fight speeding ticket?

immya

asabove

immya

 as it could be materially relevant to my case,knowing theyl lnever be able to produce it

immya

  

Mutton_Geoff

Another way to look at this is to save yourself a load of stress, just plead guilty, pay the fine and view it as a small tax on all the previous times you’ve broken the limit but got away with it. 

Manxman_in_exile

So you ask:  "Constable Lickspittle, can you confirm for the court how many years service you have had in the police force?"

And he says: "18 years and 10 months, sir".

You: "Ah-ha!  Then why do you say 18 years in one part of your statement and 19 years in another?"

I think your crushing cross-examination of the witness may not have the outcome you desire.

AdrianC

And this is the junction that you were doing damn near twice the limit across, at half one in the morning?
https://goo.gl/maps/3Z9wWKosVfBnCPpN9

I see from the dates that this has now been dragging on for nearly nine months...

Mercdriver

I thought Perry Mason was dead...

treeroy

immya said:

Stenwold said:

immya said:

im basically saying that speed camera evidence is only admissible in court if it operates as its type approval outlines, one of those requirements is for it to be calibrated and certified according to some document, this calibration certificate isnt in line with that document so that requirement for it to be type approved is not met. and if its not type approved any evidence produced from it is non admissible,regardless of how accurate the speed camera actually is.

Or, just maybe...don't speed?!

well if  said i was itd be an admission of gultt,so ill say i was within the limit
for now

I was going to say that you have my sympathies because I'm sure speed guns are not 100% accurate and make mistakes if pointed at the wrong angle etc.
But reading this post... come on man. So you are admitting you were indeed speeding and you don't even believe that the speed gun was wrong. 

Just own it mate. If I have read the last sentence of your OP correctly then you are not in the right state of mind to be making arguments like these and I think you should just suck it up.

If the camera was working and had been tested then you are not going to win, regardless of the arguments - otherwise, everyone else would be doing the same thing if they got caught by a camera.

Jumblebumble

immya said:

on top of that the corroborating officers statement said on one part he had 18 years years in thr force and on another part he had 19 years service in the police force,gonna try grill him about which it is then suggest that if hes making simple mistakes like that then his statement cant be held as a reliable account]

If the magistrate asks you what is the lowest speed that  you believe you were doing what answer are you going to give?
If you say 30 and the Police have you at the speed of 57 I imagine the Magistrates are going to take a very dim view of your blatantly misleading of the court

TooManyPoints

I wish you well with your latest strategy. In particular I hope the court gives adequate consideration to the reliability of the remainder of the officer’s evidence after you have destroyed his credibility by rigorously questioning him over the discrepancy in his stated length of service.

What you are essentially doing here is what’s known as “fishing”. You are looking for every conceivable way to evade justice for the offence. There’s nothing wrong with that but you need to be aware of the perils of pursuing that strategy when the matter comes to court. You cannot simply raise a multitude of issues in the hope that some minor deficiency will turn up to destroy the prosecution’s case. Criminal Procedure rules do not allow it. You obviously like trawling round for information to support your cause so you may like to look at the judgement handed down by Senior District Judge Howard Riddle in the case of the CPS vs Danny Cipriani in 2015. It is most unusual for a judgement from a Magistrates’ Court to be published. However, at the time DJ Riddle was the country’s Chief Magistrate. Danny Cipriani was an English Rugby Union player who was charged with drink driving and he had employed specialist counsel (Mr Philip Lucas, whom I have seen in action) and expert witnesses to help him avoid conviction. The full judgement is here:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/cps-v-cipriani-judgment.pdf

However, if you don’t want to read it all, here’s a few extracts which you may care to bear in mind before you decide what to do:

 

“In the short, the defence has at one stage or another argued almost every conceivable defence that there might be to a charge under section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Mr Lucas has not formally abandoned any of the arguments raised in the various documents, although he has conceded (as I understand it) that his client was the driver of the vehicle at the time. Whether he has conceded it or not, the evidence to that effect is overwhelming.”

“The Criminal Procedure Rules have effected a sea change to the way cases are to be conducted. The parties are required to abide by the Rules. This case, where almost everything was challenged or put to proof (even the identity of the driver), has an antique air about it.”  

“I told Mr Lucas during the course of the trial that I struggled to understand his approach to the evidence. I am concerned that colleagues, especially those not trained in the law, should not be faced with the type of arguments that have been put before me.”

 

As I said, it is most unusual for judgements from Magistrates’ Courts (even when presided over by the Chief Magistrate) to be published. They do not form precedents for other cases. However, not only were they published but the were distributed to all “lay” Magistrates in the country and it was clear that Mr Riddle intended that they be heeded in all Magistrates’ Courts. Mr Cipriani was charged with drink driving, not speeding. Nonetheless, Mr Riddles remarks apply equally to all matters subject to “summary” trials.

 

I made my first post in the belief that you misunderstood the task you face in defending the charge in the way you seem to believe will succeed. I thought it necessary to make it clear that the days are gone (if indeed they ever existed) when a minor administrative shortcoming would destroy a prosecution. The “sea change” which Mr Riddle referred to was a change in the Criminal Procedure Rules in 2013 which you can look up if you are so inclined. Minor administrative issues (such as the lack of the calibrator’s name on the certificate you referred to) can be easily put right before the prosecution finishes its case. The lack of it does not disadvantage you in any way and the court will allow such an amendment.

 

I believe that, from your proposed lines of defence, you have not a cat in Hell’s chance of being acquitted of this charge. I cannot see Magistrates refusing to admit the evidence of the device based on your assumptions and once that is admitted anything else you raise is simply irrelevant. You might finally like to digest this, which was said by Lord Justice Irvine when ruling on another motoring matter which had reached the High Court:

 

Upon a reading of the papers it appears to me that they [the seven grounds of appeal] are, and were, without foundation. The criminal law is not a game to be played with the hope of a lucky outcome, a game to be played as long and in as involved a fashion as the paying client is able or prepared to afford."

 

The game to which Lord Irvine refers can become very expensive indeed, as this chap discovered: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-49641063

I wish you well. Do let us know the outcome.