Petition to freeze speeding fines on Motorcyclists

[nichomach]

I do understand that, but if it was announced that all speed cameras weer to be switched off, do you think that speeding would not increase?

No-one's suggested that they be switched off, merely that the fines be frozen until such time as machines can be shown to accurately reflect the speed of a motorcycle. At the moment, the evidentiary standard being applied to motorcyclists appears to be on a par with "...so if she weighs the same as a duck...SHE'S A WITCH!". It's evident that there is only one source of evidence being accepted, and that that source is hopelessly flawed. It is simply an offence against both justice and common sense to convict and fine people on the basis of that evidence.

[nichomach]

He has the option to take it to crown court...

With respect, that is simply untrue. Jury trial is restricted to more serious offences, and is unavailable for summary offences.

[Rack]

I think the idea is to freeze fines until the speed cameras are tested and proved working with motorcyclists. I'll sign up. Just bought my bike, and I know I pass about 10 speed cameras going to work, wouldn't want to get screwed over.

[kalniel]

They should fit speed restrictors instead

[chuckskull]

The margin for error is a police policy thing. It has no legal significance. You can in theory be done for 1MPH over the limit, but it would have to be done by a device type approved for that kind of accuracy. There are no devices type approved for that kind of accuracy in this country. In theory a policeman can use his opinion, but that would not stand up in court for just 1 MPH.

Ahh well it was a traffic copper explaining it to me, I presumed it was law. Policy is more likely.

[badass]

With respect, that is simply untrue. Jury trial is restricted to more serious offences, and is unavailable for summary offences.

I may well have got the jury bit mixed up. Can you confrim you are 100% sure on that, having seen the info first hand?

[5lab]

I may well have got the jury bit mixed up. Can you confrim you are 100% sure on that, having seen the info first hand?

that is, indeed, nonsense. anyone in the uk can apply to be tried by a jury of their peers before they are guilty of an offence. by default, you would go to magistrates court - but you can always apply for the other court. if you go thru that court, the costs are very likely to be higher..

personally, i think this is a waste of time, if you don't want to be caught speeding, don't speed. apply for both of the photos and they'll show your speed (one tick on the road is 5mph, iirc). the goverment will never freeze fines on speeding bikes as it'd simply encourage speeding. if there was a 'anti-this partition' place to sign, i'd sign it. as for someone who was 1mph over the limit getting 5 points - i'm not going to believe it before i see proof..

[nichomach]

that is, indeed, nonsense. anyone in the uk can apply to be tried by a jury of their peers before they are guilty of an offence. by default, you would go to magistrates court - but you can always apply for the other court. if you go thru that court, the costs are very likely to be higher..

That is utterly untrue; there are a large number of offences which are summary only, that is to say they can ONLY be heard by a magistrates court. They include common assault, threatening behaviour, and swathes of motoring and nuisance offences. There are some crimes which are indictable only - murder, rape, robbery etc. - and these can ONLY be heard before a crown court. There are also offences which go either way - theft, assaults which occasion injury, other offences of dishonesty. It is in these latter cases that either the prosecution or defence may elect to proceed before a crown court. A speeding fine does NOT qualify. It is a summary offence.

[badass]

That is utterly untrue; there are a large number of offences which are summary only, that is to say they can ONLY be heard by a magistrates court. They include common assault, threatening behaviour, and swathes of motoring and nuisance offences. There are some crimes which are indictable only - murder, rape, robbery etc. - and these can ONLY be heard before a crown court. There are also offences which go either way - theft, assaults which occasion injury, other offences of dishonesty. It is in these latter cases that either the prosecution or defence may elect to proceed before a crown court. A speeding fine does NOT qualify. It is a summary offence.

Have to disagree with you there. Since I know people that for a £60 3 pointer that have gone to crown court, since they lost the case at magistrates court.
pay www.pepipoo.com a visit.

[nichomach]

That's an appeal to the Queen's Bench Division, not a trial, and they have to be granted leave to appeal in order to do so. I would also refer you to the website that pepipoo links to; http://www.hawthorn.homechoice.co.uk/Court/rtl3.html :

"A) Broadly speaking, the offences may be divided into three types:-

i) Driving - e.g. due care, speeding

ii) Using - e.g. tyres. brakes, insurance

iii) Keeping - e.g. road tax Note the offence 'taking a motor vehicle and going equipped to take or steal motor vehicles.

B) With regard to the venue of trial, the offences fall into three categories: -

Indictable

Causing death by dangerous driving

Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs

Either Way

Dangerous driving

Stealing motor vehicle

Going equipped to steal motor vehicles

Fraudulent use of road fund licence

Summary

Most other road traffic offences"

Under the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, there are a few offences which are nominally summary but which may be referred to the Crown Court:
"Which summary offences can be tried in the Crown Court?

Under CJA 1988 s.40, a few summary offences can be included on the indictment and tried in the Crown Court. They are:

Common assault

Assaulting a prison custody officer

Assaulting a secure training centre custody officer

Taking a vehicle without authority

Driving while disqualified

Low value criminal damage (technically an either-way offence but normally tried by magistrates)

An indictment may only include such an offence if the charge is founded on the same facts or evidence as a count charging an indictable offence (i.e. an indictab le-only or either-way offence);

or

part of a series of offences of the same or similar character as an indictable offence which is also charged ; and

the facts or evidence relating to the summary offence were disclosed in the magistrates' committal papers or the prosecution papers served under schedule 3 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 ( procedure where person sent for trial under section 51 ) .

<see also Sending indictable only cases to the Crown Court and Committal Proceedings, elsewhere in this guidance> "

http://cps.gov.uk/legal/section17/chapter_d.html

You'll note that speeding isn't included there either, and such charges may only be referred where they're part of a docket including an indictable offence . I suspect that you've simply misunderstood the stage in the appellate process which your acquaintances had reached.

[badass]

That's an appeal to the Queen's Bench, not a trial, and they have to be granted leave to appeal in order to do so.

I'm not talking about the 2 cases they are taking to the ECHR and ECJ. If you pay the forums a visit you will see some examples of people doing this.
I also know someone from the SXOC has done this successfully on at least 1 occasion.

[ikonia]

FYI: he didn't get 5 points for going 1 mph over the speed limit.

He was offered 3 point fixed penalty, didn't take it as he was sure he was only doing 40, got proven wrong and got the initial 3 points raised and the fine raised for pleading not guilty not for 1mph - the additional fine and points where for pleading not guilty.

[nichomach]

I'm not talking about the 2 cases they are taking to the ECHR and ECJ. If you pay the forums a visit you will see some examples of people doing this.
I also know someone from the SXOC has done this successfully on at least 1 occasion.

Yes, badass, those are appeals, not trials. They will be heard before one or more High Court judges, not a jury. There is no right to opt for a jury trial for a summary offence.

[badass]

Nitromach, your argument is still flawed.
You have stated that:
Summary only offences can only be heard in a magistrates court.
Speeding is a summary offence*
Speeding can therefore only be heard in a magistrates court.

You have provided decent enough evidence that speeding is a summary offence - however that is something I suspect we all accept already.
You have provided no evidence that summary offences cannot be heard by a jury or in a crown court.
Provide adequate evidence that summary offences can only be heard by magistrates and cannot be taken to crown court if the defendant disagrees with the judgement and your argument is logically won.












*Privided it is not fast enough to be considered a more serious offence

[badass]

Yes, badass, those are appeals, not trials. They will be heard before one or more High Court judges, not a jury. There is no right to opt for a jury trial for a summary offence.

Hmmm that sounds more like it TBH. I may well have got that mixed up with a jury trial at crown court.

[nichomach]

The definition of a summary offence is that it can only be heard in a magistrates court, except where specifically allowed by exceptions like those given above to be heard as part of a docket including an indictable or either-way offence. That's what "summary" means, badass. As opposed to "indictable" or "either-way". If you're unclear on this, I suggest you go get yourself an honours degree in law, like I did.

edit: Sorry, that was snippy.

A case may only proceed to a higher court upon appeal, and even then it is not (technically) to the Crown Court, but to the Queen's Bench, and it is NOT a jury trial.

Oh, speeding IS a summary offence; a "more serious offence" would not be a speeding fine, it would be something like dangerous driving, which is an either-way offence where either the prosecution or defence may opt for a jury trial.

Look, I know that it looks confusing when an appeal goes to the same judges as would sit in a Crown Court trial, but it's a different court (no, really, it is) with different rules, even if it's the same judges in the same rooms. Want some fun, then try working out the difference between the House of Lords and the Privy Council...