constable and the device’s self-test facility. Regular calibration, typically at intervals of about a year, is desirable to provide reassurance as to a device’s operation and we do expect it to be undertaken for that reason. We are quite clear however that this expectation does not make annual calibration a condition of type approval. Provided that the actual conditions, as referred to in the second and third paragraphs of this letter, are satisfied, the evidence from the device may therefore be given with confidence whether or not it has been calibrated within the last 12 months.
Please feel free to make such use of this letter as you consider appropriate. I am placing a copy on the HO website
G C BIDDULPH
Head, Road Crime Section.
so general idea is to go to court by myself, explain to court clerk its my first time, dressed smartly with a good character personality. a letter from employer and also another letter off instructor to say how safe my driving is and this was just a lapse, ill happily take points and a fine, and a short ban if i get to keep my HGV and PCV trailer entitlements ive worked so hard for after the ban?
Having prosecuted hundreds of traffic cases, all I can tell you is that it's sometimes a lottery but the magistrates are normal working people and the one thing that winds them up is people not turning up and not showing contrition and making some effort. In general, if you don't screw them about and you explain the position clearly, including all the ramifications of a ban, they will at least be fair. They're not nmind-readers so tell them ebevrything you think they need to know.
Slightly more dangerous is the resident District Judge who may want to make an example of you. All I can tell you is that it won't make a hoot of difference if you have a lawyer (unless you have a genuine legal defence obviously)and you can save yourself a £250 bill. They do have a duty solicitor who, on a very slow day, might give you some free advice, but in general, what can they honestly say that you can't say yourself.
They will take into account your disposable income so ensure you declare all your necessary expenses. Needless to say you never ever say anything adverse about safety cameras and their indispensable contribution to road safety. Ever.
Slightly more dangerous is the resident District Judge who may want to make an example of you. All I can tell you is that it won't make a hoot of difference if you have a lawyer (unless you have a genuine legal defence obviously)and you can save yourself a £250 bill. They do have a duty solicitor who, on a very slow day, might give you some free advice, but in general, what can they honestly say that you can't say yourself.
They will take into account your disposable income so ensure you declare all your necessary expenses. Needless to say you never ever say anything adverse about safety cameras and their indispensable contribution to road safety. Ever.
LuS1fer said:
Having prosecuted hundreds of traffic cases, all I can tell you is that it's sometimes a lottery but the magistrates are normal working people and the one thing that winds them up is people not turning up and not showing contrition and making some effort. In general, if you don't screw them about and you explain the position clearly, including all the ramifications of a ban, they will at least be fair. They're not nmind-readers so tell them ebevrything you think they need to know.
Slightly more dangerous is the resident District Judge who may want to make an example of you. All I can tell you is that it won't make a hoot of difference if you have a lawyer (unless you have a genuine legal defence obviously)and you can save yourself a £250 bill. They do have a duty solicitor who, on a very slow day, might give you some free advice, but in general, what can they honestly say that you can't say yourself.
They will take into account your disposable income so ensure you declare all your necessary expenses. Needless to say you never ever say anything adverse about safety cameras and their indispensable contribution to road safety. Ever.
that sounds like good advice to me, i was also thinking of more naming myself in the NIP, get the summouns and go to court and be contrite and the mags can see im a normal guy who drives for a lliving and they can give me anything they want as long its not a long ban and/or retest of all my entitlements on my licence. Slightly more dangerous is the resident District Judge who may want to make an example of you. All I can tell you is that it won't make a hoot of difference if you have a lawyer (unless you have a genuine legal defence obviously)and you can save yourself a £250 bill. They do have a duty solicitor who, on a very slow day, might give you some free advice, but in general, what can they honestly say that you can't say yourself.
They will take into account your disposable income so ensure you declare all your necessary expenses. Needless to say you never ever say anything adverse about safety cameras and their indispensable contribution to road safety. Ever.
by the way are you the one with a mustang?
LuS1fer said:
Yes. Never been above 70 that Mustang. 
reason I ask is ive seen one like yours around cearphilly, i live down the valley towards newport in bassaleg from there!Its a shame i dont have anything exotic like yours, only a 1.4 golf 2003 but it is reliable but Ive just got a new job so it will be new car time soon! and after all this palaver/stress with the NIP I might just go for a discovery three/navara pick up instead of something like a lotus elise/golf r32 to look after my licence!
Probably is mine if it's silver. There is a metallic red one in Caerphilly too.
Confucious he say it is better to drive a flash car slowly than a slow car flashly. I got into far more trouble in my first 48bhp inadequately braked Austin A40 back in the 70's tha I ever get into in the Mustang. Instead of constantly having to prove something, you adopt a new attitude of just being happy with being superior.
Buying a classic American car may give you the best of both worlds - cheap classic insurance, a V8 engine and steering so vague that 40 will break you out in a sweat.
Confucious he say it is better to drive a flash car slowly than a slow car flashly. I got into far more trouble in my first 48bhp inadequately braked Austin A40 back in the 70's tha I ever get into in the Mustang. Instead of constantly having to prove something, you adopt a new attitude of just being happy with being superior.
Buying a classic American car may give you the best of both worlds - cheap classic insurance, a V8 engine and steering so vague that 40 will break you out in a sweat.
hmm now theres a idea, i like the looks of a camaro from the 60's/70's
or even a stang if i can stretch to it! hmm goes off to look at classifieds!
tho at heart I am a land rover buff so perhaps a v8 defender 90 that look like it would run over those barry boys round cearphilly but scary enough at 70 not to exceed the limits on motorways haha
or even a stang if i can stretch to it! hmm goes off to look at classifieds!
tho at heart I am a land rover buff so perhaps a v8 defender 90 that look like it would run over those barry boys round cearphilly but scary enough at 70 not to exceed the limits on motorways haha
I assume you have been caught by a mobile talivan. If so then its more that likely that you were detected by a Speedscope Lasertech LTi 20 -20 Speedscope device. In which case it's been noted and recorded in several cases my the manufacturer's British director (Mr. Garret)that the device can get it wrong as much as 40% of the time and operator error can also enhance the probability of error.
Can I suggest you were obviously speeding so hand up to the charge of exceeding the set limit however, mitigate that you were not doing anything like the speed recorded by the talivan. I can provide case law where it as been admitted by the aforementioned and further statement from Dr. Clark Britians leading laser expert stating the device is open to questionable technical error especially when not used in the correct manner for which the manufacturers advise.
The use of civilian operators making prior judgement before operating the device also comes into the equation.
I would advise you don't hoodwink the so called respected citizens of the Mags bench (muppets) who usually have no knowledge of the law whereupon the real magistrate and sentence maker is the court clerk. Admit to speeding but build a case against the recorded speed therefore, lessening the sentence. Good luck.
Lu51fer, I disagree with your statement of calibration even though you have provided statement of fact. There is alternative case law within Wilkinsons to contradick such.
Can I suggest you were obviously speeding so hand up to the charge of exceeding the set limit however, mitigate that you were not doing anything like the speed recorded by the talivan. I can provide case law where it as been admitted by the aforementioned and further statement from Dr. Clark Britians leading laser expert stating the device is open to questionable technical error especially when not used in the correct manner for which the manufacturers advise.
The use of civilian operators making prior judgement before operating the device also comes into the equation.
I would advise you don't hoodwink the so called respected citizens of the Mags bench (muppets) who usually have no knowledge of the law whereupon the real magistrate and sentence maker is the court clerk. Admit to speeding but build a case against the recorded speed therefore, lessening the sentence. Good luck.
Lu51fer, I disagree with your statement of calibration even though you have provided statement of fact. There is alternative case law within Wilkinsons to contradick such.
cen said:
I assume you have been caught by a mobile talivan. If so then its more that likely that you were detected by a Speedscope Lasertech LTi 20 -20 Speedscope device. In which case it's been noted and recorded in several cases my the manufacturer's British director (Mr. Garret)that the device can get it wrong as much as 40% of the time and operator error can also enhance the probability of error.
Can I suggest you were obviously speeding so hand up to the charge of exceeding the set limit however, mitigate that you were not doing anything like the speed recorded by the talivan. I can provide case law where it as been admitted by the aforementioned and further statement from Dr. Clark Britians leading laser expert stating the device is open to questionable technical error especially when not used in the correct manner for which the manufacturers advise.
The use of civilian operators making prior judgement before operating the device also comes into the equation.
I would advise you don't hoodwink the so called respected citizens of the Mags bench (muppets) who usually have no knowledge of the law whereupon the real magistrate and sentence maker is the court clerk. Admit to speeding but build a case against the recorded speed therefore, lessening the sentence. Good luck.
Lu51fer, I disagree with your statement of calibration even though you have provided statement of fact. There is alternative case law within Wilkinsons to contradict such.
Yes but the above has been clarified within the last week or so and Wilkinson's is wrong. The original assertion that the device required calibration was "official advice" which has now been officially deemed wrong. The fact now is the devices have never required calibration.Can I suggest you were obviously speeding so hand up to the charge of exceeding the set limit however, mitigate that you were not doing anything like the speed recorded by the talivan. I can provide case law where it as been admitted by the aforementioned and further statement from Dr. Clark Britians leading laser expert stating the device is open to questionable technical error especially when not used in the correct manner for which the manufacturers advise.
The use of civilian operators making prior judgement before operating the device also comes into the equation.
I would advise you don't hoodwink the so called respected citizens of the Mags bench (muppets) who usually have no knowledge of the law whereupon the real magistrate and sentence maker is the court clerk. Admit to speeding but build a case against the recorded speed therefore, lessening the sentence. Good luck.
Lu51fer, I disagree with your statement of calibration even though you have provided statement of fact. There is alternative case law within Wilkinsons to contradict such.
There is also a case within the last week or so about the LTi which also upholds the accuracy of the device. This case has been circulated nationally, so all prosecutors should now be armed with it. I'm afraid that like most things that are challenged, sooner or later the courts end up endorsing them to close loopholes and stop cases clogging up the system.
I'm not dissuading or discouraging anyone from arguing their cause but at the end of the day, you have to be able to afford the consequences of the court being aggravated by what it considers time-wasting and I'm afraid that most prosecutors actually relish arguing for the win because that's their job. It is, after all, the principle and I'm afraid that belief in the principle of safety camera vans is irrelevant because it usually boils down to a basic hypocrisy that you're entitled to argue technicalities when you're banged to rights. There is also the small matter of paying legal fees and expert fees to get such experts to court.
I once asked for and got £300 costs against a particular guy who wasted a whole morning arguing a particularly moronic point in a speeding case and every "point of principle" trial sets back the trial of a real criminal playing the system to delay a conviction and puts increasing pressure on real complainants who have the stress of waiting even longer for their trial.
LuS1fer said:
Yes but the above has been clarified within the last week or so and Wilkinson's is wrong. The original assertion that the device required calibration was "official advice" which has now been officially deemed wrong. The fact now is the devices have never required calibration.
With due respect to say that a device that records speed to be used as evidence does not and never have required calibration is most certainly challengable in law whether through the Staes legal system or that within the ECJ.You are well aware of case law whereupon the recorded time is a principle challenge. It would be like saying it does not matter if the clock was right what matters is what time was given on the clock whether right or wrong.
Case law for such is allready being built ready for a challenge and the costs will be funded by forum membership and not a sole individual.
It will be regarded as bad law. Is it reasonable that evidence to convict is recorded by a device that is unstable whereupon, not known if correct?
Again there is interpretation to the literal or mischief that the document records. What did the author intend when making such a statement.
Edited by cen on Wednesday 8th April 19:52
Gassing Station | South Wales | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff