Court adjourned for speeding cases

Motor Cycle News
Wed 3 Oct
Court adjourned for speeding cases. ...

TOP lawyers say that speeding cases can be adjourned in UK courts until the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has decided the future of Gatsos. Legal experts have already told MCN that they fully expect the Government to lose its case in the ECHR and, if this bears true, by adjourning the court hearing for impending speeding convictions they could be quashed forever.
The case in question, Francis v UK Government,was heard on September . 27, and the 21 judges involved in the hearing have retired to make their separate judgments. However, it could be at least a year until they
reconvene to declare their final verdict.
Speaking to MCN as he left the Grand Chamber from the ECHR in Strasbourg, speed camera martyr Idris Francis said: "Go to court and ask for an adjournment until my case has been decided. It's going to clog up the courts no end."
We asked expert criminal lawyer Richard EIlis for his advice on the best course, of action for those hoping to adjourn their case, he said: "You could ask a court to adjourn pending a decision. However, you can't ask for an adjournment when you receive an NIP because at this stage there are no court proceedings. A court hearing is only listed if you fail to return the form or return it unsigned.
"It's up to the court at the time and different courts might take a different view. You should always seek legal advice."
(note - I see no reason why any NIP recipient should not ask the police to extend the 28 dayperiod for a reply to the date the verdict is known, on the basis that if HMG wins, the information will be provided, and if not, not. The 28 day period is, after all, not sacrosanct and the police do routinely extend it in many cases, not least when they are trying to apply pressure to get answers Idris)

You hypocrite!

TOP cop Meredydd Hughes was exposed by the BBC's Newsnight programme for the hypocrisy of letting police officers off speeding fines.
Newsnightobtained evidence that South Yorkshire Police vehicles had tripped speed cameras -and the driver was not penalised because he could not be identified. The BBC asked for the photographic evidence under the Freedom of Information Act, but the force declined, saying it would be embarrassing for the individuals concerned.
Chief Constable Hughes then failed to satisfactorily answer why, if the individual could be identified well enough to cause embarrassment, they could not be identified to be prosecuted.
MCN asked Meredydd Hughes why a UK citizen was taken to the highest court in Europe because he refused to incriminate himself in an NIP and yet South Yorkshire Police simply writes off speeding tickets when a driver can't be identified.
Hughes declined to comment.

Notes - I believe Newsnight showed police discussing how not to prosecute one another, and wiping camera tapes. I was not taken to the ECHR - I took HMG to the ECR Idris

4% of accidents down to speed

OFFICIAL accident statistics published by the Department for Transport have confirmed speed is only responsible for 4% of all accidents. The Road Casualties in Great Britain is a comprehensive annual report that details all road accidents across the UK; including pedestrian and bicycle statistics.
The report says 'Failed to look properly' was the primary reason given for 32% of accidents, overshadowing speed as the most common reason for accidents on UK roads.
Captain Gatso phoned - MCN to give his reaction to the findings.
He gloated: "It's like I always said, speed doesn't kill but a lack of attention does."
Now the Government has debunked its own propaganda."

Editorial
One rule for them, one rule for us

IF any of us are unfortunate enough to nip through a speed camera a little over the speed limit there is usually a wait and then a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) lands on the doormat.
Once you have this NIP, the procedure is clear for all of us - if, indeed, it was us riding the bike or driving the car. We fill it in, giving the details of who was driving at the time and then wait for the punishment to arrive either as points and a fine or a court appearance for more serious offences.
If, for some reason, you can't remember who was driving at the time, the usual procedure is that you will end up in court and get a huge fine for your trouble.
All of this is true and in keeping with the law -unless, of course, you are a police officer. Then you can just forget who was driving because the driving log wasn't filled in and then claim the driver couldn't be identified in the photo.
Despite some investigations the police force thenjust lets it all fade away with nothing done.
Imagine if the scenario was reversed.
"I'mterribly sorry Mr Policeman, I've taken myself outside and asked myself some pretty searching questions and I can safely say, I still have no idea who was driving."
As South Yorkshire Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes squirmed with embarrassment at the hypocrisy of his own force (see above) it was another hammer blow to the shambolic, dishonest, flawed and self-governing speed camera operation that does little for road safety but a huge amount towards raising money.
The sooner the government wakes up to the real facts of what affects road safety - poor driving standards, idiots on mobiles, unchecked drink driving andthe general ignorance of most people to' motorcyclists - the better.