Why don't the Police Forces.......

andy c

The idea of a technicality in law is one that heavily favours the prosecution as the investigating body has the benefit of legal training and crystal clear requirements for the gathering of evidence. I invite your comment.

How do you think better public relations with "ethnic groups" could be effected at the lowest ranking level of the police forces in Britain?

How is it possible to address institutionalised racism within the police but nonetheless bring about better public relations?

Deane

quote:

The idea of a technicality in law is one that heavily favours the prosecution as the investigating body has the benefit of legal training and crystal clear requirements for the gathering of evidence. I invite your comment.

This is a matter of personal opinion, and from what perspective you are looking from. The fundimentals are that the prosecution has to prove the whole of theis case 'beyond' reasonable doubt, whereas the defence only need to show balance of probability etc. You also forget that in all criminal offences the defendant has the right, sometimes free, to seek indipendant legal advice before charge/prosecution, and throughout any court case. Defence solicitors know the same laws as prosecuting ones, unless I'm mistaken. Don't forget also the Laws of disclosure, applicable to 'either way' and 'indictable' offences, allowing the defence access to the prosecution case etc.

quote:

How do you think better public relations with "ethnic groups" could be effected at the lowest ranking level of the police forces in Britain?

I think this is already happening. It was highlighted after the Lawrence report, and part of that report was extensive training and re-training in diversity issues, and about dealing with people as individuals, for example. By the way, this is a two-way street - some members of the community strain relations with the police by their behaviour, too.

quote:

How is it possible to address institutionalised racism within the police but nonetheless bring about better public relations?

This is old news in some respects, but still a very hot topic - this has been identified and acknowledged - especially in the above report. Better public relations is about being accessible, and also giving balanced and effective feedback and support to communities who need it.

Next?

Ps the above are my own personal views.

andy c

A criminal defence need show nothing. The burden of proof is entirely on the State.

The "balance of probabilities" is a burden of proof set for parties to civil cases at law - not criminal.

The rules of discovery to which you refer are after the fact. The technical considerations to which I refer are those (mostly) surrounding the gathering of evidence.

Deane

Deane,

I'll leave it with you as you seem to know.

I assume you are referring to English law, also.

regards

andy c!

Ps - I don't agree with your interpretation of technical evidence. Evidence gathered has to be so after cosideration of the relevant legislation e.g. PACE powers of search, or the codes surrounding interviews. As such, this evidence can be open to scrutiny at any time during a persons detention, especially at review times. This is before charge as well, not before conviction.

andy c

The NZ system is very English - but we don't have common law crimes anymore.

I seem to know? Hell, these are basic tenets of the justice system within which you are a uniquely privileged individual.

Sorry, but I am a little staggered that with a little scratch you made such basic mistakes.

Deane

What mistakes did I make?

quote:

The fundimentals are that the prosecution has to prove the whole of theis case 'beyond' reasonable doubt, whereas the defence only need to show balance of probability etc.

Perhaps I should have added 'for the case not to be proven'. how is that?

quote:

A criminal defence need show nothing. The burden of proof is entirely on the State.

Deane,
just checked some legal books - you are not totally correct.

" Generally the prosecution bear the duty of proving or disproving certain facts, and if they fail to do so, the defence need ay nothing; the prosecution fails and the defendant is aquitted".

This also relates to general law. if nthe event of a not guily plea, it is up to the prosecution to prove the whole of their case. However, once a prima facie case is made out, the defence has to establish facts in order to rebut the prosecution evidence. There here is then a shift in onus, hence my earlier comments. Apologies for the confusion. (The literature of law - Brian Harris 1998)

quote:

Originally posted by NaimThatTune:
[I'd like to mention that to the driver of the Police car that came hurtling the hill at the end of my street a week or so ago, no lights or sirens, just comfortably exceeding what appeared to me to be 65mph (in a 30 zone) and there was NO WAY he could stop in the distance he could see to be clear. Police acting above the law really gets me agitated, but perhaps is a topic for another thread sometime.]

Yeah, I remember something similar sevaral years ago. I'd guess he was doing 70 in a 30 limit, no lights, no sirens.

This wasn't a nice wide 30mph stretch of road either, it was fairly narrow, cars parked both sides, lots of hidden exits and a fair number of pedestrians in what was basically a residential area.

Couldn't be because it was 3 mins to end of shift, and he was still nearly a mile from the depot?

Martin

Heard the one about the copper who booked a guy following him for speeding? No blue lights but the guy behind still wasn't to know the reason why the copper he was following was exceeding the limit.

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:

quote:

A criminal defence need show nothing. The burden of proof is entirely on the State.

Deane,
just checked some legal books - you are not totally correct.

" Generally the prosecution bear the duty of proving or disproving certain facts, and if they fail to do so, the defence need ay nothing; the prosecution fails and the defendant is aquitted".

This also relates to general law. if nthe event of a not guily plea, it is up to the prosecution to prove the whole of their case. However, once a prima facie case is made out, the defence has to establish facts in order to rebut the prosecution evidence. There here is then a shift in onus, hence my earlier comments. Apologies for the confusion. (The literature of law - Brian Harris 1998)

andy c

"A criminal defence need show nothing" was a poor use of language on my part.

I should have said:

"A defendant at a criminal trial need show nothing".

If the defendant wants to mount a defence then she must, as you say, rebut the evidence.

Is that what you mean?

There is no requirement for any accused person to utter a single word during any part of the procedure following arrest, the establishment of a prima facie case and a trial. I seem to recall an accused person taking this stance many years back - it made the news here in NZ - and as I recall the Judge was quite protective of his interests throughout the trial.

Deane

quote:

Originally posted by Martin Payne:
Yeah, I remember something similar sevaral years ago. I'd guess he was doing 70 in a 30 limit, no lights, no sirens.

This wasn't a nice wide 30mph stretch of road either, it was fairly narrow, cars parked both sides, lots of hidden exits and a fair number of pedestrians in what was basically a residential area.

Couldn't be because it was 3 mins to end of shift, and he was still nearly a mile from the depot?

Martin

Most of the worst incidents of speeding/dangerous driving I've seen have been by police drivers.

quote:

There is no requirement for any accused person to utter a single word during any part of the procedure following arrest, the establishment of a prima facie case and a trial. I seem to recall an accused person taking this stance many years back - it made the news here in NZ - and as I recall the Judge was quite protective of his interests throughout the trial.

deane,

You are quite right re the defendant having to say nothing. There are quite strick legal rules surrounding this. But the caution accross here was changed to something like 'you do not have to say anything, but it may harm you defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later reply on in court. anyhting you do say may be given in evidence'. I think the three areas of this caution speak for themselves.

An easier way around this would be to remember that although what you say does apply 'generally' you need to be careful when applying 'general' rules, as it then gets offence specific.

Differant offences require differant points to prove, as you probably well know. It is true the prosecution have to prove these points, and then the defence may offer rebuttal evidence if they so wish. Practically this happens all the time.

andy c!

quote:

Most of the worst incidents of speeding/dangerous driving I've seen have been by police drivers.

And most of the instances of crap driving I have seen have been by members of the public, but I would say that, wouldn't I?

andy c

Yes, there are few absolutes in law. It seems to me that the law in NZ that allows the state to confiscate assets bought with the proceeds from crime load the burden of proof onto the accused and unfairly so in my opinion.

I think the case of Miranda v Arizona has had waves all over the civilised world in terms of clear judicial reasoning with regard to the state's responsibility to accused persons.

Deane

deane,

hence your underlying point about the prosecution needing to be transparent in its dealings, then?

andy

My point is that there are no technicalities. It's just a word used by police and prosecutors to divert attention from their cock-ups.

Deane

quote:

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
Why does there seem to be a need to limit ultra-high performance cars to 155mph ?

Isn't this the maximum speed that average car aerodynamics work properly, and thus cars going that fast tend to take off and do a good Mig inpersonation? I'm sure I heard this somewhere?

A car that can prevent driving when pissed/stoned/overloaded as well as being limited to speed limits set by transponders in the road sounds like a good idea to me btw

Deane,

two things:

"those who have never made a mistake have never done anything at all"

...and your questions, answers and intentions may show a little bias towards suspects. What about victims? Don't they count?

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
Deane,

two things:

"those who have never made a mistake have never done anything at all"

...and your questions, answers and intentions may show a little bias towards suspects. What about victims? Don't they count?

andy

I'm a victim myself - a complainant and Crown witness in a case coming up for trial. I had my admittedly left-leaning views before this case came up and I still hold to them. I want a conviction for the accused in this matter but not at the expense of the fine principles that live at the heart of our criminal justice system. Give him every chance I say; every latitude; the best lawyers and if he still goes down then it has all the more meaning. If not then I have to accept that while I know the truth the Crown failed to prove in this particular matter but that the greater good is still protected from the tyranny of the masses.

Deane

My view is that its up to the prosecuting agency to present the best evidence they can to a court - then its down to a court to decide guilt. By best evidence I mean legally obtained.

One of MSN cars' columns linked from here

http://cars.msn.co.uk/carnews/clarke27sep05

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They say if you want to keep your friends, don’t talk about religion or politics. Well perhaps speeding should also be added to that list, as while everybody seems to have an opinion on the matter, it has in modern times become one of the most strongly disputed issues within our society.

In recent years British motorists have witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of speed enforcement measures installed on our roads. Whether it’s GATSO, Truvelo, SPECS, unmarked police patrol vehicles or handheld laser devices, it seems there’s now no escaping the eye of the law, for Big Brother is watching you. If you’re travelling at 78mph down the M4 you had best watch out, for you are now a criminal…or so we have been indoctrinated to believe. We are told that speeding is the direct cause of almost all fatal or major road accidents, but what exactly do we mean by “speeding”? In the eyes of the law (and the speed camera), speeding is defined as driving a motor vehicle in excess of the limit for any given public road, whether it be by 1mph or 100mph- it is illegal... but is it necessarily dangerous?

When conditions allow...
When assessing the maximum speed at which it is safe to travel there are simply too many contributing variable factors on our roads to construe that if you are travelling greater than the posted limit it is inevitably dangerous. It is impossible to deduce any kind of accurate judgment until evaluating-

- The conditions on the road (dry, wet, icy etc)

- The driver’s ability (fatigue, age, emotion, mind concentration, drug influence etc)

- The vehicle's mechanical condition (drive-train, tyres, brakes, steering etc.)

- The volume of traffic on the road (congested, moderate, quiet)

- Visibility conditions (foggy, day, night, storm etc)

Without taking all of these contributing factors into consideration it is unfeasible to formulate any accurate conception of what a dangerous speed is for any given road. Interestingly, the simple fact of the matter is that no speed camera is capable of evaluating any of these factors - and that’s precisely where opinions differ. The law defines speeding as “too fast for the limit”, when the simple reality is that it really means “too fast for the conditions”. Road fatalities related to speeding only ever occur when a driver fails to accurately evaluate one or more of the five factors listed above, not solely because a posted limit is exceeded.

While a staggeringly large majority of speeding tickets are issued for drivers travelling too fast for the limit as opposed to too fast for the actual conditions, it seems a fair assessment to say that speed doesn’t kill at all - it pays. A bold statement to make you might be thinking, but when you consider that the UK Department for Transport statistics show that road deaths have increased where speed cameras are most prevalent, it begins to make sense.

Do speed cameras kill?
Take for example, Cumbria. When the number of speed camera sites grew by a whopping 48%, you would have expected to see a dramatic fall in the number of road fatalities in that area, when in fact they grew by a morbid 17%. Before 2003, when Cumbria’s speed camera partnership was first inaugurated, the area saw 49 road fatalities in two consecutive years. Once 33 speed camera sites were active, this figure jumped to 54. In 2004, when the number of speed camera sites grew to 49, fatalities figures once again rose, this time to 57.

While in 2004, road deaths dropped 8% percent to 3221 fatalities in the UK, some of the most substantial drops occurred in areas without speed camera partnerships at all, such as in Durham and North Yorkshire, where fatalities dropped 24% and 9% respectively. In the areas with the most speed cameras it’s a different story entirely, where the number of deaths increased substantially. In North Wales, fatalities jumped 18% and Wales overall rose 16%. Fatalities in Hertfordshire and Wiltshire grew by 34% and 22% percent respectively.

The figures speak for themselves, and when you consider that £22m profit is generated annually by speed cameras alone, it is incomprehensible to believe that these “partnerships” have been installed for our safety as opposed to clearing out our wallets. While the local authorities across the country have achieved nothing but impose a state of paranoia upon drivers, we are now spending too much time with our eyes glued to the speedometer, rather than actually concentrating on the road- inciting dangerous driving.

The simple truth is that a majority of drivers will often travel at a speed that they feel is suitable for the road they are on and the conditions of their environment. It is logical to assume that a driver will travel considerably slower on a road in heavy rain with a high volume of traffic than if they were travelling along the same road in dry conditions, clear visibility and a low volume of traffic. The fact that the limit remains the same for both conditions becomes irrelevant, which therefore begs the question – should speed limits be banned?

Abolish speed limits?
Another bold proposition you might think, but consider for a moment the entire network of Britain’s public roads without a single speed limit, and therefore- without any speed enforcement cameras. While many peoples’ immediate reaction might be to assume that everyone would suddenly start racing down every road in an attempt to set a new land speed record, the effects would in fact be much more subtle, and yet increasingly effective in preventing road fatalities. Instead of millions of drivers looking out for unmarked police cars sneaking up behind them or staring at their speedometer to ensure they’re not travelling a deadly 71mph on a motorway, we would all actually be concentrating on the road in front of us. What a refreshing change.

There would be no more panic braking upon the approach to a speed camera, because there would no longer be any. The motoring writer LJK Setright, who sadly died a few weeks ago, once wrote, “Speed limits cannot be justified. Logically, there should be only one motoring offence, dangerous use.” The local authorities could re-concentrate their efforts to catch actual dangerous drivers by targeting those without a valid MOT or insurance, who are escaping detection far too easily.

For the meantime however, while the government continue to manipulate statistics and target Britain’s motorists it seems like little is due to change to work towards fairer motoring and safer roads…especially when £22,000,000 is on the end of it all. How strangely ironic...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A great essay and I agree with most of it. We do need speed limits though even if they are only advisory. What we can do without is their rigid enforcement for the purposes of modal shift and revenue.

Lets go back to the days when there were no cameras, police patrols afforded due discretion and generally permitted you to drive at 15mph above any speed limit in ideal conditions.

Lets abolish the motorway speed limit for cars and motorcycles, and rigidly enforce lane and distance discipline instead.

My wife has just received a fixed penalty notice for doing 35 in a 30 at 9.00pm on a dual carriageway in Worcester.

Now, as I have said many times, I have no problem with being penalised if you are caught exceeding the speed limit - it is nobody's fault but your own.

What really infuriates is the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou leaflet that accompanies it; saying how speed cameras are to improve road safety and not raise revenue and all that bollocks.

The protesteth-too-loud propaganda says it all really.

Same leaflet tells you limits are just that and not target. It also tells you to drive even slower if you are unsure of the limit. Yet if you fail to keep up to the speed limit on a driving test you'll fail it.

Common sense says don't impede the flow of traffic - we're on the road for a reason. New Labour says lead the way by being the vehicle everyone else is stuck behind.

It's not really about whether individuals deserve what they get for being fools, it's about the lies, the propaganda and the unnecessary removal of the liberty to drive as quickly as your judgement tells you is safe.

quote:

It's not really about whether individuals deserve what they get for being fools, it's about the lies, the propaganda and the unnecessary removal of the liberty to drive as quickly as your judgement tells you is safe.

But the problems lay in deciding whether your judgement is correct, does it not?