Speeding and Driving without due care

[Deleted User]

Manxman_in_exile said:

[Deleted User] said:

[Deleted User] said:

[Deleted User] said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

It's a stitch up. They know it's basically impossible to prove you weren't speeding (unless you have a dashcam with speed display) and their speed guns are janky nonsense. If you want you to be speeding they just point the gun in the wrong place until it reads over the limit.

You are stuffed I'm afraid. Get a dashcam with GPS and speed display, it's the only defense against false accusations.

GPS won't save you, as the speed on it isn't live.  So I'd check what you hear from down the pub, if I were you.  Try bringing the GPS enabled files, and you'll be laughed out of court and given an eye watering bill for their expert, on top of a fine and a £620 not guilty costs.

People have used GPS evidence to overcome accusations of speeding before. At the very least, it creates significant doubt and means that the speed gun evidence alone is not enough to reach the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Do you have a reputable source for that assertion?

Cracknell v Willis established that machines cannot be considered infallible. Defendants must be allowed to challenge them on the basis of other evidence, not merely defects in the machine itself.
...

Your second sentence might be correct, but the first isn't, is it?

Surely all that Cracknell v Willis decided is that a defendant has an inalienable right to put forward evidence that tends to show that he is innocent - it doesn't say anything about the fallibility or otherwise of machines (specifically the Lion Intoxyliser).

In Cracknell the magistrates court simply refused to hear evidence on behalf of the defendant that he had not drunk sufficient alcohol for the Intoxyliser reading to be correct, and that therefore the machine must be faulty.  Rarher surprisingly* the High Court agreed with the magistrates.

All the House of Lords decided was the perhaps uncontroversial finding that the magistrates were wrong not to allow the defendant to adduce evidence as to how much he had had to drink.  The decision says nothing at all about the probative value of that indirect evidence - not even that it has to be credible or to be believed.  Just that a court can't refuse to admit it.

Although the case centres on a breathalyser m/c it's not about the reliability or fallibility of the m/c, it's just a case saying that a court can't refuse to listen to evidence that indirectly questions that reliability.  It doesn't say that a court has to believe that evidence or that it can necessarily overturn the presumption that an approved device is working correctly.   


*What amazes and worries me is that it needed a House of Lords decision to find that that was the law.

Yes, it does speak to the fallibility of machines. The appeal was on the basis that the court had considered that the machine was certified and that evidence suggesting it had failed was not of interest because they considered the Intoxyliser to be infallible.

Once the evidence was introduced the prosecution failed. Of course the court must still evaluate evidence and not simply accept it. However, in practice the bar for prosecution is high, beyond reasonable doubt. So introducing evidence that creates doubt is a powerful defence, and the prosecution is unlikely to have any way to show that the defendant's device was faulty.

[Deleted User]

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

TooManyPoints said:

There was a story on the BBC about someone using GPS evidence from his own DIY logger to beat a speeding accusation, but I can't find it now. 

DPP vs Marrable?

It wasn't that one, this was over a decade ago... But that case is interesting, thanks for mentioning it. The final judgement was:

"The magistrates dismissed the case against the defendant on the basis that the GPS tracker device cast a reasonable doubt as the speed of the vehicle."

and

"It was clearly established in Cracknell v Willis [1988] RTR 1 that evidence from an approved device was not conclusive evidence."

And just how much did they spend on a good defence barrister? No doubt far more then the fine would have been, and out of the range of Joe Average.

As I said before, I don't recommend trying to defend a claim, even if you are innocent, unless you stand to lose a lot. If you can take the speed awareness course, do so. It's only when your licence and/or job are on the line that it becomes worth fighting these false accusations.

It's not really justice at all when most people are better of admitting to something they didn't do.

TooManyPoints

Do you have evidence that police officers generally go out of their way to make false accusations of speeding against motorists and those drivers are then better off admitting to something they did not do? Catching drivers exceeding the speed limit is like shooting fish in a barrel. There really is no need for false accusations to be made as there are plenty of opportunities to make genuine claims. I don't doubt that from time to time errors arise (either human or mechanical) but you give the impression that such instances are widespread and commonplace.

It is a presumption in law that type-approved mechanical devices work accurately and that presumption holds good unless proved otherwise. Are you suggesting that in every case, the prosecution should prove, to the court's satisfaction, the reliability and accuracy of the individual equipment used?

Herzlos

Fair point. Why fabricate bad driving charges and go to all that hassle when you can find a real one just by parking on most major roads for a while? Then you don't even need to bother faking up evidence.

As for the GPS thing. You'd need to show a huge error of margin from the police equipment before there'd consider it, and the onus is on you to prove that your uncalibrated domestic device is more accurate than their regularly calibrated industrial device. Good luck.

ontheroad1970

Herzlos said:

Fair point. Why fabricate bad driving charges and go to all that hassle when you can find a real one just by parking on most major roads for a while? Then you don't even need to bother faking up evidence.

As for the GPS thing. You'd need to show a huge error of margin from the police equipment before there'd consider it, and the onus is on you to prove that your uncalibrated domestic device is more accurate than their regularly calibrated industrial device. Good luck.

Indeed.  If Rigolith wants to take the risk himself, then all power to them.  Giving categoric advice to just use the dash cam GPS reading in pretty much all circumstances is irresponsible.  Rigolith must be rolling in it to not have to consider the financial consequences, but nor everyone is so fortunate.