Continuation of Winter V Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Services.

Here is what I knew about 2 month's into the six months case.

THERE WAS NEVER ANY CASE TO ANSWER.

THE POLICE MUST HAVE KNOWN THAT AS WELL AS THE PC.

I had heard of it, and believed I was not committing any offence, but had to have it checked out.

what is remarkably reprehensible was that the entire six months went forward with a PC sworn, UNSIGNED section 9 statement for TRUTH, being FALSE and perjurous.

accompanied by proceeding in a case knowingly where there was no case to answer

If any one has been held to account for not wearing a seat belt CORRECTLY, rather than NOT WEARING it, then they have suffered an abuse of power, from asymmetry of information, and the conduct is most likely done with balk tort, that is deliberately ignoring one's duty of care to correct the abuse and withdraw with a proper apology. I never got one.

I would have thrown all this away had I been treated with with genuine sincerity. That doesn't exist much any more.

200 DPP v SHAW (DAVID) DC

20 JULY 1992 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v SHAW (DAVID)
McCOWAN LJ and POPPLEWELL J

Seat belt - Wearing - Adapting by clip on strap enabling belt to hang loosely - No proof beyond reasonable doubt of adapted seat belt not preventing or lessening injury to wearer in event of accident to vehicle - Whether 'seat belt' - Whether question of fact for justices - Whether adapted seat belt worn - Road Traffic Act 1988 s 14- Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982 regs 3, 4 - Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 reg 47(8) - Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 1987

Section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides:

'{1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring ... persons who are driving ... motor vehicles on a road to wearseat belts... (3) A person who drives ... a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations under this section is guilty of an offence

Regulation 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982

(having effect as if made under section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1988] provides:

'In these regulations - "the Construction and Use Regulations" means the Motor

Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1978 . ..'

Regulation 4 provides:

'... every person shall wear a seat belt... if he is ... (1) driving a motor vehicle

Regulation 47(8) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986

{as replaced by the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No 2)

Regulations 1987] provides:

'. . . "seat belt" means a belt intended to be worn by a person in a vehicle and

designed to prevent or lessen injury to its wearer in the event of an accident to the

vehicle

The defendant was driving on a road a motor car which was provided with an intertia-type seat belt; he had fitted a clip to the belt near the top anchor point on the door pillar, the clip having the effect of allowing the belt to hang down vertically to the waist before crossing to the fixing point between the front seats. He passed a stationary police patrol car and its driver was of the opinion that the defendant was not wearing a seat belt as required by regulation 4 of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982. He was followed and stopped and was charged with driving in contravention of regulation 4, made under section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. At the hearing the defendant demonstrated the seat belt and clip to the court and the prosecutor; he was unable to show satisfactorily how the clip automatically released the seat belt when he leant forward in the seat of his stationary car. The justices were of the opinion that the defendant was wearing a seat belt at all material times and that it had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that, in the event of an accident, the seat belt as adapted would not prevent or lessen injury to its wearer or that the clip would prevent the seat belt from carrying out the purpose for which it was designed and that, since there was doubt in their minds, the benefit of the doubt should be decided in the defendant's favour. They dismissed the information. The prosecutor appealed on the ground that, although the use of the clip was not illegal and had it been used, in the approved manner, simply to take up an inch or two of tension he could not have argued that

[1993] RTR