just got a nip
08 August 2013, 06:28 PM
#121
54(2) of the 1986 Regs is the clearer of the rules (S 42 RTA 1988 is very nondescript);
It reads:
"Every exhaust system and silencer shall be maintained in good and efficient working order and shall not be altered so as to increase the noise made by the escape of exhaust gases."
* It is the responsibility of the CPS to prove that the noise made by the vehicle's current exhaust system exceeds the noise made by what it would have to claim (and prove) to be the original OEM one.
* To do that it would have to provide evidence of the noise levels of both types - and on the same car.
ie. it would have to measure the level of the existing one, replace with OEM and then measure again.
* It then has to further prove that those same conditions applied at the time the op was stopped.
The police don't as yet have a Tardis.
Now, there's a typo in the post (it says "regulaions" not what should be "regulations").
Shortly after that it says "1986 section 42 of the road traffic act 1988".
Is that a typo and the word "and" is omitted, so it should say 'contrary to Reg 54(2) and RTA 1988' ?
If so, then by virtue of failing to prove the breach of Reg 54(2), CPS will have failed to prove anything because they are after you for breaching BOTH.
Being pedantic doesn't come into it.
That's why laws are framed so carefully (and wordily).
They haven't charged you with two offences, only 1.
I will say however, that this is only a small help - appearing pedantic doesn't often help. In this case however, it does build on the shoddy way the case has been constructed and then prosecuted.
Hopefully the magistrates won't take kindly to unprofessional presentation etc. and give the CPS a flea in the year by throwing the case out.
Plenty of advice has been given about how to make plod look a fool.
Add CPS to it and then overrun the pair of them with a studied measured argument and don't forget to make an application for your costs.
Don't forget though - your best prospect is that it never gets to Court, so heed the other good bits of advice as well, let CPS see what they are up against because of an over-zealous plod.
I'll drop the op an PM later (perhaps tomorrow) because some strategies aren't best aired in public. It's always good to give a big show of strength but never reveal all.
It reads:
"Every exhaust system and silencer shall be maintained in good and efficient working order and shall not be altered so as to increase the noise made by the escape of exhaust gases."
* It is the responsibility of the CPS to prove that the noise made by the vehicle's current exhaust system exceeds the noise made by what it would have to claim (and prove) to be the original OEM one.
* To do that it would have to provide evidence of the noise levels of both types - and on the same car.
ie. it would have to measure the level of the existing one, replace with OEM and then measure again.
* It then has to further prove that those same conditions applied at the time the op was stopped.
The police don't as yet have a Tardis.
Now, there's a typo in the post (it says "regulaions" not what should be "regulations").
Shortly after that it says "1986 section 42 of the road traffic act 1988".
Is that a typo and the word "and" is omitted, so it should say 'contrary to Reg 54(2) and RTA 1988' ?
If so, then by virtue of failing to prove the breach of Reg 54(2), CPS will have failed to prove anything because they are after you for breaching BOTH.
Being pedantic doesn't come into it.
That's why laws are framed so carefully (and wordily).
They haven't charged you with two offences, only 1.
I will say however, that this is only a small help - appearing pedantic doesn't often help. In this case however, it does build on the shoddy way the case has been constructed and then prosecuted.
Hopefully the magistrates won't take kindly to unprofessional presentation etc. and give the CPS a flea in the year by throwing the case out.
Plenty of advice has been given about how to make plod look a fool.
Add CPS to it and then overrun the pair of them with a studied measured argument and don't forget to make an application for your costs.
Don't forget though - your best prospect is that it never gets to Court, so heed the other good bits of advice as well, let CPS see what they are up against because of an over-zealous plod.
I'll drop the op an PM later (perhaps tomorrow) because some strategies aren't best aired in public. It's always good to give a big show of strength but never reveal all.
08 August 2013, 07:17 PM
#123
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they have sent me the case file, and have changed their minds from the nip, it's now as you say not maintained and efficent, i think the easy route is a letter from garage stating it doesn't blow or leak is not rusty and is under the 101db limit applied to jdm cars as per section 44 rta 1988
So they have to prove that it wasn't maintained and efficient.
"Ah, Officer Plod, what is your definition of 'efficient'?".
(Babbles something about being fit for purpose or whatever).
"Thank you. So in what way did you deem my car's exhaust not to be 'efficient'?"
(Babbles that it was noisy, larger than other exhausts he'd seen etc.)
"You say 'noisy'. What is your definition of 'noisy'"?
(Waffles about louder than ambient noise levels or whatever)
"So, it's a subjective view, you think something is noisy because to you it's at too high a level above the background noise, is that correct?"
(Waffles about hearing it above any other car going by etc.)
"But it is is a subjective test, isn't it?"
(Waffles about something or other).
"In order to remove subjectivity we can physically measure the intensity of sound in decibels, do you agree?"
(Agrees)
"And the decibel level of various sounds is a measure of their respective loudness, do you agree with that?"
(Agrees)
"How?"
(Uh?)
"In what way is it a measure of their respective loudness?"
(Don't really understand your question)
"Let me ask you this then. If one sound is measured at, say, 40db and another at 20db how much 'louder' would the first one seem to you?"
(Twice as loud)
"That's incorrect Constable Plod. Sound measurement in db is an logarithmic expression. A sound that is 10db above another is 10 times the level, 20db is 100 times the level, 30 is 1000 etc. etc.
We talk at a level of about 70db, yet a jet engine is 'only' about 130 but that's a million times louder. Do you accept that?".
(Uh, yes, I suppose so)
"Do you know what the level of a car exhaust is, Constable Plod?"
(No).
"Well, unsurprisingly it varies, according to the way the car is being driven, obviously, so clearly the law has to provide some sort of mechanism for preventing excessive noise. How does it do that officer?"
(If the noise level exceeds a certain er... level)
"Thank you officer. Yes it stipulates an upper limit. Do you know what that is constable?"(Gives a figure)
"And is that for all cars?"
(Depends I suppose)
"Depends upon what exactly?"
(Gets lucky and says model of car).
And what does it say for a Type RA Subaru Impreza?"
(Says a figure)
"And was mine exceeding that limit?"
(Waffles away....blah, blah, blah)
"What model of car was I driving when you pulled me over?"
(Blank, fazed)
"I'd like to enter in evidence the V5 for the only car that I own, you'll notice that it predates the alleged offence so this was clearly the car I was driving at the time, and of course you have the CPS' evidence as well to support that, ladies and gents of the bench".
"I put it to you Constable Plod that you were in no way qualified to make a judgement, not just on the level of noise but also on how to apply the regulations to the correct model of car.
I also put it to you that your evidence is therefore thoroughly unreliable and a hindrance to the bench reaching a fair and just conclusion based on it"?
Or words to that effect anyway.
08 August 2013, 08:23 PM
#124
i was thinking of adding to my proof from garage the question is officer edwards a vosa trained mechanic ? as the person who tested my car in december 2012 and again as per enclosed letter is and he says it's fine and working within the limits as per rta 1988
08 August 2013, 09:37 PM
#125
Scooby Regular
Erm.... it doesn't matter about now, it's about then.
So they have to prove that it wasn't maintained and efficient.
"Ah, Officer Plod, what is your definition of 'efficient'?".
(Babbles something about being fit for purpose or whatever).
"Thank you. So in what way did you deem my car's exhaust not to be 'efficient'?"
(Babbles that it was noisy, larger than other exhausts he'd seen etc.)
"You say 'noisy'. What is your definition of 'noisy'"?
(Waffles about louder than ambient noise levels or whatever)
"So, it's a subjective view, you think something is noisy because to you it's at too high a level above the background noise, is that correct?"
(Waffles about hearing it above any other car going by etc.)
"But it is is a subjective test, isn't it?"
(Waffles about something or other).
"In order to remove subjectivity we can physically measure the intensity of sound in decibels, do you agree?"
(Agrees)
"And the decibel level of various sounds is a measure of their respective loudness, do you agree with that?"
(Agrees)
"How?"
(Uh?)
"In what way is it a measure of their respective loudness?"
(Don't really understand your question)
"Let me ask you this then. If one sound is measured at, say, 40db and another at 20db how much 'louder' would the first one seem to you?"
(Twice as loud)
"That's incorrect Constable Plod. Sound measurement in db is an logarithmic expression. A sound that is 10db above another is 10 times the level, 20db is 100 times the level, 30 is 1000 etc. etc.
We talk at a level of about 70db, yet a jet engine is 'only' about 130 but that's a million times louder. Do you accept that?".
(Uh, yes, I suppose so)
"Do you know what the level of a car exhaust is, Constable Plod?"
(No).
"Well, unsurprisingly it varies, according to the way the car is being driven, obviously, so clearly the law has to provide some sort of mechanism for preventing excessive noise. How does it do that officer?"
(If the noise level exceeds a certain er... level)
"Thank you officer. Yes it stipulates an upper limit. Do you know what that is constable?"(Gives a figure)
"And is that for all cars?"
(Depends I suppose)
"Depends upon what exactly?"
(Gets lucky and says model of car).
And what does it say for a Type RA Subaru Impreza?"
(Says a figure)
"And was mine exceeding that limit?"
(Waffles away....blah, blah, blah)
"What model of car was I driving when you pulled me over?"
(Blank, fazed)
"I'd like to enter in evidence the V5 for the only car that I own, you'll notice that it predates the alleged offence so this was clearly the car I was driving at the time, and of course you have the CPS' evidence as well to support that, ladies and gents of the bench".
"I put it to you Constable Plod that you were in no way qualified to make a judgement, not just on the level of noise but also on how to apply the regulations to the correct model of car.
I also put it to you that your evidence is therefore thoroughly unreliable and a hindrance to the bench reaching a fair and just conclusion based on it"?
Or words to that effect anyway.
14 August 2013, 04:27 PM
#128
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a 2005 WRX with an After Burner Vortex back box, straight through centre and a sports cat. It is stupid loud!
So much that I want to swap it for a quieter one. Man, I'm getting old!
So much that I want to swap it for a quieter one. Man, I'm getting old!
15 September 2013, 07:58 PM
#130
tuesday is turn up and say not guilty, or rarther no case to answer. then his and my evidence goes to the cps, who have been made aware of the fact that pc (asshat) is not a qualified vosa mot tester therefore his evidence should count for squat in court sorry should of said he has changed his mind again and is trying for. using a defective and ineficient exhaust system
then his and my evidence goes to the cps, who have been made aware of the fact that pc (asshat) is not a qualified vosa mot tester therefore his evidence should count for squat in court sorry should of said he has changed his mind again and is trying for. using a defective and ineficient exhaust system
Last edited by madscoob; 15 September 2013 at 08:01 PM.
15 September 2013, 08:19 PM
#131
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tuesday is turn up and say not guilty, or rarther no case to answer. then his and my evidence goes to the cps, who have been made aware of the fact that pc (asshat) is not a qualified vosa mot tester therefore his evidence should count for squat in court sorry should of said he has changed his mind again and is trying for. using a defective and ineficient exhaust system
then his and my evidence goes to the cps, who have been made aware of the fact that pc (asshat) is not a qualified vosa mot tester therefore his evidence should count for squat in court sorry should of said he has changed his mind again and is trying for. using a defective and ineficient exhaust system
15 September 2013, 08:44 PM
#132
well i know know the parking prat at then end of the road is a plod,(confirmed by the bloke next door to him( so even if i lose i will take satisfaction from knowing that i got a plod a ticket for parking like a ***** who thinks he is above the rest of us, and his own laws don't apply to him. this whole thing has turned me into a plod hater and has completly changed the way i view the legal system in this country
15 September 2013, 11:54 PM
#133
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No no no no NO !
There is a lot to be said for showing the 'weaponry' you have, in order to put an attacker off.
But there's also a saying about keeping your powder dry.
Don't say/show too much, unless you're playing a very clever (but very risky) game of drawing them in to the ultimate battle in Court, and getting a lot of money out of it.
We've been through PC Plod's qualifications to make an informed opinion, and they are er.... zero. You've won, simply on those grounds.
Anything else thrown at you, you've won - simply because they are subjective, with no 'metrics' (measurements) to back them up.
The only words of caution I can say is don't get a) too cocky; and b) too intent on humilating Plod; and as a result fall foul of some quirk of the law that they'll try to get out of jail with.
I wish you all good luck on Tuesday.
But more than that I wish that you don't overstretch and **** up.
There is a lot to be said for showing the 'weaponry' you have, in order to put an attacker off.
But there's also a saying about keeping your powder dry.
Don't say/show too much, unless you're playing a very clever (but very risky) game of drawing them in to the ultimate battle in Court, and getting a lot of money out of it.
We've been through PC Plod's qualifications to make an informed opinion, and they are er.... zero. You've won, simply on those grounds.
Anything else thrown at you, you've won - simply because they are subjective, with no 'metrics' (measurements) to back them up.
The only words of caution I can say is don't get a) too cocky; and b) too intent on humilating Plod; and as a result fall foul of some quirk of the law that they'll try to get out of jail with.
I wish you all good luck on Tuesday.
But more than that I wish that you don't overstretch and **** up.
16 September 2013, 12:12 AM
#134
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No no no no NO !
There is a lot to be said for showing the 'weaponry' you have, in order to put an attacker off.
But there's also a saying about keeping your powder dry.
Don't say/show too much, unless you're playing a very clever (but very risky) game of drawing them in to the ultimate battle in Court, and getting a lot of money out of it.
We've been through PC Plod's qualifications to make an informed opinion, and they are er.... zero. You've won, simply on those grounds.
Anything else thrown at you, you've won - simply because they are subjective, with no 'metrics' (measurements) to back them up.
The only words of caution I can say is don't get a) too cocky; and b) too intent on humilating Plod; and as a result fall foul of some quirk of the law that they'll try to get out of jail with.
I wish you all good luck on Tuesday.
But more than that I wish that you don't overstretch and **** up.
There is a lot to be said for showing the 'weaponry' you have, in order to put an attacker off.
But there's also a saying about keeping your powder dry.
Don't say/show too much, unless you're playing a very clever (but very risky) game of drawing them in to the ultimate battle in Court, and getting a lot of money out of it.
We've been through PC Plod's qualifications to make an informed opinion, and they are er.... zero. You've won, simply on those grounds.
Anything else thrown at you, you've won - simply because they are subjective, with no 'metrics' (measurements) to back them up.
The only words of caution I can say is don't get a) too cocky; and b) too intent on humilating Plod; and as a result fall foul of some quirk of the law that they'll try to get out of jail with.
I wish you all good luck on Tuesday.
But more than that I wish that you don't overstretch and **** up.
In British law, he who accuses ,proves. As simple as that.
05 October 2013, 03:35 PM
#135
well heres a update. went on the 2nd and pleaded not guilty. case has been set for 2nd of december, knocked his statement in court, pointing out all the things he forgot to mention(that went down very well) and asked if a indipendant noise test could be used in court case, answer was yes, so went to engine tuner today to get car tested, and guess what 77db on tickover and 94 at 4500rpm, bring on the 2nd of december
05 October 2013, 03:45 PM
#137
cheers mate, put it this way my solicitor was laughing on the phone on thursday as he was reading out plods statement to me,and i picked holes in almost the whole statment, when i said i have photo's of 34 cars with the same exhaust, and that plod had never seen one as large as mine in his statement, i said to solicitor perhaps he drives around devon on auto pilot with his eyes shut, the solictor was in stitches
05 October 2013, 03:50 PM
#138
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well heres a update. went on the 2nd and pleaded not guilty. case has been set for 2nd of december, knocked his statement in court, pointing out all the things he forgot to mention(that went down very well) and asked if a indipendant noise test could be used in court case, answer was yes, so went to engine tuner today to get car tested, and guess what 77db on tickover and 94 at 4500rpm, bring on the 2nd of december
06 October 2013, 12:33 AM
#143
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your costs must be extremely high.
Not only a high-powered solicitor (which you are perfectly entitled to engage) but ET's highly professional - and hence expensive - testing. (You DID get a receipt didn't you ?).
And the mileage incurred (45p HMRC rates), your time (guaranteed whatever your rate for employment is) and - well, the list goes on (and on, and on).
It's in Court and even if CPS bottles it, you are entitled to your costs.
So if they do bottle it, make an application for costs on 02/12.
Not only a high-powered solicitor (which you are perfectly entitled to engage) but ET's highly professional - and hence expensive - testing. (You DID get a receipt didn't you ?).
And the mileage incurred (45p HMRC rates), your time (guaranteed whatever your rate for employment is) and - well, the list goes on (and on, and on).
It's in Court and even if CPS bottles it, you are entitled to your costs.
So if they do bottle it, make an application for costs on 02/12.
06 October 2013, 12:58 AM
#145
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 October 2013, 12:00 PM
#146
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
29 November 2013, 02:22 AM
#148
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see that happening personally, and as I've maintained imo they'll bottle it (somehow).
Just friendly advice - your prime concern is to be exonerated, not to make fools of plod but your solicitor will know far better than me.
Good luck.
I'm really looking forward to a post on Monday saying 'job done'.
29 November 2013, 09:55 AM
#149
just had phone call from solicitor.
AS CHARLIE SHEEN SAID WINNING
cps phoned him this morning case closed. i now have monday off work as well what a bonus, that coppers log book probably reads like my school report.
MUST TRY HARDER
AS CHARLIE SHEEN SAID WINNING
cps phoned him this morning case closed. i now have monday off work as well what a bonus, that coppers log book probably reads like my school report.
MUST TRY HARDER
29 November 2013, 11:01 AM
#150
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the fast lane
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good for you mate
Been following this since you started. Shame they didn't throw the towel in a bit sooner and save everyone concerned a lot of time and money.
Nice one.
Been following this since you started. Shame they didn't throw the towel in a bit sooner and save everyone concerned a lot of time and money.
Nice one.