Saturday, October 06, 2012

A Little Knowledge Can Be A Dangerous Thing



(From Bystander T)


Virtual Internet lawyers are not real, and certainly not reliable.

A quiet day in a Magistrates' Court near you, sees a trial about to take place.  The defendant is a fine upstanding citizen of good character who is on trial for the offence of 'Speeding'.  He is representing himself and strives hard not to demonstrate the old legal adage that "the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client". 

This is Mr Driver's fifth appearance in court on this charge, and this is his third trial date.  The first trial date was ineffective because he asked for certification details of the camera used.  The second trial was lost because of a lack of court time.  It is now more than a year since the date of the offence. 

Miss Prosecutor requests an adjournment because one of her two witnesses has been called to a Crown Court some 150 miles away.  Mr Driver also asks for an adjournment because he has only just been told that the prosecution will not be providing any further information about the type approval of the camera.  It will be part of the evidence called. 

The Bench denies both of them.  The trial will proceed today simply because any further delay cannot be in the interests of justice.  If it is allowed to churn through the system any further, everybody loses.  Those attending court need to understand that progress must be made at every hearing. 

So the trial went ahead.  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had the camera operator but the technical expert, who the court later learned had submitted a 35 page statement about the camera, how it works and all that good stuff would not be available. 

The camera operator gave his evidence and ticked all the boxes.  Film installed, tests run, no errors reported.  Mr Driver asks him about radar beams hitting birds, railings and all that kind of stuff.  He appears to be consulting a file of papers and asks about the white line markings in the road, the interval between them, and the speed calculations based on those lines.  He talks about their spacing and the defendant then says that his colleague, who had to go to the Crown Court calculated the speed, according to those lines, at 35 mph, therefore less than the 37 in the allegation. 

You know when someone drops a bombshell into a conversation and everyone goes quiet for an instant, then they all talk at once;  this was such a moment.  The Chairman raised his head somewhat wearily and says something to the effect that "What it is this document ..."; the Prosecutor rises and starts talking about the missing witness; the learned Clerk, (sorry, legal adviser) intervenes over all of them and suggests that the bench retire to allow her to discuss a point of procedure with the parties.  Off they go for their morning coffee.  Or so they thought. 

While they are out, the Legal Adviser explains to Mr Driver that because the missing witness is not being called, his statement is not before the court.  If he is sure it will help his case, he can accept it under what is commonly known as "Section 9"; provisions that allow a statement to be used if both sides agree the content.  It appears to be the only way such a document can be put before the court.  The defendant is told that he should be sure that it will help his case because the CPS want the whole statement, not an edited version, put in.  The defendant is asked if he is sure hat he wants that.  He should consider whether the rest of the statement contains material that would not help his case and whether on balance, it would be better not to have it in at all. 

In the absence of a lawyer on the spot to assist, Mr Driver elects to accept the statement under S.9 and the bench is invited to return - without anywhere near enough time for that coffee, not even the nasty instant stuff in paper cups that is now the standard in most magistrate courts. 

The long and the short of it is that the statement is that of a speed camera expert who provides copious details of type approval for the machine, how it works, it's tolerances, error checking and how it's calibration certificate has been established as reliable.  He also calculated the different speeds reported by the radar gun and the photographs and says the potential difference is something like 2mph. 

Mr Driver then gives evidence of having measured the white lines, with a household tape measure, and his calculation is that it shows his speed as 34mph.  His argument being that the camera and radar system are inaccurate, plus his sworn testimony that he was sure he was only doing 30 should entitle him to be acquitted. 

After due deliberation by the bench, he was found guilty.  He had been given incomplete advice when told that he could challenge the type approval and speed calculations;  he had no-one to advise him about the procedural step of accepting the second witness's statement;  he clearly forgot that 34 is greater than 30, so even his own calculations from the photos, condemned him. 

This must be a salutary lesson for speeders who think there are simple loopholes left in the regulations.  There may be a few left, yet to be found, but if you are tempted to find them yourself, without a well informed lawyer, you will probably fail.  And the costs implications are dire.  In this case the defendant was ordered to pay over £400 in costs, plus the fine and the victim surcharge, and it happened a while ago so the only way is up.  

(Editor's Note:- Bystander T is a new kid on this block and could be forgiven if he were to conclude that commenters who have nothing constructive to say are all too eager to jump in with snide gibes at petty grammatical points. T is a well educated chap (he went to the same university as me) and he is computer literate. This post was drafted on a brand new iPad with pesky predictive text, and that accounts for apostrophic solecisms and, possibly, others. Pedants 'R' definitely not us. Pack it in.)

23 comments:

  1. Bystander T appears to have as much difficulty with apostrophes as his/her forebear Bystander himself ("it's [sic] tolerances", "it's [sic] calibration certificate).

    A friend who works in a branch of well-known international language school teaching English to non-native speakers told me that she used to use passages from the old Magistrate's Blog as teaching materials, until she tired of having to correct them so regularly in advance, and couldn't just display them live on screen as she preferred to do. On this evidence, I rather doubt that she'll start advising her students to consult TMB again any time soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For heaven's sake! It is tiresome and pompous to nitpick minor points of grammer and speling. How about a comment on what T actually says?

      Harrumph!

      Delete
    2. If you've now finished with the trees, could we perhaps move on to your view of the wood as a whole.

      Delete
  2. Nothing very new or original in the observation, but a useful reminder to those who think there are easy ways to wriggle out of traffic regulations.

    As for the loyal (and not unamusing) defence put up by Bystander of his new colleague, all I can say is that many readers find it tiresome if not downright tedious to see otherwise interesting and informed commentary marred by wilful disregard for what are generally seen as useful aids to mutual comprehension. If someone can't even be bothered to try and understand where and when an apostrophe is called for, it makes one question how much attention has been paid to other perhaps more critical detail in the account offered.

    For my own part, I have always appreciated Bystander's command of English (apostrophes apart!), and his ability to neatly illustrate salient points by use of clear and concise examples. It is odd that he should struggle so with such a simple concept.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh do go away. Any more punctuation-related nonsense will go into the bin.

      Delete
    2. May I recommend any of the excellent books on this and related subjects written by David Crystal. I can particularly highlight (or is that tautologous?) "IThe Story Of English In 100 Words".

      Delete
  3. I don't understand why, unless they are clutching at a straw to avoid points=12+, people plead not guilty to speeding: there isn't a driver on the road who hasn't exceeded the limit some time. Just take 3pts and get on with life.

    I'm with MotVG on the apostrophies point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is quite common for these cases to involve someone who has nine points already.

      Delete
  4. May I say how pleased I am to once again see an interesting courtroom story. I know it's not entirely your fault, but over the last few months the Magistrates Blog was in danger of becoming a Blog of Interest to Nobody But Magistrates.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another illustration of wasting time by those accused. He clearly was out of his mind.

    Indicative of excessive stress and sooner or later, one of these folks may bring along his shotgun, suitably sawn, to demonstrate his respect for the law. It seems to be a male thing....

    Hopefully, this will not involve any of those behind this blog. Please remember that mercy is often an expedient way of preventing further loss, to whomever, and that Magistrates are there to temper, ie alter, tamper, with the rules. Otherwise, apply them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have to say I'm sorry for your motorist confronted by the overwhelming power of the state with its literally limitless resources.

    When are the malicious and vindictive minions in the so-called "safety Camera Partnerships" going to be confronted for making very profitable businesses from the £90 "Speed Awareness Courses". Clearly this poor sod decided to fight them instead and look what he got, a penalty out of all proportion to the offence. You should be ashamed of yourselves, frankly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the contrary, it is Mr Driver who should be ashamed for wasting everyone elses's time and money. He was speeding. He was guilty. No-one likes accepting they are in the wrong, but sometimes we should. Refusing to accept that and blaming "the system" only diminishes the person who does so.

      Delete
  7. I have to wonder, who is the victim that the victim surcharge goes to?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It goes into the same pot as everything else and gets used in the same way as everything else. 'Victim surcharge', although a government-coined phrase, is a complete misnomer.

      Delete
  8. Mr Driver should have been able to find from the internet that the requirement of type approval is that the secondary check, in the case of a GATSO the distance travelled measured by the dragon's teeth marking in 0.5 seconds, shows a speed within 10% of the speed measured by the radar. Therefore even if he was correct that his speed measured by the markings was 34 mph, the primary measured speed was verified. With his speed measured by two different methods exceeding the limit, there was no reasonable doubt that he was speeding. The final point is that he was charged with exceeding the speed limit, not exceeding it by doing 37 mph, therefore even if he succeeded in casting doubt on the precise speed, the fact that he was exceeding 30 mph meant he was guilty of the offence.

    Mounting a technical defence inevitably means that experts will be called and costs will mount. Even without that, the lower level of CPS costs recommended for a summary trial is £620, so he was lucky that costs awarded were only in the region of £400.

    Finally, in paragraph 6, line 5, I think Bystander T has written "defendant" in error for "witness".

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ah, I have done that trial a number of times over. The last chap when he came for a PTR requested all sorts of information on a clear fishing expedition having instructed 'Mr Loophole' who hadn't attended. I suggested he reconsider his position as the money paid to Mr Loophole was already into the thousands and it was his first offence. Trial was set for December. I don't know what he decided. I hope he didn't throw any more money away.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mine was a red-brick uni which may explain why I had to Wiktionary 'solecism'. Good word, thanks.

    And as it hasn't yet been a Word of the Day, I nominated it.

    And to your new team member's contribution, well done. Or as Blackadder might have put it "may I offer my most sincere contrafibularities"



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kicks to the shin that narrowly miss ?

      Delete
  11. So, a question. Had the statement not come in under S.9, was the evidence with sufficient reasonable doubt (the allegation of 37 mph being admitted inaccurate by the prosecution witness, the revised calculation untested by the defence, if I understand the series of events) for not guilty ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Mr Driver admitted that his calculation from the photograhs gave a speed of 34 mph, that being within 10% of the 37 mph measured by radar, the radar measurement is confirmed by his own evidence. The charge anyway is exceeding the speed limit, the actual speed may be important for sentencing, but not in this case, the guidelines show the same sentence for 34 or 37 in a 30 limit.

      Delete
  12. Find a motorist 'not guilty' due to reasonable doubt of the prosecution case ? Be your age ! This is restricted to trials of scroats and other low life, when courts bend over backwards "to be fair". Those Mr Ordinarys who generally lead normal fairly blameless lives, albeit with the ocasional error, are always hammered into the ground by the courts.

    Justice, don't make me laugh !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We take it that you lost your case then?

      Delete
    2. The only worse thing than having a self-defendant arguing a traffic case is to have as his representative one of 'Mr Loophole's' ilk. A brief in our local court last week - who went to great pains to point out that he was not from Nick Freeman's company, but from a rival - swore black was white all the way to the court's careless driving guilty verdict, and it cost his client £620 for the trial as well as a £600 fine based on his high relevant weekly income, plus compensation, plus victim surcharge. Hopefully for the defendant he was represented on a no-win, no-fee basis, or his day in court would have been really spoiled

      Delete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.