BT 1010 | Crown v. Samuel Shire 

IN THE MATTER OF: Careless and Inconsiderate Driving 

AFTER CONSIDERATION:
This Court has been tasked with determining the legal principle regarding what constitutes careless and inconsiderate driving under the law, particularly when speed alone is a primary factor in determining guilt. The key question pertains to whether excessive speed combined with other violations, such as running red lights and failing to stop at stop signs, constitutes careless and inconsiderate driving. 

RULING:
After reviewing the circumstances of the case, the Court establishes the following precedents and clarifications: 

Speed Alone is Insufficient for Careless Driving:

Speeding alone does not inherently constitute careless or inconsiderate driving. However, when combined with multiple additional traffic violations, such as:

• Running red lights,

• Failing to stop at stop signs,

• Erratic or aggressive driving behavior,

It can and does amount to careless and inconsiderate driving under Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Cumulative Violations as Evidence of Carelessness:

In this case, the defendant:

• Drove at a high speed,

• Ran at three red lights,

• Failed to stop at a stop sign.

The combination of these multiple factors demonstrates a clear disregard for road safety and constitutes careless and inconsiderate driving.

Higher Standard for Professional Drivers:

Additionally, the Court establishes that individuals with advanced driver training, particularly those in security and law enforcement, will be held to a higher standard of responsibility. The defendant, a person of high stature in the security industry with government contracts, had greater knowledge and training in defensive driving and, therefore, should have exercised greater caution.

By order:

Justice Dredd Cage

BT 1010 | Crown v. Samuel Shire 

IN THE MATTER OF: Speed Estimation Without a Measuring Device 

AFTER CONSIDERATION:
This Court has been tasked with determining the legal principle regarding the admissibility of speed estimation by LSPS officers in the absence of a speed-measuring device. The key question pertains to whether an officer's visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed can be relied upon as credible evidence and under what conditions it may be admissible in legal proceedings. 

RULING:
After reviewing the circumstances of the case, the Court establishes the following precedents and clarifications: 

Admissibility of Visual Speed Estimation:

A law enforcement officer’s visual estimation of speed is admissible as evidence when:

• Video footage of the incident exists, allowing for independent verification of the officer’s observations.

• The officer providing the estimation is trained in speed assessment as part of their professional duties.

Where no video footage exists, a visual speed estimate may still be admissible under the following conditions:

• At least two law enforcement officers independently observe and estimate the speed with reasonable consistency.

• The officers demonstrate their ability to make such estimations based on experience, training (e.g. RPU), or prior use of speed assessment methods.

• A separate eyewitness corroborates the officer’s testimony, providing an additional layer of verification to the officer's speed estimate. 

This precedent ensures that traffic enforcement is not unduly hindered by a lack of speed-measuring devices while maintaining safeguards against arbitrary or unreliable speed estimations.

Balancing Enforcement and Fairness:

The Court acknowledges that traffic enforcement relies on officer observations in many cases. By allowing properly trained officers to estimate speed when video evidence is available or when corroborated by a second officer or a separate eye witness, the Court seeks to balance the need for effective law enforcement with the requirement for fairness in evidentiary standards.

By order:

Justice Dredd Cage

BT 994 | Crown v. Pablo Smith 

IN THE MATTER OF: Presumed Responsibility of Drivers for Vehicle Contents .

AFTER CONSIDERATION:
This Court has been tasked with determining the legal principle of driver responsibility for the contents of a vehicle, particularly in cases where contraband, such as firearms, is discovered and no forensic evidence is available to directly link the item to any specific occupant. The key question pertains to whether a driver can be presumed responsible for the contents of a vehicle they are operating unless they provide evidence to the contrary or another individual is proven responsible. 

RULING:
After reviewing the circumstances of the case, the Court establishes the following precedents and clarifications:

Presumption of Driver Responsibility:

The driver of a vehicle is presumed responsible for its contents, including contraband or illegal items, unless:

• The driver provides credible evidence proving they lacked knowledge of or control over the item(s).

• The prosecution provides evidence demonstrating that another occupant of the vehicle was in possession, knowledge or control of the item(s).

This presumption is necessary to address the practical challenges posed by shared vehicles, particularly in gang-related activities, where vehicles are often used as communal storage for weapons, drugs, or other contraband. Without such a presumption, these cases would frequently fail due to insufficient evidence, undermining law enforcement and enabling criminal activities. 

Gang-Shared Vehicles and Enforcement Challenges:

The Court acknowledges that, in San Andreas, gang-related vehicle pools complicate enforcement. Vehicles shared by multiple individuals are often used to store contraband, making it difficult to attribute possession to a specific person. Additionally, the inability to collect forensic evidence (e.g., fingerprints or DNA) from vehicles or contraband exacerbates this challenge.

To balance these enforcement difficulties with fairness, the Court directs that:

• The Driver of a vehicle is presumed responsible for its contents when the driver is knowledgeable of the items or in possible control of them (glove box or boot). 

• The prosecution must articulate the connection between the driver and the item(s) to avoid arbitrary charges.

By order:

Justice Dredd Cage

AC 987 | Crown v. Vinny Firth 

IN THE MATTER OF: Seizure of Emergency Services and Governmental Property . 

AFTER CONSIDERATION:
This Court has been tasked with determining the legality of the seizure of items during a raids conducted by the LSPS. The key question pertains to whether certain seized items can be presumed stolen, based on their nature and association with government or emergency services, or whether they could be legitimately owned by civilians.

RULING:
After reviewing the circumstances of the case, the Court establishes the following precedents and clarifications:

1. Government-Issued Items:
   Items such as blue lights, fire-armour, camera terminal repair kits, and walking sticks etc, are presumed to be the exclusive property of emergency services or governmental bodies. These items are generally not available for civilian possession and may only be lawfully held by authorized personnel. Civilians found in possession of such items are liable to prosecution under the Handling Stolen Goods offence (Theft Act 1968) unless they can provide lawful justification for their possession. It is to be noted that common sense is to be used for what items are to be considered unlawful to possess and it will take time for the courts to make a ruling on each individual item that is contested as future cases arise.

2. Potentially Civilian-Accessible Items:
   Items such as cones, red traffic lights, medical bags, gazebos, and handcuffs etc, are not inherently presumed to be stolen goods. These items may be legally owned or obtained through civilian means, such as construction work, private recovery services, or retail purchase. The burden of proof lies with the investigating authorities to articulate or provide clear evidence that these items were obtained unlawfully before presuming them to be stolen.

3. Articulated Grounds for Seizure:
   Authorities conducting raids must articulate reasonable grounds linking items to criminal activity. For example, the presence of police warrant cards, case files, or PNC terminals alongside otherwise civilian-accessible items (e.g., cones or medical bags) can provide grounds for reasonable suspicion that the items are unlawfully obtained.

4. Conduct of Future Raids:
   The Court directs that future raids conducted by the Los Santos Police Service must be based on:

   • Evidence of criminal activity, or

   • Reasonable grounds articulating a connection between the seized items and unlawful possession.

Seizing items solely on the assumption that they are government property without proper justification will constitute a violation and may result in dismissal or return of seized goods.

By order:

Justice Dredd Cage

BT 917 | Crown v. Ali-G 

IN THE MATTER OF: Charging an offender whilst in police custody. 

AFTER CONSIDERATION: When an individual in custody is charged with a crime and given the opportunity to plead guilty or not guilty, all known charges must be presented at that time. Once the plea is entered, no additional charges may be added to their record. Any subsequent charges will be considered a mishandling of the charge sheet and will be dismissed or removed from their record. Furthermore, the individual must not be asked to enter a plea again in an attempt to circumvent this ruling. 

However, officers may release the individual on bail pending an investigation into additional offences, provided that these potential offences are explicitly communicated to the individual at the time the charges are presented while in custody. These offences may be prosecuted at a later date as in-line with the San Andreas Bail policy time limitation, once the investigation is completed, or the investigation dropped. Any attempt to prosecute for offences not mentioned during the initial charge presentation will be considered a violation and subject to dismissal.

By order:

Justice Dredd Cage

CC 804 | Cedric Drebin v. San Andreas NHS 

IN THE MATTER OF: CC804 Cedric Drebin vs San Andreas National Health Service

AFTER CONSIDERATION:  

On this issue, it is to be inferred that upon joining the National Health Service that you agree to an employment contract. This contract outlines all the rules and regulations you must follow by. These rules and regulations would be available to you either upon request or displayed somewhere accessible by the employee such as in a handbook or on a website. 

It will be a requirement from here on that ANY employer in San Andreas must document or state ALL terms of employment that they expect their employee must follow or will be subject to whilst employed. This includes disciplinary policies/procedures, pay rate, if you get suspension pay, if you get disciplinary hearings or anything else outlined by the employer they wish to have followed or governed. 

This will now require the Police, NHS or any company/employer to ensure they have all the above mentioned information available to any employee either upon request or freely accessible. (This will take time to be corrected and thus will be given a reasonable grace period by the judiciary subject to the presiding judge dealing with the next case to come, as of 27/01/2024)

(From an OOC perspective, there are too many issues referencing IRL employment Law, along with issues around lack of contract upon joining these companies/factions/groups. 

This allows for in game companies/factions/etc to outline their own 'employment contracts' in simple handbooks/websites that would be given out, without going massively in depth which is not needed here on the server and gives the ability for solicitors on the server to find loopholes without referencing I.R.L. Law.  [Essentially what most people already do is have procedures/rules and expectations etc, outlined in a handbook like the Police, NHS, G6 etc, just no more having to reference arbitrary laws that would dictate something that no-one ever agreed to, pretended to agree to or even knew of or expecting small businesses on the server to follow all the stringent requirements outlined by UK law.]

This gives the opportunity for employers to make potentially 'unreasonable/unfair' obligations or regulations an employee must follow and thus gives a chance for argument in court on the matter e.i. Case Law and give employees the opportunity to create unions that fight for workers rights, along with potentially suing their employer for unfair work practices [Essentially creating our own dumbed-down version of employee's rights/unions]

This also allows for the possibility for companies to not outline anything such as an "employment contract" or simply create verbal agreements, however if the employer takes action against the employee that is not stipulated, the employee may sue the employer for unfair work practices or result in a case of he said she said, making it difficult to defend your actions in court.)

A common sense approach is to be taken to this. The very basics of UK workers rights still stands that would be reasonably applied in game.

By order:

JUDGE Dredd Cage

CC 816 | Jacky Joe v. Ross Wilson

External document - V.T.F. 2023

IN THE MATTER OF: Sentencing concerning the offence of Fraud Act 2006 - Fraud by False Representation

AFTER CONSIDERATION: The court has ruled that the precedent established in V.T.F. 2023 provides a framework for sentencing in cases where an individual is found liable in a civil case involving fraud under the Fraud Act 2006 - Fraud by False Representation.

Under this precedent, a judge presiding over a civil case may impose criminal liability and sentence the defendant to imprisonment only if the evidence against the defendant meets the criminal standard of proof, requiring the defense to prove the defendant's liability beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than the usual balance of probabilities (51%) standard used in civil cases.

The sentence imposed must not exceed 20,000 months, though the precise term is left to the discretion of the presiding authority based on the circumstances of the case.

Judgments issued under this framework are subject to appeal through the standard appellate process.

By order:

JUDGE Dredd Cage

BT 710 | Crown v. Dwayne Spike 

IN THE MATTER OF: Sentencing concerning the offence of being in possessing a molotov cocktail.

AFTER CONSIDERATION: With regards to simply being in possession of a molotov cocktail, any such person in possession of such an item is to be charged with possession of an offensive weapon (Prevention of Crime Act 1953 - S1). This is due to the fact no established precedent of intent and or circumstance has been established in the state of San Andreas court. Any such intent or circumstance established in court will result in this precedent being voided and a new one set.

On summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in the San Andreas Supreme court or the outlined time defined to this offense.

By order:

JUDGE Dredd Cage

JUDGE Tommy Teresi

IN THE MATTER OF: Appeal Case 1091 - R. Brodie v LSPS

AFTER CONSIDERATION: I this matter it was found that the conviction for Possession of a Bladed Article is unsafe.

There is no risk of harm from a pair of scissors in the City of Los Santos.

However, a precedent and new legislation has been emplaced; Possession of Articles for Use in Criminal Damage.

Given the circumstances, scissors are capable of being an article to be used in criminal damage and this new legislation should be used in circumstances whereby the incident and possession of the article indicate that this was the intended use for them.

Simple possession of scissors on their own, without further context is not an offence.

On summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in the San Andreas Supreme court or the outlined time defined to this offense.

By order:

JUDGE Glen Davies