Letter to The Sheriff of Not Spotting Lies

The witness recovered himself and said that at the time he was confused and "a wee bit shocked". (Yet he was sufficiently compos mentis to have remembered, until he wrote them down some time later, two registration numbers. You might like to try it sometime - on a busy road, take a mental note of two number plates, then try to recall them both 5 to 10 minutes later - it isn't so easy, even when you're fully composed and not as agitated as he claimed to be.)

On reviewing my notes, I found further instances of improbable manoeuvres; for example, the third witness said I had overtaken her motorcycle when she had just stated that my car was in front of her. In another example she said, "I got a quite fright" when claiming to have witnessed the incident. Yet, my analysis of her own account shows that her motorcycle must have been at least 40 metres away at the time, behind several cars, in a queue of traffic.

Just before the lunch recess, you asked the second witness what kind of motorcycle he rode. On being told the make and model, you commented, "quite a powerful machine", and seemed to raise a quizzical eyebrow. This was after being told that he, the motorcyclist, had obeyed the speed limits, never passed on the inside, and implied that he was an exemplary motorist.

So, I would also like to know if, when you recorded the reasons for your decision, you noted any doubts you may have had. Since your verdict went against me, I presume that any such doubts did not add up to 'reasonable doubt'. Or were they simply swamped by the weight of numbers (three) against me (one)? I do not really believe so. You remarked that the incidents described by prosecution and defence were so disparate that they might have taken place on different days. However, you learned that I had driven for over 4 hours non-stop and thought that I would have been tired and so might not have registered the obstructions on the road. Was this pure conjecture, I wonder, or was any evidence provided in court? The only possible evidence that I can find from my notes comes from Miro. When asked about the manner of my driving, he said that I "wasn't hanging about," and later that, "I think he wanted to beat me". I do not think that these statements adequately describe the actions of a sleepy driver, do you? I wonder if you recorded any of this in your Notes?

So you found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be reliable and credible, did you? On what basis do you believe you are qualified to distinguish between truth and lies, I wonder. Have you undergone any training, for example? A review of eight major academic studies into lie detection involving police interviewers concluded that the accuracy rate of such interviewers is only 45 to 60 per cent. The problem is that the police thought they were a lot smarter than that. If you were to toss a coin you would, over time, get a 50 per cent accuracy rate. I am sure most convicted defendants already think of you and your kind as tossers, but why don't you become a real tosser? If judgements in Summary Courts were to depend solely on the spinning of a coin, then at least we would know that justice is not affected by your prejudices, by the skills of the lawyers or even by what facts are available. No - justice would officially become what we already know it to be - a function of chance, pure chance and nothing but chance.

I hope, my lord, that you understand the problems here. Apart from taking statements, the police did not investigate any aspect of the case. The prosecution only made its evidence available to the defence at the trial; consequently, my solicitor was unprepared for a rigorous examination of what turned out to be rather complex evidence. And afterwards, I learned that convicted people are denied the right of appeal on the evidence; in any case, the official records of the proceedings that would facilitate an appeal do not exist.

This is why I took extensive notes and why I would like to see your Notes - so that I can further my campaign against the verdict.

I am, my lord,

Your most sceptical victim,

Sarby