Innocent until proven guilty?Only if you prove yourself inno

[chocolate_frog]

A motorist prosecuted for driving at 98mph has escaped a driving ban - after proving that his 14-year-old car has a top speed of 85mph.

Dale Lyle, 21, took action when he was told a mobile speed camera had clocked him at nearly 100mph in his 1.3 litre Honda Civic.

He contested the accusation in court so magistrates then challenged him to 'prove it'.

To gather evidence to back up his claim, Mr Lyle, from Staple Hill, Bristol, paid £600 to buy back the car he had already sold.

Then he paid a further £600 for an independent driving expert to take the car on a two-mile test circuit at top speed.

The results showed that even when driven flat out the Honda could only do 85.4mph in fourth gear and 81.3mph in fifth - proving his innocence.
The financial worker, who has a clean licence, presented his evidence in court which undermined the credibility of the Crown Prosecution Service's case and had the charge against him dropped.

A CPS spokesman said: 'We came to the conclusion that there was no longer sufficient evidence to provide a prospect of a conviction.

As regards the £1,200 paid out by Mr Lyle to prove his case, he added: 'Recompense is a matter between the defendant and the court.'

Mr Lyle, who had faced a maximum £1,000 fine and six-month ban for the speeding charge, said: 'I'm really glad I fought the system and won but I think I will have trouble getting the money I spent back.'

Surely if the CPS has droppe dthe case now, he is owed his money BACK. He can sell the car again, but what about the remaining money, and any money lost on the repurchase and subsequent resale of his car?

He has been to the magistrates, they said prove it, he has.

Can he sue the CPS or the magistrates court?

Would like to see PCs and photo copiers being lifted out of a CPS office by bailifs

Love the spokesmans comment. Fcuking tool. I could have come to the conclusion that the car couldn´t have done that fast when told it was a 1.3 Civic!!!

 

[4(T)]

I bet he took the methanol boost kit out of the car before he sold it......

 

[chocolate_frog]

I bet he took the methanol boost kit out of the car before he sold it......

Don´t give ém ideas....

CPS "Your honour, the gentleman was driving at the speed of sound in a 1 litre Morris Minor".

The magistrate "oh,no, we´ve had this before."

CPS "Your honour we ask the gentleman to prove he DIDN´T have a RATO bottle strapped to the roof of his car at the time"

TM "You heard the man, prove it"

 

[lsquared]

'Innocent until proven guilty' - sadly. now a myth.

In a police state, which is what 'Spiv' Bliar and more especially 'Stalin' Brown, have changed the nation into -

you are guilty, guilty -

you may not be guilty if you are a 'party member'; a foreign illegal immigrant; a rapist or robber; a big fella too frightening for the state police to handle; or, you are prepared to.............................

C'mon posters, this country is 'cream-crackered' - 'cattle-trucked' - these afflictions are terminal.

 

[bobthedog]

But of course he was guilty - of being a motorist. Nu Labour hate motorists with a vengeance, because we can avoid using the crap and expensive public transport and we will occupy the other 2 lanes of the M4 between London and Heathrow.

We are just mobile chequebooks for the exchequer. I can see further challenges coming along the way after this case.

 

[Ancient_Mariner]

Similar situation arose a few years ago. Burglar entered a property through second floor window and, IIRC, raped the occupant. DNA samples recovered from the scene exactly matched those of a bloke whose details were on the national DNA database 'cos he'd been arrested before for being drunk and disorderly. Police popped round to his place, arrested him and charged him with breaking and entering, rape, racially aggravated terrorism, being the Antichrist etc. etc.

The case was within a few weeks of going to court before the CPS accepted the lawyer's argument that our man couldn't be the burglar/rapist as he'd been crippled by multiple sclerosis for years. He could barely rise out of his wheelchair never mind climb through a 2nd storey window.

Turned out that the DNA sample recovered from the scene was partial and shared by several hundred men in the UK. Had the case come to court, I wonder if the prosecuting QC would have mentioned this fact to the jury.

 

[bovvy]

Perhaps he used the 98mph speeding prosecution as his prime selling-point to get a better price when he sold his car in the first place?

 

[JoseyWales]

Similar situation arose a few years ago. Burglar entered a property through second floor window and, IIRC, raped the occupant. DNA samples recovered from the scene exactly matched those of a bloke whose details were on the national DNA database 'cos he'd been arrested before for being drunk and disorderly. Police popped round to his place, arrested him and charged him with breaking and entering, rape, racially aggravated terrorism, being the Antichrist etc. etc.

The case was within a few weeks of going to court before the CPS accepted the lawyer's argument that our man couldn't be the burglar/rapist as he'd been crippled by multiple sclerosis for years. He could barely rise out of his wheelchair never mind climb through a 2nd storey window.

Turned out that the DNA sample recovered from the scene was partial and shared by several hundred men in the UK. Had the case come to court, I wonder if the prosecuting QC would have mentioned this fact to the jury.

The Disclosure Officer should have mentioned the fact to the Q.C.

 

[mad_mac]

I have dispatched numerous letters to my MP about what I see as a growing two tiered judicial system. This Government has been instrumental in introducing legislation with a total disregard to habeas corpus.

A consultation paper published by Jack Straw's Ministry of Justice is currently in circulation.

Consultation Paper - Pay if Guilty or Innocent

One of the points raised is that those before magistrates on minor charges should defend themselves.

Lord Bach, a junior minister, likened those who use lawyers in lower courts to parents who pay for private education.

He said: 'Just as an individual who chooses to put their child through private education does not reclaim this cost from the education system, nor should public funding recompense those who choose to pay privately for a lawyer when a publicly-funded alternative is available.'

The consultation paper is among a series aimed at cutting court costs and trimming the £2billion-a-year legal aid budget.

What it fails to take into account is that the expert advice will come from the court clerk.

Some cases are legally complex and require a specialist solicitor to represent the client. Land law is a case in point. If you choose to employ a specialist solicitor, the costs even if you win your case will be borne by the plaintiff.

The problem with this, is that the presumption of innocence is wholly based by your gross salaried means to employ a plausible defence case.

I applaud the Mr Lyle for having the courage of his convictions.