cheshire_carper

Here is a summary

Appeal allowed. (1) The ordinary meaning of the words in s.85(4) of the Act was that two tests had to be met before the appellant could be convicted. The first was that there had to be such signs as required by s.85(1) or s.85(2), and the second was that those signs had to indicate the speed limit. The objective of s.85(4) was plainly that motorists should not be convicted in the absence of adequate guidance. In order to achieve that objective, the second test involved a requirement that at the geographical point where the motorist exceeded the limit, the signs could reasonably be expected to have conveyed the limit to him in sufficient time for him to reduce from a previously lawful speed to a speed within the new limit. On the facts found by the court below, had C been travelling at 40mph as he approached the signs then he would not have had time to reduce his speed before entering the 30mph stretch. The court below had made no explicit finding as to the precise location where C had been recorded as travelling over the speed limit, nor was there a finding that it had been any substantial distance from the start of the 30mph stretch. In those circumstances it was impossible to do anything other than conclude that in C's case the requirement implicit in the second test had not been met. (2) Even if speed limit road signs did not comply with the Regulations so as to afford a motorist a defence under s.85 of the Act, such a defence would not be negated by reason of the motorist's knowledge of the speed limit on that stretch of road. Nothing in the 1984 Act suggested that the defence in s.85 was conditional on the defendant being unaware of the speed limit, and speeding was not an offence that required a mental element, Wawrzynczyk v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Times, March 16, 2000 considered. (3) Having decided the case on the basis of C's first argument, the court expressed no concluded view on his second. That argument had to overcome the difficulty that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 identified the form of the sign and where it had to be placed, but imposed no further obligation as to visibility. In the absence of such further obligation, it seemed to be difficult to say that the authority had not maintained the signs in such position as required by the Directions.

s2konroids

Unlucky fella, i can see why you protested . Unfortunately when you do protest more often than not they rape you with a more severe fine/points if found guilty.

I tend to agree with Russ, it will cost them ~£400 damage but then ulitmately guess who has to pay it, your easy fish the more severe/dangerous crimes and scum that commit more severe motoring offences get less.

What a joke, this is the country we live in.

m1bjr

You are not the only one.

If your really unlucky like me, your barrister tells you how strong your case is and practically encourages away from Magistrates in favour of a jury trial.

And when you land at Crown court someone else you never have met tells you you don't have a cat in hells chance and to go guilty or go down.

A little plea-bargaining ensues between the old school tie boys who want an easy day (hey, its a Friday) and you narrownly escape a custodial.

All because of our warped ideal of justice, and that the paid help is actually going to be just that.

I see it hasnt changed in the last 20years, except that the lawyers are running bigger Mercs...



Fair play to you for self representation.
Shame about the cocks in wigs.

JimUK

No, i looked through a load of stuff with a mate who comes from a legal background. He found this case and it looked similar so i decided to use it as part of my defence. The annoying thing is that the camera van operator signs a form to say he checked the signs were clear but in reality, i'm not sure whether he could have done on this day. And my pictures were taken 3 weeks after and they argued the foilage could have been significantly different! And to top it all off, we watched the video and he was targeting oncoming cars before they had even reached the 30mph zone (and its a 50mph before it changes). Who could argue that is for safety purposes? I was 57 metres into the 30mph zone, which when doing 50mph gives you 3 seconds before he has got you. My arguement was because i could only see the sign as i passed it and not before, i didnt have sufficient time to reduce my speed to the new limit.

The magistrate summed up saying that my defence/organisation would have put some of the lawyers who come into court to shame.. but still ruled that it was beyond reasonable doubt that i was guilty... Even the prosecution solicitor asked what i did for a job and the suggested maybe a change in careers! Praise but still didnt help my fate.

JimUK

Unfortunately it was a van or else i would have been tempted to do that!

Rob88

Court fine will always try to ensure that it’s cheaper to follow the law then to break it.
The fine for fraud will be much more than the money stolen, the fine for leaking oil into a river will be much more than the cost would have been for disposing of it legally plus the cost of clean up.

While this isn’t directly relating to your case I think the same sort of thing applies.
If you go to court you will get a bigger bollocking then if you hadn’t, in both costs and points.

The magistrate who’s blog I regularly read has a very dim view of speeding, and this seems to be reflected in many other courts too.

Nick Graves

Many magistrates tend to be self-important little pricks whose view of everything is a bit dim. I suppose they do represent the ill-informed views of the great unwashed though.

It is particularly galling to be told you've presented one of the best pleas they've heard, but you still lose anyway, because the law's written that way. Got the T-shirt...

gaddafi

I read somewhere (not Wiki) that magistrates convict in over 90% of cases

maybe chesh knows the figure?

you were always up against it

Rob88

That sounds about right.
I’d suggest that 90% of the people who end up in court are there because they broke a law though.

There’s been some changes to sentencing laws I think.
The courts use to have a lot more discretion.

I remember an old story of a respectable older gentleman who was found to be driving his daughters car with no insurance. He thought he was insured, the insurance company had changed his policy on renewal and he hadn’t read the small print.
The court found him guilty.
But they gave him 0 points and a £10 fine towards costs.
There was no point in punishing him any more so they didn’t.

I’m not sure if they would have that range of discretion now.

S2KayGT

I work for one!!