RepulsioN
08-21-2003, 05:01 AM
Well I don't know if any of you remember but back in April I posted here about a VASCAR prosecution that I was being done for - 97.9mph in a 70mph.
After the original hearing was moved due to the unavailabilty of the coppers, I went to court for it finally yesterday.
I went past a copper who was stationary parked, he pulled out a bit after me and came after me, he eventually pulled me over a tried to give me fixed penallty on the back of his VASCAR reading. I told him I wasn't speeding and that he could shove the fixed penalty up his ass as I was not going to accept it. We had a minor arguement at the roadside and he decided to prosecute for the speeding and an undersized numberplate.
Anyway I went to court armed with the following.(I defended myself rather than get an expensive solicitor)
a)photos of the lay-by where he was stationary parked when I first went by showing that his first marker point (an overbridge) was out of sight of the stationary point.
b) an OS map clearly showing the distance between the layby and the first overbridge which he had detailed in his prosecuting statement.
c) some simple time/acceleration calculations my brother (A level maths student kindly did for me) showing that to get within 200m of me (the distance listed by the prosecution) by the first marker point they would have to be driving a car that would cover 1100m in 29 secs from a standing start, which would give the car a speed of 156mph (based on the car model I used) by the time it got to that point.
I argued the case on the fact that the constant 200m behind me statement made by the prosecution was impossible, and that you have to be very close behind to accurately judge when a vehicle passed under an overbridge, and that the copper would have to be doing stupid speeds to get anywhere near that close to me.
Two things happened in court that I really did not expect.
1) when I was questioning the copper, I passed the copper my OS map showing the laby and the overbridge. He suddenly decided that he had got the name of the over bridge wrong and that the first marker point was the overbridgea bit further down the road, not the one in his statement http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/wtf.gif I think the judges where as shocked as I was.
The judges said as it was clear I was about to base my case on the distance between the layby and the overbridge listed in his original statement. It was up to me whether I wanted to adjourn the case to another day to prepare another defence or carry on. Obviously I chose to carry on even though it was going to fuck up my calculations.
2) the Prosecution highlighted that the other copper in the car was some trainee out on a day release http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/wtf.gif . A simple couple of questions from me uncovered that she had no training or knowledge of VASCAR systems or traffic policing.
Anyway in summing up the judge said the the prosecutions case was not of an acceptable standard and that I on the other hand had presented a very clear case with obviously well researched arguements. Not Guilty. http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/banana.gif
I got a £50 fine for the undersized plate. But it was worth paying that just to get the satisfaction of seeing that snivelling prick copper in the witness box stuttering and stammering as he dug himself a deeper hole.
After the original hearing was moved due to the unavailabilty of the coppers, I went to court for it finally yesterday.
I went past a copper who was stationary parked, he pulled out a bit after me and came after me, he eventually pulled me over a tried to give me fixed penallty on the back of his VASCAR reading. I told him I wasn't speeding and that he could shove the fixed penalty up his ass as I was not going to accept it. We had a minor arguement at the roadside and he decided to prosecute for the speeding and an undersized numberplate.
Anyway I went to court armed with the following.(I defended myself rather than get an expensive solicitor)
a)photos of the lay-by where he was stationary parked when I first went by showing that his first marker point (an overbridge) was out of sight of the stationary point.
b) an OS map clearly showing the distance between the layby and the first overbridge which he had detailed in his prosecuting statement.
c) some simple time/acceleration calculations my brother (A level maths student kindly did for me) showing that to get within 200m of me (the distance listed by the prosecution) by the first marker point they would have to be driving a car that would cover 1100m in 29 secs from a standing start, which would give the car a speed of 156mph (based on the car model I used) by the time it got to that point.
I argued the case on the fact that the constant 200m behind me statement made by the prosecution was impossible, and that you have to be very close behind to accurately judge when a vehicle passed under an overbridge, and that the copper would have to be doing stupid speeds to get anywhere near that close to me.
Two things happened in court that I really did not expect.
1) when I was questioning the copper, I passed the copper my OS map showing the laby and the overbridge. He suddenly decided that he had got the name of the over bridge wrong and that the first marker point was the overbridgea bit further down the road, not the one in his statement http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/wtf.gif I think the judges where as shocked as I was.
The judges said as it was clear I was about to base my case on the distance between the layby and the overbridge listed in his original statement. It was up to me whether I wanted to adjourn the case to another day to prepare another defence or carry on. Obviously I chose to carry on even though it was going to fuck up my calculations.
2) the Prosecution highlighted that the other copper in the car was some trainee out on a day release http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/wtf.gif . A simple couple of questions from me uncovered that she had no training or knowledge of VASCAR systems or traffic policing.
Anyway in summing up the judge said the the prosecutions case was not of an acceptable standard and that I on the other hand had presented a very clear case with obviously well researched arguements. Not Guilty. http://www.gixxer.com/forums/images/graemlins/banana.gif
I got a £50 fine for the undersized plate. But it was worth paying that just to get the satisfaction of seeing that snivelling prick copper in the witness box stuttering and stammering as he dug himself a deeper hole.