|
Post by Administrator on Feb 19, 2016 23:06:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Feb 24, 2016 18:27:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 5, 2016 8:37:28 GMT
(Criminal procedure rules part 38?)
Magistratesā Courts Act 1980
1980 c. 43 Part VII Power to rectify mistakes etc. Section 142 142
Which is ridiculous if you consider they are constantly re-hearing cases from the traffic light camera over and over. New cases.. all with the unlawful stop line!
Im just adding this in here. its in the Macclesfield traffic light thread, but it should really be in here as well..
just the prts from the legislation that are concerned with the matters of road traffic enforcement.
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
hmmmmm.. 25 Interim disqualification.
For section 26 of the M1Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (interim disqualification on committal for sentence in England and Wales) there shall be substitutedā ā26 Interim disqualification.
Thats the point.... we are contesting that the original orders COULD NOT have been made (court could not convict in the first place) thus any other court CAN decide on it... but, i believe this only proves further that the court COULD NOT make the decision, thus no decision, under law was really ever made, that had true legal effect. and it is nothing other than a court error which only needs correcting. and can be done by the appeal to magistrates court act. and there is no time limit for any appeal, as cases on the road while it is still not truly enforceable, are ongoing.
As soon as it is identified that the order could not have been made, at the time. And the CPS & police failed to provide information when there wasa legal obligation to do so... then the errors must be resolved. Yes the court DID make a decision at the time. It did do it. but in LAW, in regards to the actual roads signage at the time, in LAW at the time, the legal situation was that the order or decision could NOT be made at that time.
look, its like saying this.... a court shall not be held on a tuesday. and no legal effect shall ever be in force if it does so hold a trial on a tuesday.
now lets say that everybody lost track of what day it was... lets say they thought that it was a friday. but in truth it is a tuesday. and the CPS "know" its tuesday. but fail to disclose this to the magistrates, who think its a friday. (supposedly even though people are complaining to the court by letter & phone) anyway... the trial begins and the CPS act and behave as if it were a friday, reading out the day as if it were a friday. and someone (or several) people get convicted that day.
then.. a few days later... the people who were convicted realise that the days were mixed up. and that they were in fact in court on a tuesday, not a friday. thus could not be convicted on that day. because tuesdays have no legal effect. the court are informed (again) that errors have been made. it was not a friday, but a tuesday. but the court refuses to accept their errors.
That is just an example. the fact is, we need clocks and calendards to remind us what day and time it is. so we are on the right day. We also need the correct prescribed road signs in place. and on consistent roads that are all the same for each road profle type, so we know what the speed limits & regulations are for those roads.
Note that this still stands. As later legislation makes no changes or additions to this. But it is useful to compare it to the road traffic regulation act 1967.
1967
So this is in addition to the section 85. Legislation. That you can not be convicted if the road signage is not as prescribed.
This here is what the police use of red light and speed detection technology is based on..
That if the conditions are not met (like TSRGD signage requirements) for the use of the device. Then the evidence obtained from it is not submissible.
Also it says that a record obtained from a device must be given over as well. But the photograph taken from a video is not the video. It doesnt prove what the video captured. Its only part of it. To get out of having to give you a video or the full resolution photograph/s they instead lay the statement certificate document from the enforcement officer. (The one who is really crap and useless at answering and questions about the device when you question them in person usually and not fit to give evidence. Or otherwise chooses not to want to talk about tbe device to you. Yeah that guy. So why is making certain that the TSRGD requirements were met while the device was being used? )
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 5, 2016 8:56:06 GMT
You should be able to get the magistrates court to correct any errors made, if the road was truly not enforceable at the time! Here is a proper appeal form i have put together! i have done a better verision. this is the basic one. i will add the other one in soon. so far the court doesnt like it, because they have not responded at all! (crewe) the Burnley & Calderdale courts have responded to letters.. but after i sent this proper form in, the Crewe court has not even replied to reject it!
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 5, 2016 8:57:08 GMT
lation to that decision or order. And any NEW CASE* must be directed to that higher court. Not the magistrates Court. and if it was heard by a magistrates Court, then it will be void and null (set aside) or in fact be treated as if the case had been adourned. Because you do not need to appeal a decision to a crown court or higher court, that in the case in question, the magistrates court did not have authority to decide on. because the matter has or had previously already been raised to the Crown Court.[/font]
Which, covers both Criminal proceeding AND Civil Proceedings. And all Appeals. in fact, rule 11. to contest court jurisdiction in Civil Proceedings would actually be for a reason like this. But it Does cover criminal proceedings as well. Only that most type of case... Theft, fighting, fraud.. would usually not be significant in this circumastance. It is only when we bring Traffic regulation orders and the enforceability of a road into question, that a decision made by a higher court that would effect all the drivers by that decision, must be only able to be heard in an equal court, not a lower magistrates Court....
Here i wrote some more on it.. Its specific to "A decision" that would effect other cases, or which other cases are related by the same decision on a matter. (there are some words floating about like organ & property & nuisance if you check the source material. but i am certain that i am right on this.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 5, 2016 9:16:35 GMT
Which is ridiculous if you consider they are constantly re-hearing cases from the traffic light camera over and over. New cases.. all with the unlawful stop line!
& check this out!!!!!!!!!!!! according to this, no crown court can even re-hear a case from a magistrates court if you were disqualified. unless you are challenging that the magistrate did not have the power in the first place. And really, the only thing that would be, would be if the road was in fact enforceable!!
because with an act or action of an individual, the court has the choice to to made an order either way based on the evidence. but there is no other circumstance other than the road signs, where it says the court can NOT convict. it does not have the power to do it. and thats not based on the evidence on the day of any trial or hearing. it is based on only one fact. WAS THE ROAD EFORCEABLE AT THE TIME & DATE OF THE OFFENCES?! It either was or was not. The legislation directs to the ROAD ITSELF. not to any case, hearing, trial, appeal or conviction. the road either was or was not enforceable. thus the court either did or did not have the power to convict at the time. And according to this, we should not really be taking the matter to the Crown court. in fact.. according to this.... you are not even ALLOWED to go to a crown court!! unless it IS the road signs you are contesting. because that is really - in road traffic enforcement.. the only situation where an order "Could not" have been made.. see here...
Thus i believe that a LOT of Crown Court cases could not be heard or judged by the Crown Court judges. In appeals over disqualifications! and that it should have been heard in the original magistrates Court?!
appeal for disqualification where a decision could have been made either way
(can only be re-heard in the same court (magistrates)
appeal where the original court did not have power to make that decision
(can be crown, but really should be corrected by appeal to original magistrates court)
note that this is not "property law" or "regular criminal justice"
These rules are specific to the road traffic offenders act. the way that road traffic offences are to be dealt with! thus not subject to the standard criminal procedure rules.
And different from Civil procedure rules, where i have quoted rule 11 recently a lot. application for exemption from court jurisdiction, that would class as jurisdiction of a road, if it were a civil parking ticket and you were contesting the road markings for that) - parking tickets never involve disqualification usually.
So according to this, i think a lot of appeals to Crown courts, for disqualifications concerning speeding/red light offences For section 26 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 , have been done so incorrectly & unlawfully.
|
|