Post by Administrator on Feb 6, 2019 20:40:12 GMT
OK, so the prosecution are supposed to provide a copy of a written statement.. Which you usually get when you receive a speeding ticket..
But if it was a member of the public who reported you, there may only be one or two statements.. And you can't be convicted on one persons statement alone.
It appears you can object to the written statement being used.. (so I think they have to have the witness appear in person)
So.. If everybody objects to the officers written statement (which goes along with his device evidence) *he used the device) they will have that many court dates officers will have to attend.. That they won't have any officers free to be out in the camera vans.
Im guessing at Bolton.. That as I had a solicitor.. The solicitor must have objected to the Traffic light technician written statement. Which is why I had to endure him walking in, in person and performing the ridiculous "cherade" with a dummy traffic light camera" (what wasn't the actual camera used and bore no evidence to it being clean or in good condition) just his word.
Really you don't want to see the officer as he was a total rimmer character.
But if its dangerous driving or driving without due care and its a random person.. And you didn't actually do anything wrong.. You are going to "want" to make them turn up in court as they are likely to be lying.. And really they most likely won't want to appear themselves if no accidents or damage or injury was caused.
The Criminal Procedure Rules October 2015
as amended October 2016
© Crown copyright 2
Written witness statement in evidence
16.4.—(1) A party who wants to introduce in evidence a written witness statement must—
(a) before the hearing at which that party wants to introduce it, serve a copy of the statement
on—
(i) the court officer, and
(ii) each other party; and
(b) at or before that hearing, serve on the court officer the statement or an authenticated copy.
(2) If that party relies on only part of the statement, that party must mark the copy in such a way
as to make that clear.
(3) A prosecutor must serve on a defendant, with the copy of the statement, a notice—
(a) of the right to object to the introduction of the statement in evidence instead of the
witness giving evidence in person;
(b) of the time limit for objecting under this rule; and
(c) that if the defendant does not object in time, the court—
(i) can nonetheless require the witness to give evidence in person, but
(ii) may decide not to do so.
(4) A party served with a written witness statement who objects to its introduction in evidence
must—
(a) serve notice of the objection on—
(i) the party who served it, and
(ii) the court officer; and
(b) serve the notice of objection not more than 7 days after service of the statement unless—
(i) the court extends that time limit, before or after the statement was served,
(ii) rule 24.8 (Written guilty plea: special rules) applies, in which case the time limit is
the later of 7 days after service of the statement or 7 days before the hearing date, or
(iii) rule 24.9 (Single justice procedure: special rules) applies, in which case the time
limit is 21 days after service of the statement.
(5) The court may exercise its power to require the witness to give evidence in person—
(a) on application by any party; or
(b) on its own initiative.
(6) A party entitled to receive a copy of a statement may waive that entitlement by so
informing—
(a) the party who would have served it; and
(b) the court.
[Note. The Practice Direction sets out a form of written witness statement and a form of notice for
use in connection with this rule.
Under section 9(2A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967(a), Criminal Procedure Rules may prescribe
the period within which a party served with a written witness statement must object to its
introduction in evidence, subject to a minimum period of 7 days from its service.
Under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003(b), where a statement in a document is
admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings, the statement may be proved by producing either
(a) the document, or (b) (whether or not the document exists) a copy of the document or of the
(a) 1967 c. 80; section 9(2A) was inserted by section 80 of the Deregulation Act 2015 (c. 20).
(b) 2003 c. 44.
Think I summed that up right.
I have not been right about everything in this site, but mostly I believe I am correct..
Usually I notice afterwards where I read it in the wrong context.
But if it was a member of the public who reported you, there may only be one or two statements.. And you can't be convicted on one persons statement alone.
It appears you can object to the written statement being used.. (so I think they have to have the witness appear in person)
So.. If everybody objects to the officers written statement (which goes along with his device evidence) *he used the device) they will have that many court dates officers will have to attend.. That they won't have any officers free to be out in the camera vans.
Im guessing at Bolton.. That as I had a solicitor.. The solicitor must have objected to the Traffic light technician written statement. Which is why I had to endure him walking in, in person and performing the ridiculous "cherade" with a dummy traffic light camera" (what wasn't the actual camera used and bore no evidence to it being clean or in good condition) just his word.
Really you don't want to see the officer as he was a total rimmer character.
But if its dangerous driving or driving without due care and its a random person.. And you didn't actually do anything wrong.. You are going to "want" to make them turn up in court as they are likely to be lying.. And really they most likely won't want to appear themselves if no accidents or damage or injury was caused.
The Criminal Procedure Rules October 2015
as amended October 2016
© Crown copyright 2
Written witness statement in evidence
16.4.—(1) A party who wants to introduce in evidence a written witness statement must—
(a) before the hearing at which that party wants to introduce it, serve a copy of the statement
on—
(i) the court officer, and
(ii) each other party; and
(b) at or before that hearing, serve on the court officer the statement or an authenticated copy.
(2) If that party relies on only part of the statement, that party must mark the copy in such a way
as to make that clear.
(3) A prosecutor must serve on a defendant, with the copy of the statement, a notice—
(a) of the right to object to the introduction of the statement in evidence instead of the
witness giving evidence in person;
(b) of the time limit for objecting under this rule; and
(c) that if the defendant does not object in time, the court—
(i) can nonetheless require the witness to give evidence in person, but
(ii) may decide not to do so.
(4) A party served with a written witness statement who objects to its introduction in evidence
must—
(a) serve notice of the objection on—
(i) the party who served it, and
(ii) the court officer; and
(b) serve the notice of objection not more than 7 days after service of the statement unless—
(i) the court extends that time limit, before or after the statement was served,
(ii) rule 24.8 (Written guilty plea: special rules) applies, in which case the time limit is
the later of 7 days after service of the statement or 7 days before the hearing date, or
(iii) rule 24.9 (Single justice procedure: special rules) applies, in which case the time
limit is 21 days after service of the statement.
(5) The court may exercise its power to require the witness to give evidence in person—
(a) on application by any party; or
(b) on its own initiative.
(6) A party entitled to receive a copy of a statement may waive that entitlement by so
informing—
(a) the party who would have served it; and
(b) the court.
[Note. The Practice Direction sets out a form of written witness statement and a form of notice for
use in connection with this rule.
Under section 9(2A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967(a), Criminal Procedure Rules may prescribe
the period within which a party served with a written witness statement must object to its
introduction in evidence, subject to a minimum period of 7 days from its service.
Under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003(b), where a statement in a document is
admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings, the statement may be proved by producing either
(a) the document, or (b) (whether or not the document exists) a copy of the document or of the
(a) 1967 c. 80; section 9(2A) was inserted by section 80 of the Deregulation Act 2015 (c. 20).
(b) 2003 c. 44.
Think I summed that up right.
I have not been right about everything in this site, but mostly I believe I am correct..
Usually I notice afterwards where I read it in the wrong context.