The fact that cameras have had to be introduced to provide evidence of something as relatively trivial as parking offences speaks volumes about the dire state of this contry - in my opinion...
The fact that every authority sees fit to issue as many penalties/fines for as many different 'compliance' offences as they possibly can also says something about the state of the country...
Interesting point. Before cameras were universal, evidence of offences consisted mainly of the testimony of eye witnesses. The introduction of cameras was supposed to provide more and clearer evidence, making it easier to obtain convictions and simplifying court cases. But paradoxically what has actually happened is that whenever there is no photographic evidence of an offence, the defence argues that the prosecution evidence is therefore insufficient. Eye witness testimony no longer seems to be enough. So for some types of cases it has become more difficult to obtain convictions. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
And the fact that with digital images it has never been easier to "adjust", "correct" or just plain tamper with, evidence seems lost on the law-makers.
Are digital images in admissible due to this. Or is it only images from approved/ registered devices?
The root of the problem is in law....INCOMPETENCY From a law dictionary: 4. It is a maxim in the common law, aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa. Co. Litt. 141, a; see 14 Vin. Abr. 573; 4 Com. Dig. 6. The greatest delicacy, is constantly observed on the part of judges, so that they never act when there could be the possibility of doubt whether they could be free from bias, and even a distant degree of relationship has induced a judge to decline interfering. 1 Knapp's Rep. 376. The slightest degree of pecuniary interest is considered as an insuperable objection aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa means no one should be a judge in his own cause as all magistrates or judges receive payment or expenses from the crown ((from a freedom of information request)(snip:[FONT=Arial, sans-serif] HMCS is funded by HM Treasury as part of the overall Ministry of Justice delegated expenditure limit.[/FONT] )) this creates a possibility of doubt whether they could be free from bias! So you have a situation where all officials acting on behalf of the Crown MUST under their own maxims of law....step down. :redface:
Depends on the circumstances. When either party to a case seeks to introduce in evidence a still or video image of some kind, the first question is - does the other party accept it for what it is, or wish to challenge it? If there is a challenge, the court would have to consider the provenance of the image and any alleged shortcomings or interference. It is for the court to decide whether to admit it and if so, how much evidential weight to give it. An image submitted by a public authority using an approved device would be difficult to challenge, but an image from a private or unknown source would be more problematic.
That relates to the judge having a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case one way or the other. That has nothing to do with the judge being paid a salary for his or her work. In any event, High Court Judges and above are paid directly out of the Consolidated Fund by statute, rather than from the MOJ budget.
But surely the judge isn't representing the Council, who are the people trying to fleece you. They aren't paid out of a Council budget, are they?
