On Sat,  4 Oct 2008 08:50:06 +0100, Bystander put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>The three yearly appraisal deals solely with technical and procedural competence. There is 
>no question whatever of reviewing judicial decision making. That's a job for a higher 
>level of the judiciary. Part of the judicial oath is to act 'without fear or favour, 
>affection or ill-will' and that's the way we try to do it. The idea of allowing anyone to 
>put pressure on us over judicial decisions is ludicrous. Cases are allocated to benches 
>either by staff or by other magistrates on the basis of a balanced court, balanced as far 
>as possible for gender and experience.

But you are, however, required by the law to make certain decisions
that almost anyone else would find entirely unreasonable. In the case
of a strict liability offence, for example, you would have to find
someone guilty even if there is absolutely no indication of mens rea
and no possibility that the accused could possibibly have avoided
committing the offence. A jury, on the other hand, would be quite
likely to acquit on the basis of natural justice even if this is not
strictly permissible under the letter of the law.

Mark
-- 
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden 
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sat,  4 Oct 2008 08:50:06 +0100, Bystander put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>> The three yearly appraisal deals solely with technical and
>> procedural competence. There is no question whatever of reviewing
>> judicial decision making. That's a job for a higher level of the
>> judiciary. Part of the judicial oath is to act 'without fear or
>> favour, affection or ill-will' and that's the way we try to do it.
>> The idea of allowing anyone to put pressure on us over judicial
>> decisions is ludicrous. Cases are allocated to benches either by
>> staff or by other magistrates on the basis of a balanced court,
>> balanced as far as possible for gender and experience.
>
> But you are, however, required by the law to make certain decisions
> that almost anyone else would find entirely unreasonable.

Possibly you mean "a non-lawyer who has not given much thought to the 
subject would find entirely unreasonable".

> In the case
> of a strict liability offence, for example, you would have to find
> someone guilty even if there is absolutely no indication of mens rea
> and no possibility that the accused could possibibly have avoided
> committing the offence. A jury, on the other hand, would be quite
> likely to acquit on the basis of natural justice even if this is not
> strictly permissible under the letter of the law.

The term "natural justice" has a legal meaning which is inapplicable to the 
way you have used it in your post.

A jury might acquit an environmental protest team of criminal damage to a 
chimney simply because they approved of the motive, and a bench of 
magistrates would never act in that way and would convict. That's really 
your point.

Such cases are extremely rare. Speeding is a strict liability offence (more 
or less) and most citizens would want such conduct punished whether or not 
such citizens are boring, stuffy, pompous or grey-haired.

For a magistrate to say "we've heard such cases many times before" is no 
more or less than the truth.  It would be quite wrong for them to be swayed 
too much by a defendant's superb acting skills - his ability to break down 
in tears, his skill in faking a story about an invalid mother in a remote 
village whom he can only visit if he has the use of a car, his testimonials 
from all his best friends.  It would also be wrong for them to be swayed too 
much by a defendant's shabby clothing, his sulky manner, his refusal to look 
you in the eye, or his declaration that the law is stupid.

On Sat,  4 Oct 2008 12:40:10 +0100, The Todal put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sat,  4 Oct 2008 08:50:06 +0100, Bystander put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>>> The three yearly appraisal deals solely with technical and
>>> procedural competence. There is no question whatever of reviewing
>>> judicial decision making. That's a job for a higher level of the
>>> judiciary. Part of the judicial oath is to act 'without fear or
>>> favour, affection or ill-will' and that's the way we try to do it.
>>> The idea of allowing anyone to put pressure on us over judicial
>>> decisions is ludicrous. Cases are allocated to benches either by
>>> staff or by other magistrates on the basis of a balanced court,
>>> balanced as far as possible for gender and experience.
>>
>> But you are, however, required by the law to make certain decisions
>> that almost anyone else would find entirely unreasonable.
>
>Possibly you mean "a non-lawyer who has not given much thought to the 
>subject would find entirely unreasonable".

A description which applies to most people, including those on a jury.

>> In the case
>> of a strict liability offence, for example, you would have to find
>> someone guilty even if there is absolutely no indication of mens rea
>> and no possibility that the accused could possibibly have avoided
>> committing the offence. A jury, on the other hand, would be quite
>> likely to acquit on the basis of natural justice even if this is not
>> strictly permissible under the letter of the law.
>
>The term "natural justice" has a legal meaning which is inapplicable to the 
>way you have used it in your post.

I wasn't using it in the legal sense. But that's partly my point - a
magistrate would be aware of the difference, but a typical juror
wouldn't.

>A jury might acquit an environmental protest team of criminal damage to a 
>chimney simply because they approved of the motive, and a bench of 
>magistrates would never act in that way and would convict. That's really 
>your point.

That's one example, although that's possibly a somewhat different
situation. 

>Such cases are extremely rare. Speeding is a strict liability offence (more 
>or less) and most citizens would want such conduct punished whether or not 
>such citizens are boring, stuffy, pompous or grey-haired.

Speeding isn't a strict liability offence. There are a number of
possible defences to a speeding charge, including the obvious one of
driving an emergency vehicle en route to an emergency. It's also a
defence to show that you genuinely had no reason to believe that your
speed was, in fact, greater than the limit - see, for example, the
case at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7642647.stm 

Mark
-- 
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden 
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
news:nbree45u34pj2raaie5l16tpgdqbk5kmq3@news.markshouse.net...
> Speeding isn't a strict liability offence. There are a number of
> possible defences to a speeding charge, including the obvious one of
> driving an emergency vehicle en route to an emergency. It's also a
> defence to show that you genuinely had no reason to believe that your
> speed was, in fact, greater than the limit - see, for example, the
> case at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7642647.stm
>
I saw a case like that at a Magistrate's Court.
The bloke's speedo was defective and he showed a letter for the car dealer 
to confirm this and the fact he'd had it changed.  It was under-reading by 
30MPH at 70 or something.

mert1639 wrote:
> "Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
> news:nbree45u34pj2raaie5l16tpgdqbk5kmq3@news.markshouse.net...
>> Speeding isn't a strict liability offence. There are a number of
>> possible defences to a speeding charge, including the obvious one of
>> driving an emergency vehicle en route to an emergency. It's also a
>> defence to show that you genuinely had no reason to believe that your
>> speed was, in fact, greater than the limit - see, for example, the
>> case at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7642647.stm
>>
> I saw a case like that at a Magistrate's Court.
> The bloke's speedo was defective and he showed a letter for the car dealer 
> to confirm this and the fact he'd had it changed.  It was under-reading by 
> 30MPH at 70 or something. 

Although that's an offence in itself.

-- 
David

In message <U9jGk.67506$E41.2076@text.news.virginmedia.com>, the Omrud 
 writes
>mert1639 wrote:
>> "Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
>>news:nbree45u34pj2raaie5l16tpgdqbk5kmq3@news.markshouse.net...
>>> Speeding isn't a strict liability offence. There are a number of
>>> possible defences to a speeding charge, including the obvious one of
>>> driving an emergency vehicle en route to an emergency. It's also a
>>> defence to show that you genuinely had no reason to believe that your
>>> speed was, in fact, greater than the limit - see, for example, the
>>> case at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7642647.stm
>>>
>> I saw a case like that at a Magistrate's Court.
>> The bloke's speedo was defective and he showed a letter for the car 
>>dealer  to confirm this and the fact he'd had it changed.  It was 
>>under-reading by  30MPH at 70 or something.
>
>Although that's an offence in itself.
>
Admittedly, you don't say what speed he was prosecuted for travelling at 
but, regardless of what a speedo says, anyone who believes he is doing 
40 while, in reality, he is actually doing 70, ought not to be on the 
road!
-- 
Ian

I suspect that this fellow might not have a defence, but could have a go at Special 
Reasons not to endorse or disqualify. However, most magistrates were not born yesterday 
and might take a sceptical view of someone doing 70 and believing the speedo reading of 40.

On Mon,  6 Oct 2008 08:35:11 +0100, the Omrud put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>mert1639 wrote:
>> "Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
>> news:nbree45u34pj2raaie5l16tpgdqbk5kmq3@news.markshouse.net...
>>> Speeding isn't a strict liability offence. There are a number of
>>> possible defences to a speeding charge, including the obvious one of
>>> driving an emergency vehicle en route to an emergency. It's also a
>>> defence to show that you genuinely had no reason to believe that your
>>> speed was, in fact, greater than the limit - see, for example, the
>>> case at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7642647.stm
>>>
>> I saw a case like that at a Magistrate's Court.
>> The bloke's speedo was defective and he showed a letter for the car dealer 
>> to confirm this and the fact he'd had it changed.  It was under-reading by 
>> 30MPH at 70 or something. 
>
>Although that's an offence in itself.

Yes, of course. But it's a different offence to speeding. So the
correct outcome would be an acquittal on the speeding charge, followed
by a separate prosecution for driving a faulty car.

Mark
-- 
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden 
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

On Mon,  6 Oct 2008 11:10:26 +0100, Bystander put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>I suspect that this fellow might not have a defence, but could have a go at Special 
>Reasons not to endorse or disqualify. However, most magistrates were not born yesterday 
>and might take a sceptical view of someone doing 70 and believing the speedo reading of 40.

He wouldn't have to believe it to that extent. In fact, he could well
have been considerably sceptical of it and still exceeded the limit -
thinking to himself "this speedo looks wrong, I can't be going that
slow, it says 40, this feels like 60 to me" when actually it was 70.
His perceptions would only be 10mph out, but that could still be
enough to get done. Or, given the same percentage misread, he could
have been doing 45mph in a 30mph zone while thinking he was keeping to
the limit - that's a lot more plausible, given that traffic routinely
exceeds 30mph on uncongested urban roads anyway, so could simply have
been keeping up with the flow.

Mark 
-- 
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden 
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

"Bystander"  wrote in message 
news:APWdnWpe_Kh4fnTVnZ2dnUVZ8s3inZ2d@pipex.net...
>I suspect that this fellow might not have a defence, but could have a go at 
>Special Reasons not to endorse or disqualify. However, most magistrates 
>were not born yesterday and might take a sceptical view of someone doing 70 
>and believing the speedo reading of 40.
>
I think it was 'special reasons' and he got away with 3 points as they said 
he ought to have relaised that he was going too fast, regardless of the 
speedo.

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:YIRTFZNlgd6IFwZz@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> In message <U9jGk.67506$E41.2076@text.news.virginmedia.com>, the Omrud 
>  writes
>>mert1639 wrote:
>>> "Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
>>> news:nbree45u34pj2raaie5l16tpgdqbk5kmq3@news.markshouse.net...
>>>> Speeding isn't a strict liability offence. There are a number of
>>>> possible defences to a speeding charge, including the obvious one of
>>>> driving an emergency vehicle en route to an emergency. It's also a
>>>> defence to show that you genuinely had no reason to believe that your
>>>> speed was, in fact, greater than the limit - see, for example, the
>>>> case at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7642647.stm
>>>>
>>> I saw a case like that at a Magistrate's Court.
>>> The bloke's speedo was defective and he showed a letter for the car 
>>> dealer  to confirm this and the fact he'd had it changed.  It was 
>>> under-reading by  30MPH at 70 or something.
>>
>>Although that's an offence in itself.
>>
> Admittedly, you don't say what speed he was prosecuted for travelling at 
> but, regardless of what a speedo says, anyone who believes he is doing 40 
> while, in reality, he is actually doing 70, ought not to be on the road!
H was doing between 90 and 100 on the M20.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:50:22 +0100, mert1639 wrote:

> "Bystander"  wrote in message
> news:APWdnWpe_Kh4fnTVnZ2dnUVZ8s3inZ2d@pipex.net...
>>I suspect that this fellow might not have a defence, but could have a go
>>at Special Reasons not to endorse or disqualify. However, most
>>magistrates were not born yesterday and might take a sceptical view of
>>someone doing 70 and believing the speedo reading of 40.
>>
> I think it was 'special reasons' and he got away with 3 points as they
> said he ought to have relaised that he was going too fast, regardless of
> the speedo.

I know I had a case when I was an inexperienced driver where I was doing 
120 on an empty Motorway at 3am and thought I was doing 70ish.

It was a hired 2.9l Granada (instead of my 1100 Escort) and was much 
smoother and quieter at 120 than my Scrote was at 60. Between that and my 
lack of experience in both night and M-way driving I noticed no visual 
clues until I happened to look at the speedo.

Oops.

That isn't special reasons (that are very closely defined). What you describe is a low 
sentence for a reason accepted by the bench - but it's still guity and still an endorsement.