78 on the A19 dual carriageway - court CMH in 2 weeks - how do i get them to reveal their proof?

[MikeebEos]

No slanging match ere..

 

I think dx thought i was just causing trouble for the fun of it and got my questions from the foil hat brigade..

 

I am really interested in law and find it fascinating... i really should have followed this path for a career.... too old now....

 

Mitm - I appreciate your time and advice, you obviously know your stuff. 

 

My main aim / question is how or when do i put these questions to the claiment. Do i need to do anything b4 i attend court for the management hearing?

[Man in the middle]

4 hours ago, MikeebEos said:

My main aim / question is how or when do i put these questions to the claiment. Do i need to do anything b4 i attend court for the management hearing?

 

You firstly need to understand there is no "claimant" in this issue. You are being prosecuted and face a criminal charge. It is not a civil matter where a claimant is claiming a debt. Any monies you are ordered to pay will be in the form of fines, costs and ancillary sums (the "victim surcharge"). In default they are recoverable by either an attachment to earnings order, by bailiffs or if still unrecoverable, by a custodial sentence in lieu.

 

The questions you want to ask should be put by you at the case management hearing. I should warn you that most of your requests are likely to be declined. I'll just lay it out one more time as plainly as I can.

 

The prosecution has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you were driving (they have your S172 response) and that the vehicle was exceeding the prevailing limit. Proving what the prevailing limit was will not be hard; the NSL on a dual carriageway for a car is 70mph - the highest of all limits in the UK.

 

To prove that the vehicle was travelling above the limit they will show that the device was an approved one and that it was operated correctly. If they prove that, it will be presumed to be reliable by the court. So, if you want to cast reasonable doubt so that they cannot presume its reliability you will have to show that either it was not an approved device or it was not operated correctly. But, back to the "fishing", you cannot simply ask them to produce anything and everything to prove their case. You will have to show what it is you doubt about either of those aspects.

 

If you cannot overcome that hurdle (casting reasonable doubt on whether the device was approved or that it was operated correctly) you have to move on. The presumption that the device can be relied upon is a "rebuttable" presumption. That is, you have the opportunity to show that such an presumption is unsafe. However, now the burden is greater. Casting reasonable doubt is not enough. You have to prove "on the balance of probabilities" (i.e. more likely than not) that the presumption is not safe enough to support your conviction. You will have to prove that the device is so inaccurate that it cannot be relied upon to prove you exceeded he speed limit.

 

Such a defence (especially if it goes to the second  part) is difficult to run and you will need expert assistance. Just turning up and saying "I don't believe I was speeding, prove that I was" will not cut the mustard. The short summary is they will have evidence you were speeding, you have none to show you were not. It's really that simple.

 

I would never suggest that anyone simply rolls over. If you truly believe you are Not Guilty then you should defend the matter (though I suggest you need expert help). If it' simply that you want them to "prove it" it is likely to end in tears.

[MikeebEos]

HI Mitm,

 

Many thanks for your comprehensive overview, I appreciate your advice and concerns regarding following this route.  

 

I will see how I go - I will let you know the outcome