For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
User avatar
By Keef
#1374718
Speeding laws are interpreted differently in Wales. I got "done" for over the limit in an HGV, doing 45 on an unrestricted A-road in Caernarfonshire in a Transit. A Transit is an HGV in Wales, and they weren't listening to arguments.

I was actually collecting a woman from a refuge to take her to a place of safety, but the North Wales Police weren't interested. I told the charity that I wouldn't do any more from Wales, but that North Wales Police had a Transit van with nothing better to do, and they should ask them in future (copy, of course, to the Chief Constable).

3 points and £60. I paid it myself, though the charity offered to. Not been to Wales since then (10 years or so ago).
By PaulB
#1374761
Marjorie wrote:Sorry, but you know my complete disdain and disgust of the police and their ways. :evil:



What have any parts of this case got to do with the police apart from they caught a guy speeding on an A road? He was doing 101mph and was driving an Audi!
By PaulB
#1374774
Marjorie wrote:Who do you think orchestrated the 'testing'?


So what should they have done?
By PaulB
#1374781
Marjorie wrote:Fined him within the bracketed protocol that they have in their guidance books.


He was, wasn't he? The rest was costs because he was a **** who denied that it was him and claimed the radar gizmos were inaccurate. They were so he had to pay for the tests done to demonstrate that. If they had not been, the prosecution would have had egg on their faces and he'd have been found not guilty (which presumably he pleaded although the news article doesn't make that clear.)
User avatar
By AndyR
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1374795
Sorry Marj, but whether you drive a scrapper or a brand new Audi, if you contest an offence and decide to employ an expert, the prosecution then needs to pay another independent expert to counter the other. Whoever loses will end up paying the costs. Whatever income bracket, whatever type of car, whatever type of employer.
User avatar
By Flintstone
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1374800
Some posters seem to have a lot more information on the driver and case than I can glean from the link in the OP, care to share?
User avatar
By rf3flyer
#1374815
I'm with Marjorie on this.The police can at times behave as a 'law unto themselves' and I reckon there is an element of that in this.

We read in the media how police budgets are stretched yet in this case someone, when the accuracy of the device was questioned, authorised an expensive track day out as a means of rebutting the challenge when a factory calibration would be much more appropriate and cost effective. The probability of recovering the costs of the track day might have been high but it could not have been certain so what, I wonder, would be the outcome had the court not awarded such out of order costs but had instead awarded a reasonable calibration cost? Would the police chief have to stand before his budget committee and explain what the heck he was thinking?

I don't care if the speeder was a cock or a spoiled rich boy. The question is about the behaviour and accountability of the police and this seems a clear case of the cops behaving with a flagrant disregard to budgetary restraint, respect for the public (who they serve) and indeed respect for their privileged position in society. And they wonder why many have lost faith in them.
User avatar
By MikeB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1374818
The article says the Police hired an Audi R8 for the test - the same vehicle driven by the accused

I would assume from this that the defendants arguments were that the speed gun used was inaccurate for that particular make and model rather than just questioning the accuracy of the calibration (which as others have said would be straightforward and inexpensive to prove).
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1374820
Isn't the prosecution undertaken by the CPS? Wouldn't it have been them, and not the police, who would have decided how to demonstrate the accuracy of the speed device?

We haven't heard exactly what arguments were presented by the defence and therefore have no factual basis for deciding whether the counter measures used by the prosecution are appropriate or not.

BBC wrote:so the prosecution hired an expert who rented an airfield and an Audi R8 to carry out tests, the results of which were presented to the court.


Taking the report at face value, it sounds as though the defence might have been trying to use a technical argument based on that type of radar equipment giving false readings with an R8, rather than a calibration one.
User avatar
By matthew_w100
#1374821
But this is why I asked why they had to have the track day. If he'd said "your gun was out of calibration" the rozzers would just have said "no it wasn't and here's the cert from the test we did this morning". He must have said "My Audi is propelled by phase shifting a diamond lattice and is trimmed with unicorn hide. Your Welsh equipment cannot measure the speed of such things". And then they said "Well let's hire an airfield and see"

I'd have liked to have been there.
#1374841
I want to know more about the transponder kit fitted inside a headlight unit that gave an indicated speed of 180mph (on a car not capable of that speed) to the detector van - mentioned in a long past comment on this forum !
By JoeC
#1374865
Can't see what the problem is. He mounted a technical defence that the prosecution had to challenge. The cost of the challenge must have been agreed by the defendant and he thought he had a chance of winning that to balance the risk of copping for the cost. He lost. All his risk. It was also all his decision to try and get below a charge of 100 mph. He'd already admitted to doing 98.

Again the cost of the test would have to reflect the standards that a court would demand and the defence would have had to be content with the test process/costs. Nothing to do with how much the defendant earned. I guess that if you had very little moolah in the bank the risk of putting up such a defence would be too great.
By cockney steve
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1374888
Some of us remember the early days of Radar "speed-traps" Reliants ( plastic rat, , Ant,4-wheel Rebel and conventional Scimitar) and "specials" such as the Rochdale Olympic and the Bond Equipe - as well as the numerous bodies such as Ashley (to convert ancient Austin 7's and Ford "y" types) were all fibreglass.

A bright lawyer realised that this material had a different characteristic radar-reflection to steel (unsure about aluminium bodies) I think, again, it was the driver of an asthmatic Reliant Regal who challenged it's ability to attain the alleged recorded straight and level velocity. As a result, many "tickets" were successfully contended. - The Healy "Frogeye" Sprite could be fitted with an aftermarket fibreglass front end - a good insurance in event of a "pull"
These modern gismos don't give a sporting chance!
User avatar
By jerry_atrick
#1375606
JoeC wrote:Can't see what the problem is. He mounted a technical defence that the prosecution had to challenge. The cost of the challenge must have been agreed by the defendant and he thought he had a chance of winning that to balance the risk of copping for the cost.


This is where I have a problem... This is a criminal rather than a civil proceeding.. And it is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant is guilty - not the defendant to prove he is innocent. He may have suggested the 98mph because he knew he was speeding, but thought less than 100, which would give him a lighter punishment than that over 100mph.

When a defendant to a criminal matter has to pay for the prosecutions costs in their right to defend themselves, isn't that a little dangerous in terms of justice? Sure, the rich can afford it, but the bloke in Zafira may be dead certain he was doing less but is he willing to or can he afford to take the risk of a massive additional cost for the sake of a smaller cost of simply accepting it. Also, it gives the prosecution the ability to price the defendant out of defending themselves *and* as alluded to, encourages budgetary largesse.

Sure - if someone acts as a prat.. give them the maximum penalty for the offence - but requiring someone to pay the prosecution costs just allows flagrant abuse and batters those less fortunate to possibly accept miscarriages of justice.