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.)