News2 mins ago
Was It Worth It?
32 Answers
https:/
As Ricky Gervais would say 'I should've left it'. (Humanity)
As Ricky Gervais would say 'I should've left it'. (Humanity)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tiggerblue10. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Depends on how much one values justice and one's good name/rep.
For financial reasons most have to accept they're beaten by powerful authorities long before it gets that far, but I suppose there is a recurring thought that one can't quit having risked so much so far, so near to getting things sorted. And it continues add up.
For financial reasons most have to accept they're beaten by powerful authorities long before it gets that far, but I suppose there is a recurring thought that one can't quit having risked so much so far, so near to getting things sorted. And it continues add up.
Unfortunately Mr Keedwell is a pillock.
He began by returning his plea form with "No case to answer" written across it. Only a court can decide whether or not he has a case to answer and they do that only when they have heard the evidence from the prosecution.
I believe he was badly advised. He should have been told that approve speed measurement devices are assumed to be working properly unless the contrary can be proved. He was suggesting that his occasional glance at his speedometer was to be relied on more than a measurement taken by an approved device. That being the case the burden shifts to him to prove it. Very often when speeding offences are defended on the basis of a faulty reading, experts are enlisted (as Mr Keedwell did). They usually try to cast doubt in the minds of the court by saying that there is a possibility that the reading may be false. That is insufficient. They must prove that a false reading actually was taken on the particular occasion in question. They clearly failed.
Mr Keedwell was found guilty in the Magistrates' Court and again in the Crown Court following hs appeal. His appeal would have followed the same procedure as his original trial, only it would have been presided over by a Crown Court judge and two Magistrates. Each of the three would have had an equal say when judging matters of fact (on which his case rested) and both tribunals found against Mr Keedwell.
I'm not surprised. Courts are reluctant to place undue weight on the evidence of experts brought in and paid for by the defence. They will obviously say what the defendant wants them to say, otherwise they would not be there.
The saddest (or perhaps most ridiculous) aspect of all this is that Mr Keedwell would almost certainly have been offered a speed awareness course for the offence. This would have cost him about £90 and half a day of his time, but no points on his licence. But I suppose if it is a principle he is defending, that doesn't really matter.
He began by returning his plea form with "No case to answer" written across it. Only a court can decide whether or not he has a case to answer and they do that only when they have heard the evidence from the prosecution.
I believe he was badly advised. He should have been told that approve speed measurement devices are assumed to be working properly unless the contrary can be proved. He was suggesting that his occasional glance at his speedometer was to be relied on more than a measurement taken by an approved device. That being the case the burden shifts to him to prove it. Very often when speeding offences are defended on the basis of a faulty reading, experts are enlisted (as Mr Keedwell did). They usually try to cast doubt in the minds of the court by saying that there is a possibility that the reading may be false. That is insufficient. They must prove that a false reading actually was taken on the particular occasion in question. They clearly failed.
Mr Keedwell was found guilty in the Magistrates' Court and again in the Crown Court following hs appeal. His appeal would have followed the same procedure as his original trial, only it would have been presided over by a Crown Court judge and two Magistrates. Each of the three would have had an equal say when judging matters of fact (on which his case rested) and both tribunals found against Mr Keedwell.
I'm not surprised. Courts are reluctant to place undue weight on the evidence of experts brought in and paid for by the defence. They will obviously say what the defendant wants them to say, otherwise they would not be there.
The saddest (or perhaps most ridiculous) aspect of all this is that Mr Keedwell would almost certainly have been offered a speed awareness course for the offence. This would have cost him about £90 and half a day of his time, but no points on his licence. But I suppose if it is a principle he is defending, that doesn't really matter.
I don't know what "his son's inheritance" is supposed to be. If it's the guy's own money he's entitled to spend it any way he likes, however dumb. But considering his only defence is "I didn't think I was speeding", it was rash to challenge the evidence at all. At the very least he'd need to come up with some good reason why the claim was wrong.
I saw an article in the Torygraph today. Apparently Mr Keedwell's "expert" demonstrated that the so-called "Double Doppler Effect" may have been responsible for an erroneous reading. He (the expert) told Mr Keedwell that he has had a number of successes when providing assistance in this way. Well he would say that, wouldn't he? He's hardly likely to say "I'll charge you five grand but I don't rate your chances too much!"
I've read about this alleged phenomenon before. It is a highly speculative piece of theory and the chances of it happening are very remote. I know of only one case where it was definitely shown to be so and that involved a driver accused of doing 85mph down a busy High Street when he clearly could not have been doing anything like that speed. Mr Keedwell was convicted of driving at 35mph and his expert only testified that the Double Doppler effect "might" have given rise to a faulty reading. That is simply not good enough and he should have advised Mr K that without evidence that it definitely did produce a faulty reading in his case, he was bound to fail.
Many people accused of speeding do not believe they are guilty and Mr Keedwell's evidence was that he did not believe he was doing more than 30mph. Not quite the standard of proof required.
I have little sympathy for him. He purports to be an intelligent man but he could not have undertaken the most basic of research into what was required to rebut the prosecution's evidence. He began badly by insisting that he had "no case to answer" when he clearly did. He went on to be persuaded by his advisors - particularly his expert witness - into believing he had a valid case.
I've read about this alleged phenomenon before. It is a highly speculative piece of theory and the chances of it happening are very remote. I know of only one case where it was definitely shown to be so and that involved a driver accused of doing 85mph down a busy High Street when he clearly could not have been doing anything like that speed. Mr Keedwell was convicted of driving at 35mph and his expert only testified that the Double Doppler effect "might" have given rise to a faulty reading. That is simply not good enough and he should have advised Mr K that without evidence that it definitely did produce a faulty reading in his case, he was bound to fail.
Many people accused of speeding do not believe they are guilty and Mr Keedwell's evidence was that he did not believe he was doing more than 30mph. Not quite the standard of proof required.
I have little sympathy for him. He purports to be an intelligent man but he could not have undertaken the most basic of research into what was required to rebut the prosecution's evidence. He began badly by insisting that he had "no case to answer" when he clearly did. He went on to be persuaded by his advisors - particularly his expert witness - into believing he had a valid case.
//What's the Double Doppler effect , NJ ?//
As I understand it it's a phenomenon where the radar pulse is supposedly reflected not immediately back to the device but to an adjacent vehicle. I'm not convinced that it is entirely sound but I've not read too much about it. The problem Mr Keedwell faced is that "could have happened" or "might have happened" is insufficient. All sorts of things might happen but to rebut the prosecution evidence (of an approved device operated correctly) it has to be proved that something actually did happen.
//The report I read said he was recorded at 35 in a 30 zone. I thought he should get off under the Limit+10%+2 concession.//
The National Police Chiefs' Council's guidance says that action should begin at Limit + 10% +2mph. So in a 30 limit 34 should be OK, 35 should see action.
//PS. In 50+ years driving I've had 3 speeding fines for relatively minor infringements & NEVER been offered a speed awareness course. I think it depends on where you live/where the offence was committed.//
Courses are offered up to and including Limit +10% +9mph across England & Wales (but not at all in Scotland). You can only do one of each type (there are three) in three years with the offence dates being used to calculate that period.
As I understand it it's a phenomenon where the radar pulse is supposedly reflected not immediately back to the device but to an adjacent vehicle. I'm not convinced that it is entirely sound but I've not read too much about it. The problem Mr Keedwell faced is that "could have happened" or "might have happened" is insufficient. All sorts of things might happen but to rebut the prosecution evidence (of an approved device operated correctly) it has to be proved that something actually did happen.
//The report I read said he was recorded at 35 in a 30 zone. I thought he should get off under the Limit+10%+2 concession.//
The National Police Chiefs' Council's guidance says that action should begin at Limit + 10% +2mph. So in a 30 limit 34 should be OK, 35 should see action.
//PS. In 50+ years driving I've had 3 speeding fines for relatively minor infringements & NEVER been offered a speed awareness course. I think it depends on where you live/where the offence was committed.//
Courses are offered up to and including Limit +10% +9mph across England & Wales (but not at all in Scotland). You can only do one of each type (there are three) in three years with the offence dates being used to calculate that period.
