Double Counting Warning:

[Tremarl]

Does the OP expect that if they drove at a hundred miles an hour through every speed camera on the M1 they would only expect one fine/points

No I'd expect 0 speeding fines and 0 charges of speeding, as this would likely be a case of either dangerous driving / driving without due care and attention.

In a similar fashion if I bludgeon someone enough at some point my act of assault/battery will be upgraded into grevious bodily harm. There is a reason why we have escalating offences for severity instead of just duplicating the same offense multiple time. It avoids the mental gymnastics required to declare that a course of conduct is in fact separate independent actions, and allows for greater discretion in the punishment given. For example disqualification may be more appropriate for dangerous driving than speeding.


Say we talk about theft for example. I could steal £5 item, or a £5 billion item. Both are equal instance of theft (1 item 1 occassion), but the severity of the punishment would be different. We don't suddenly say that stealing a single £5 billion item, is now "multiple acts" of theft in and of itself. Similarly if you steal multiple items in a shopping cart, we don't charge you individually for each item you steal.

In fact there was case law on this point where an individual was stealing from a till as a cashier. He did this 94 times over a course of time. He argued that he should be prosecuted 94 times individually as they were separate acts of theft. The Court held (binding authority to Magistrates - gives them more discretion in these cases), that this could reasonably be seen as a course of conduct and so could be said to be one instance for the purpose of prosecution.


Our system is setup in a very formulaic and procedural way that if properly followed will give the appropriate punishment for the appropriate offence as decided by the government and parliament. When this isn't properly followed that is when you get mental gymnastics by those involved to try and make the square fit the circle.



Anyway my case is done and dusted, I merely posted as a warning to anyone who ends up in a similar situation with a similar rationalization.

[islandgirl]

apparently so

[HandyAndy]

You most likely wouldn't have ever heard of Double Jeopardy in your 15 years on the bench as a Magistrate, as the CPS are unlikely ever to re-trial a case, unless there is significant value to doing so.

That’s almost certainly true and that is because you have the wrong idea about “double jeopardy”. That term is not appropriate to your circumstances.

That principle means a person cannot be tried for the same offence twice, having been acquitted of it previously. The first link you provided gives details of a change to the law which means in some very limited circumstances, for a small number of serious offences, that principle can be overridden.

The “summary of case law” you referred to is specifically aimed at double jeopardy in relation to extradition proceedings.

Neither of these scenarios will be dealt with in a Magistrates’ Court and neither has any relevance to your situation on any level whatsoever. But this is not really a forum for a debate about whether or not the criminal justice system is fit-for-purpose to deal with less serious matters.

Your description of the way the court dealt with your matter is a little concerning as there clearly is a principle of a “continuous offence” in your circumstances. Whether your argument should have succeeded or not is hard to say because you have provided so little detail. But sufficient to say that it is not an unconditional principle (and Wales01man illustrates perfectly why it is not). So this means that an element of judgement is required on the part of the court.

No I'd expect 0 speeding fines and 0 charges of speeding, as this would likely be a case of either dangerous driving / driving without due care and attention.

Possibly, or possibly not, depending on the decision maker who decides what charges to raise. Again, there are no hard and fast rules and such a matter is subjective and so requires judgement. Excess speed alone is not normally a reason to raise a careless or dangerous driving charge (though excessive speed in Scotland often sees that happen). It might be in the scenario described by Wales01man, or it might not, depending on all the circumstances..

But you (apparently) were not driving at 100mph for hundreds of miles. According to the only description we have, you drove at an average of 30mph for ten minutes between two points and were detected exceeding the speed limit at each of those two points. What the limit was at those points and what happened in between would form the facts that you would ask the court to consider when making a ruling on whether that was a single offence or not.

I think the problems you have are firstly a fundamental misunderstanding of the law (in many respects) and secondly that you want a prescriptive definition to cover your circumstances which a court must adopt by default. Thankfully (I would argue) it doesn’t work like that.

[Tremarl]

That’s almost certainly true and that is because you have the wrong idea about “double jeopardy”. That term is not appropriate to your circumstances.

That principle means a person cannot be tried for the same offence twice, having been acquitted of it previously. The first link you provided gives details of a change to the law which means in some very limited circumstances, for a small number of serious offences, that principle can be overridden.

The “summary of case law” you referred to is specifically aimed at double jeopardy in relation to extradition proceedings.

Neither of these scenarios will be dealt with in a Magistrates’ Court and neither has any relevance to your situation on any level whatsoever. But this is not really a forum for a debate about whether or not the criminal justice system is fit-for-purpose to deal with less serious matters.

Your description of the way the court dealt with your matter is a little concerning as there clearly is a principle of a “continuous offence” in your circumstances. Whether your argument should have succeeded or not is hard to say because you have provided so little detail. But sufficient to say that it is not an unconditional principle (and Wales01man illustrates perfectly why it is not). So this means that an element of judgement is required on the part of the court.



Possibly, or possibly not, depending on the decision maker who decides what charges to raise. Again, there are no hard and fast rules and such a matter is subjective and so requires judgement. Excess speed alone is not normally a reason to raise a careless or dangerous driving charge (though excessive speed in Scotland often sees that happen). It might be in the scenario described by Wales01man, or it might not, depending on all the circumstances..

But you (apparently) were not driving at 100mph for hundreds of miles. According to the only description we have, you drove at an average of 30mph for ten minutes between two points and were detected exceeding the speed limit at each of those two points. What the limit was at those points and what happened in between would form the facts that you would ask the court to consider when making a ruling on whether that was a single offence or not.

I think the problems you have are firstly a fundamental misunderstanding of the law (in many respects) and secondly that you want a prescriptive definition to cover your circumstances which a court must adopt by default. Thankfully (I would argue) it doesn’t work like that.

Regarding your first point, maybe there is some confusion over what I am referencing for double jeopardy.

Double jeopardy is the second part of the process in what I've explained. It would be logical to conclude that the actus reus is a continuing act and therefore there is only one offence committed. In that case if say the previous charge has already been dealt with you can now show double jeopardy.for the second charge [this is on the assumption that the CPS have charged both offences independently of each other, but where it is agreed they are in fact the same offence - which is what my OP was about, otherwise there'd be nothing up to discuss] - Double jeopardy itself is not limited to acquittals it applies in both senses acquittal and conviction, the point being that retrial of the same offence is generally seen as an abuse of process/justice.

I have never disputed in any of my posts, that the Magistrate may come to an irrational conclusion that the two events recorded are completely independent offences in fact, from each other. in that case as they are fully independent then of course double jeopardy does not apply.


I can see you would agree in this instance that there rationally considered a continuing offence, however you agree that something isn't quite right if this applies to say the whole M1 as its hundreds of miles. Well, if you take the M1 as the example, there is actually several different stretches of road regulated separately in law, so you could argue that every set of regulations in and of itself is a different regulated speed limit and you could use that as a factual cut of point as a matter of law as the offence is on "a road", not "multiple roads". And although the road is contigous and labelled the same, the regulations treat them as separate stretches of road and therefore legally distinct.

Alternatively, you could just submit that this is a question of severity, so in such a case it would be a singular offence, but of a much more serious nature, for example more points or a bigger fine or even disqualification, or that it is so severe that it merits potentially other criminal charges. This would be inline with other areas of law such as theft, battery etc, which have escalating severities and encapsulate a very wide variety of offences.



I have no misunderstanding of the law, and so far no one in this discussion has proferred any binding authority to state that I'm wrong or that the legislation is actually meaning something other than its plain meaning in the English language. Certainly we do not have any case law or legislation that states that "the offence of speeding occurs when a camera evidence as such". The determination that I'm discussing is not even a determination of law its a determination of fact. Even more so a quick search online will find you many examples of applying in similar cases the logic that I've argued, sucessfully in the courts. Which is my warning to people that its a dice roll. Some Magistrates are more legally inclined and want justice to be procedural and so happy to preference a logical conclusion, while others may prefer a policy decision over a legal one as they see that, the outcome is what interests justice, not the procedure.

All crimes do in fact have a prescriptive definition in law, and it is not hard to find them. The law is by definition prescriptive, while the facts vary from case to case. If the law was not prescriptive, then there would be no rule of law.
I'm not looking for a prescriptive instance to cover my specific circumstances. I'm merely raising a warning to other people that might mount similar defence when faced with obvious injustices of double counting, that depending on who they get at the Magistrates, that a policy decision in their mind may supercede a rational decision.

[islandgirl]

I have never disputed in any of my posts, that the Magistrate may come to an irrational conclusion that the two events recorded are completely independent offences in fact, from each other.

They are. It is not double counting. It is a rational conclusion.

[Tremarl]

I have never disputed in any of my posts, that the Magistrate may come to an irrational conclusion that the two events recorded are completely independent offences in fact, from each other.

They are. It is not double counting. It is a rational conclusion.

So how would you define when an act of speeding begins and when it ends as a matter of fact.


If you look at the plain meaning of the sentence "exceeding the given speed limit on a road". The plain understanding of that is that on A Road, when you exceed the limit you are speeding, when you reduce your speed below the limit, you are no longer speeding.

The Actus reus is independent of evidence, that is to say if A doing B is a crime, then C doing B is also a crime, even if the evidence of said crime is different, so long as the evidence is sufficient to convict.

The point I'm getting at is that If A goes 40mph in a 30, on a road 2 miles long, and there is an average speed camera across that stretch, then the rational conclusion is that he is convicted of speeding once. As his journey across that road was speeding presumably throughout from the evidence we have.

If you replace said cameras with that check speed on the spot, and put one at the start and end of the road, and A commits the exact same act, then the offence committed should be the exact same as A has not done anything differently, he has broken the law in the exact same way and the rational conclusion from the two cameras is that he was speeding throughout his journey on that 2 mile road. However, from the way you read it, the "rational conclusion", is that he is in fact comitting two separate offences that are factually distinct from each other.

It is not rational for the Actus Reus (the physical manifestation of the crime itself) to be exactly the same in two instances, but the fact conclusion of a magistrate of that Actus Reus to be different, based on a different way of evidence recording.

In a similar way if a police officer follows you with a speedgun, they need to follow you for at least 2/10 of a mile to meet the evidentiary requirements. If at the same time you go through a speed camera that checks your speed and also shows you are speeding, in your view that is two offences. However, that is not rational, as the Acts committed by the defendent are the same.

Remember a crime is an act of omission committed by a person, that criminal liability is attached. Not evidence of a crime being committed. You cannot logically conclude that the exact same act is actually one or two separate acts depending on the way in which evidence is recorded. Speeding isn't uniquely a schrodingers offence is it?

[islandgirl]

Read that. Still of the same opinion. How fast were you going? Did you make 12 points?

[PallasAthena]

Does the OP expect that if they drove at a hundred miles an hour through every speed camera on the M1 they would only expect one fine/points

That seems to be the logical conclusion of OP's argument.

The argument being put by OP also has the perverse consequence that someone who (eg) in 50mph zone drives at a constant 70mph and goes through two cameras five miles apart only suffers one legal penalty.

But another driver who slowed down for most of the distance to 50mph, only briefly going too fast as he passed the cameras, would get two legal penalties.

But which of those two drivers is most dangerous to other road users? The first, the constant speeder, surely? But he gets the lesser legal penalty!

[Tremarl]

That seems to be the logical conclusion of OP's argument.

The argument being put by OP also has the perverse consequence that someone who (eg) in 50mph zone drives at a constant 70mph and goes through two cameras five miles apart only suffers one legal penalty.

But another driver who slowed down for most of the distance to 50mph, only briefly going too fast as he passed the cameras, would get two legal penalties.

But which of those two drivers is most dangerous to other road users? The first, the constant speeder, surely? But he gets the lesser legal penalty!

I've already responded to this point that was made with a contra-point as a way of distinguishment. Besides if you take the contra-view then the police are able to racketeer by putting multiple camera's on a short stretch. That is surely poor public policy. And before you tell me local governments don't racketeer, locally to me they added a bus lane at a roundabout, that directly leads from a car park, where the signage is not visible as you leave the car park. About 80% of the cars didn't see the sign immediately, of which only about a third of them saw it while leaving the roundabout, causing them to reverse back into oncoming traffic in a dangerous manner to avoid the fine, while the other 2/3rd were oblivious. [You will forgive me for giving rough figures of what the footage recorded by one concerned individual]. This is before we even mention bus lanes when you still get fined for going into them when no bus service operates or has ever operated during that period. (E.G 3am in the morning). We also have local speed traps, where we have roads that are restricted roads, so do not need any indication of speed limit to enforce, and which in fact do not provide any indication that the speed limit has actually changed between the joining road to that road, until after the camera, when suddenly you have a sign every 100 yards reminds you. Meanwhile, I have a road that has been petitioned on multiple occasion to get traffic calming measures due to the dangers of the conjoined roads leading into it, to which this year there has already been 3 major car crashes each with at least 3 vehicles involved. Still no traffic calming measures no traffic lights nothing.

Now take me for a cynic but none of those examples seem to stem from legitimate public policy. However, I do believe that by and large our traffic system and legal framework is operated in good faith to ensure safe driving and less deaths. However, that doesn't mean that the police, councils or enforcement teams are perfect and act only in the interests of safety.

Anyway I've sort of digressed from the point.

We live in a common law system where law is prescriptive on the basis that is predictable that is how the rule of law works. You can speculate why we do and don't have certain phrasing and understandings within our law, but that doesn't change what the law is.

Besides if you are concerned with the interests of justice, just give out a harsher penalty such that whether in fact it is considered 1 or 2 or 3 offenses, the outcome is the same if the Actus Reus is the same. Why do you believe speeding is unique from any other offense? If I steal from a supermarket £100 of goods, then that is one act of theft. If I steal from a supermarket £5000 of goods then that is still one act of theft, the severity of one is worse than the other. But its encapsulated in the same. If we take the contra-view then the defense might rightly conclude that each item should be individually prosecuted, which we know is not the case due to case law stating as much.

Equally if I kidnap someone, and hold them prisoner, this doesn't suddenly become multiple acts of kidnap or false imprisonment on the basis of length of time. Just the severity of the crime intensifies. Or do we arbitrarily decide that as a matter of fact false imprisonment lasts for a year, and every year after is an additional offense?

My argument is purely about logical and procedural consistency. Why succumb to mental gymnastics to reach outcomes that our existing legislative framework already supports. The issue is that the reading is one of fact not of law, and the imputation of fact, is mismatched with the actual fact of what happened. This is what causes legal doublespeak where in reality something happened, but in law something else actually happened, purely so that the courts can try and satisfy their version of justice. Now, you could equally satisfy justice by applying the law from a factual and policy perspective in a coherent way, and end up with the same outcomes. However, that is a procedural problem.


islandgirl If you're not convinced of the logical chain, but you're not going to actually point out what is logically incoherent/which part you take issue with, then there is nothing I can do to convince you as that is not a disagreement on fact, but on opinion.

In your opinion, how would you set out the Actus Reus of the crime of speeding?

[HandyAndy]

but where it is agreed they are in fact the same offence

But in your case it hadn’t been agreed. That was (or should have been) the basis of your application to the court.

so far no one in this discussion has proferred any binding authority to state that I'm wrong

That’s because there is no binding authority that covers the circumstances you describe. As a result, there is no right or wrong answer. Each allegation is treated (and judged) on its merits.

So how would you define when an act of speeding begins and when it ends as a matter of fact.

If it’s disputed then it begins and ends when the court, having heard all the circumstances, finds that it does. It’s as simple as that. Defendants must submit to that finding, with the option to appeal that decision if they wish. That appeal, being on a matter of fact, would be to the Crown Court and heard before a judge and two magistrates.

The rest of your contentions are, quite honestly, smoke and mirrors designed to complicate what is quite a simple and often heard argument in Magistrates’ Courts.

It’s unfortunate that your argument was not accepted because over such a short distance on a motorway it may have had some merit . However, having heard the rest of your views I have a suspicion that you may have over-egged the pudding. But since I wasn’t there I couldn’t be sure.

[Tremarl]

But in your case it hadn’t been agreed. That was (or should have been) the basis of your application to the court.



That’s because there is no binding authority that covers the circumstances you describe. As a result, there is no right or wrong answer. Each allegation is treated (and judged) on its merits.



If it’s disputed then it begins and ends when the court, having heard all the circumstances, finds that it does. It’s as simple as that. Defendants must submit to that finding, with the option to appeal that decision if they wish. That appeal, being on a matter of fact, would be to the Crown Court and heard before a judge and two magistrates.

The rest of your contentions are, quite honestly, smoke and mirrors designed to complicate what is quite a simple and often heard argument in Magistrates’ Courts.

It’s unfortunate that your argument was not accepted because over such a short distance on a motorway it may have had some merit . However, having heard the rest of your views I have a suspicion that you may have over-egged the pudding. But since I wasn’t there I couldn’t be sure.

So you are in full agreement with my original post.

I do not really understand why it has generated so much discussion in the first place. I was merely seeking to post to warn people that what is a completely logical and rational argument, and what the actual facts of the case are, may be completely ignored in favour of imputed facts by the Judge based on their own assessment to reach their own view of justice. My assumption was that if ever a continuing offense was to apply it would be in a case like this, and obviously in this instance it didn't apply, as the judge was of the view of one camera = one offense regardless of any other factors, which is completely their right to find as they are the ones with the discretion what is true or not, regardless of how irrational such a decision is.

[islandgirl]

That is the disagreement - many of us do not find it irrational

[Tremarl]

That is the disagreement - many of us do not find it irrational

I'm still waiting for what your opinion even is, as to the actus reus for speeding. You say there is disagreement but no one has yet given an alternative as to how they would define the offense itself and how that definition is rational.

If you are going to make a blanket statement then at the very least make an attempt to substantiate it.

[islandgirl]

I agree with the bench you found yourself before. I have had similar situations in court (more than one speeding offence on the same journey) some of which have led to a driver before us with 12 totting points facing a ban. You are unhappy with the decision - I understand that, but I think the court was right.

[Tremarl]

I agree with the bench you found yourself before. I have had similar situations in court (more than one speeding offence on the same journey) some of which have led to a driver before us with 12 totting points facing a ban. You are unhappy with the decision - I understand that, but I think the court was right.

Would you care to expand on that with your reasoning.

The magistrates in my case, confused law with fact, ignored legal precedent, and then came to the conclusion that the offence itself is being caught by a camera, not the acts of the accused. Now, this is legally incorrect, as the camera is not an act or omission by the accused, and a camera is not even required to evidence an offence, you merely need more than 1 witness as per the legislation. As a guilty plea was coerced, there was no need for the Magistrate in my case to ever bother to provide actual reasoning behind their decision. I only have what he said during the trial to go on.