logo2

I.C.H.O.R. Trust

(I)nfinite (C)ovenant for (H)uman rights, (O)bligations and (R)eparation

logo

 

corner

Back    Next    Statment's

followed.”((Where they have failed to meet the standards prescribed by the manufacturers (not necessarily APCO as those recommendations are good practice only it would be relatively easy under cross-examination, to cast doubt on the prosecution evidence thereby forcing the bench to return a not guilty verdict)).

Mr. Freeman did not specify the exact conditions which the police were unable to prove they followed.

Mr. Yorke was not present at court for the verdict but Mr. Freeman said: "I am sure he will be very pleased."

The onus is on the police proving that the speed gun was officially authorized for use. He asked them to produce a certificate for the device outlining the Home Office's conditions of use. I may not be rich or famous but the law is for all to obey.

Police have filed copious documents but have not provided the Court with the Home Secretaries conditions for approval, for how the camera must be used.

The relevant Highways authority will not be able to produce any mandatory authority sufficient to put into abeyance my private right to charge a fee for suffering the environmental pollution of safety/traffic/speed cameras whenever I see one. In fact there may be no mandatory authority on Highways authorities to provide anything not even parking meters. A lack of mandatory authority with a lack of a financial provision for enforcement leaves local authorities liable to prosecution for theft, amongst others things, by deception of authority.

ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) clearly states under article 1 of protocol 1 that individuals have the right to enjoy their possessions. I have been charged with a driving offence which carries a summary penalty. The Police and or in the alternative other Authorities that are responsible have not provided any documentation in support of their arguments that:-


1). I allegedly exceeded the speed limit.

2). That their recording camera was maintained as per requirement and the police and/ or Authorities that are responsible have failed to provide the Court with the Home Secretaries conditions for approval, for how the camera must be used.

3). they did not supply any test certificates.

4). Police did not offer any guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this matter and acted with lack of independence or impartiality.

5). The Crown Prosecution Service failed in their duty to advise me of anything that undermines the Crowns’ case against me by failing to advise me of what is judicially noticed above under my heading 'Proscribed device'.

Back    Next    Statment's

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home | Law of contractThe CovenantStatementsLetters to | Letters from | Links | Contact Us |
You can contact the trustee at trustee@ichortrust.co.uk or
Aabbex© Computers WebMaster on 0870 803 1720 or click here