An interesting post on a (the?) defence to a speed camera prosecution:
groups.yahoo.com/group/gatsos-uk/message/668
Any of the legal eagles got any comments?
|
I'm not a legal eagle but at least the first few steps make sense to me at least you've made them earn their cash.
Don't ever let something that can be punished by a fixed penalty go to court though. Average court speeding fine is 400 quid.
|
Dave
That's interesting about the £400 average for court speeding fines.
It makes you wonder, in the light of the posting on the yahoo groups website, whether the whole thing is a numbers game charade, something like:
a) Police know that most people wil pay a fixed penalty because it's cheaper than going to court.
b) A determined "poker player" will gamble that he has a 90% chance of not hearing any more if he writes a letter instead of filling in part 2 of the form.
It seems to me that the only successful strategy would be for EVERYONE to refuse to fill in part 2 and write a letter instead - i.e. flood the system with paperwork. This won't happen, of course, because it needs an organisation to coordinate it, and this is where the ordinary motorist is beaten.
So, each is on his own - poker players versus the system!
Ian
|
|
|
|
I am not legally qualified but I think the position is that you either are or are not guilty of speeding. Mitigation comes in when considering sentence. Ie I was speeding but I had my kid in the back with two broken legs or whatever. Locally there was case last week where someone done for speeding on the grounds that it looked as though he was, to two officers standing by the road,went to court and paid the fine, got the points and £300 costs. No evidence of speed/time/distance, just an opinion. That said I guess anyone could spot a car doing 45 in a 30 but making it stick in court seems pretty harsh (IMHO)
|
I suspect that this was the catch-all offence of driving with excessive speed, which is actually a different offence to specific speeding (SP30) or whatever.
As for the speeding defence, you don`t need a lawyer`s opinion, you need an administrator`s.
It doesn`t rely on a point of law, it relies on the admin being either beyond the capability or beyond the will of the administrators.
|
|
|
|
|
Bogush, thanks for that, I might add one thing, off topic I know but relevant. The post recommends sending it back recorded delivery.
I would send this special delivery rather than recorded delivery if you want to be sure it gets there and does not go astray.
Recorded Delivery just goes in the normal post until the point of delivery, when a signature is obtained.
Special Delivery is tracked from point of you handing it over the counter to delivery.
If Recorded Delivery does go astray its regarded as tough, and all you will get is the cost of your stamp plus fee back. The proof of posting bit is not a lot of help in the event you need to use it.
This happened to some financial documents from me to Bank of ***** which got lost in Wolverhampton Sorting office, and caused a bit of heartache as to whether I would get paid on an irrevocable letter of credit. All was well in the end, but ever since then I have stumped up the £3.60 for the better service.
|
|
|
I took a gamble and lost - after you return the NIP they have 6 months to issue the summons. I got the summons 5 months later which included a perfect picture of my car from the front. With the court date looming I sent a grovelling guilty plea in mitigation - I was very relieved to get £60 fine and 3 points.
The Yahoo posting looks to me a v. dangerous route.
|
|
|
Mick I get the impression you don't have to deny the offence.
Just asking for clarification should be enough.
If they come back and insist then you pay up.
Have I missed something?
|
|
I am not certain, but if you do not admit the offence I think that means you are refusing the fixed penalty and a court date will be fixed.
|
|
That DOES need legal clarification - any offers?
|
|
|
|
I don't quite get the bit about hearing nothing more.
Does this mean you wait and wait until you *assume* the police are no longer interested in prosecuting, do they have to write back to officially close the case, or can they choose to ignore your letter (remember the bit that says 'correspondence not entered into') and prosecute anyway?
Any clarification?
|
|
|
T.R.B.
Got the books ready but for some reason, despite typing the web address letter for letter I cannot pull it up on my magical box. Demands cookies which I apparently have not got - thank god with my waist line.
Is it advocated that one should delay acceptance and try and beat limitation on proceeding rule?
DVD
|
I thought there was a time limit of 28 days to accept the fixed penalty after which the police are not permitted to agree to it even if offered.
This does not stop requiring the police to prove it was you, BUT if they do the fine and court costs will be higher AND the beaks can award up to 6 points.
|
|
I was really beadly organised and let everyting pass over my head until I got a summons at which point I wrote a letter with a £40 cheque (for it was that little when it all happened) apologising and i've not heard any more! having said that I heard that if everyone who received an NIP wrote back denying that they were there, then the whole organisation would fail and the system would fall apart. The current situation relied on the fact that we are all 'british' and will obidiently reply by return with cheque enclosed.
|
|
|
|
DVD - Since you can't access it, here is the post in question. Sure lots of us are awaiting your expert opinion.
This is the method adopted by Chief Police Constables and recommended by
serving Police Officers themselves. It is a matter of keeping your nerve
in the face of the intimidation and threats. Remember that even one of
the Chief Constables has publicly stated the fact that only 10% of
camera bases offences are successful. Is this why? ...
1. When faced with completing the two parts of the form sent to you
remember two things:
Part One- Nominating A Driver : You must nominate a driver because they
have changed the law to compel you to do so. You will be crucified if
you do not. BUT, just because you confirm who was driving (or nominate
your wife !) for the date/time in question, this does automatically mean
that you are guilty. That is why they have part two .....
Part Two - Admitting the Offence: For the speeding offence, you are
actually innocent until proven guilty and they must produce enough
evidence to prove you are guilty. This is where you stop them speeding
to take you to court.....
2. Completing Part Two of the Form:
Do NOT complete it as doing so admits guilt and you do NOT have to admit
that you are guilty - this is the law of the land. Write a covering
letter stating :
i. I am unable to complete part two of the form and admit guilt because
I have no recollection of being in that location at that time and date.
ii. I request that you provide a copy of the available photographic
evidence which confirms that I am guilty of the offence
3. Post the letter using recorded delivery so that your letter does get
mislaid along the way
4. Wait for them to provide the evidence. Just wait because the onus is
now on them and a Police Officer must now be taken off crime fighting
duties in pursuit of your £60. This is were economic and common sense
takes over in many instances, and, you hear nothing more.
5. If presented with the evidence is it conclusive? Does it clearly
identify you (and no-one else) as the driver? If not, it might be a car
the same make/model/colour as yours and have the same registration
number, but a lot of cloning goes on these days. Don't be threatened and
intimidated by them - stand your ground and point out that it is
inconclusive. If they persist and take you to court, it is just as
inconclusive in your case as is it for your local Chief Constable.
6. If you were caught driving at an inappropriate speed or dangerously
in a built up area, you deserve to be shot. However, for us all, the law
of the land is the law of the land and you are entitled to defend
yourself.
7. When you are successful in defending yourself in this way, send a
cheque for £60 to the local Police Benevolent fund. Most serving
officers feel exactly the same way you do about this and need your
support.
--
zaax
www.ukgatsos.com
|
I am a solicitor, but have no personal experience about what we are discussing.
All I am saying is that this policy sounds credible. I can't envisage you being in any worse a position by putting the police to proof- requesting they prove the offence- then paying up if they do produce the photo, than if you had initially paid the fine immediately. Why would the police continue with proceedings against you if you sent in your licence and £60 quid? There would be no offence to prosecute, as you would have already admitted it...........
|
|
|
Sorry Guys I can only give you a synopsis of what the procedure under the law intended and not what happens in every individual case. The system, I repeat, was intended to clear the waste of time by all concerned where someone had committed an offence and accepted Guilt.
If you want proof of the offence, calibration certificates etc then you are not accepting Guilt which is a decision for a Court. The FP system was never intended to pre-judge cases on written submissions.
Getting you to Court is a matter for the Fixed Penalty Admin Units of which there are many up and down the Country generally manned by Civilians with, I suspect, various degrees of case load pressure and efficiency. Further, it would seem from your threads, a universal policy within the law is not adopted, as some enter into disclosure of evidence, may be to filter the Court function i.e. establishing to the Court that you did not know who the driver was etc.
It is therefore conceivable that a judgement at the Admin Office not to proceed further may be made or even a direction from C.P.S. who want over 51% or more chance of conviction.
DVD.
PS. Through my researches I do know of one infallible method of defeating a speed charge it is
|
|
|
|
This is stupid.
You will not attract a 400 quid fine for pleading innocent - ie, in mitigation. I spoke to a good Traffic cop, and he stated that provided your mitigation is taken in good faith, even if you are found guilty - the fine will be approximately the same as if you took the FPN.
DO NOT PANIC and go for the FPN if you have the slightest reason why you were exceeding the limit.
It is not actually illegal to exceed the limit, PROVIDED you have a damn good reason why you were doing so.
The guy here who pleaded GUILTY, but provided mitigation - sorry mate, you were a fool. Mitigation is a defense, and thus your plea should have been INNOCENT.
rgds.
C
|
|
|
Sorry biker you're wrong.
a) It was a plod biker who told me the Av. fine is 40 quid. A freind got a 300 quid fine instead of 60.
b) Neccesity is always a defense. That's not quite the same as saying speedin gis not illegal if you've got a good reason.
Hopefully we can get out and about soon when the weather improves and we get a decent road surface...
|
|
|
Sorry bit long winded but you did ask...
90mph and flash.
Film processed and VRM of offending vehicle taken from photo.
Enquiry made of DVLC and Registered Keepers' details obtained.
Two forms sent to Registered Keeper - who may not be the driver, so one is a notice to name the driver, failure to do so is an offence RTRA 1984 -112, RTA 1988 S 172 unless you can prove to the satisfaction of a COURT (note this word which is in the Act) that you did not know, or could not without due diligence have ascertained who was the driver.
The other form is I believe the "Conditional Offer" which if you accept that you were the driver that you are accepting the FP procedure and you return this with your Driving Licence and £60 to the designated Mags Clerks Office.
The jobs done. This procedure not only helps the functioning of the Court by taking run of the mill cases out of its system but also helps a Guilty Joe Public who does not want the hassle of having to attend Court and waiting alongside a load of scroats. Yes, to some extent I agreed when the system was first brought in that its a bit like holding a gun to ones head but at the end of the day you can still have your day in Court should you wish.
OK, so you decide to query the system/offence. The Conditional Offer is only valid for 28 days and if you do not take it up the system reverts to the old way and an information is laid for either failing to name or the speeding offence itself
and a Court hearing arranged of which you are notified by issue of a Summons.
Now you may be lucky and an overstretched Fixed Penalty Admin Office forget
to process the Conditional Offer back to the Court system and no information is laid in 6 months, after which time limitations on proceedings kick in and your Licence and wallet remain virginal.
I would gather that there is no obligation to enter into disclosure of evidence under the FP system as I cannot find any authority for doing so.
Now penalty for speeding is Level 3 fine on the standing scale - £1000 - disqualification discretionary, endorsement obligatory and points 3 - 6 or 3. I have thought from reading some Court reports that the Magistrates hump a bit extra for involving them which of course would be incorrect under Human Rights etc would it not. The extra probably being applied as they may be operating a sliding scale per mph in excess. Up here over 90 and disqualification seems to kick in.
Like anything else, eg not paying Council Tax etc, the various systems can be made to overheat but at the end of the day you will never completely beat the system.
DVD
|
|
|
Thanks Dwight. I believe someone on this site queried a FP notice and was let off.
Are you saying this is not possible?
I've always assumed if you enter into a debate asking for help in identifyin gthe driver they may lose interest - you seem to be saying there will be no debate - just an automatic court case after 28 days.
Is this right?
|
|
|
This is my practical experience of putting the police to proof:
FPN comes through. Driver does not believe that he was speeding by such a wide margin, and asks me to demand the calibration certificate for the equipment that caught him.
Police reply that they can give this evidence, but if demanded the conditional offer of £60 and 3 points will be withdrawn. The evidence will only be shown in the run up to a court hearing; 7 days before if IRRC. The conditional offer was extended by 28 days.
A very cheap, effective solution.
|
|
|
|
So there really is no way out.
|
There may be a way out which is going through the Courts right now.
Check www.righttosilence.org.uk on the Association of British Drivers site
www.abd.org.uk/
|
|
|
|
The information given in that post is quite sensible if my own experience is anything to go by.
Last summer I accepted the offer of an new Omega Elite for an extended test drive and took SWMBO down to Devon for a long weekend. A few weeks after the car had been handed back I received a notice from Wiltshire Constabulary (via Vauxhall and my Co.) saying that I had been photographed by Gatso exceeding the speed limit on the A303.
I wrote back to them saying that:
"Yes, I was using that vehicle over that weekend. Unfortunately, I am unable to identify who was driving at that particular moment in time since it could have been either myself or my wife. If they would like to check with Vauxhall, the vehicle was on an extended test drive. I had specifically requested that my wife be included on the paperwork and we had been swapping drivers regularly".
They wrote back to me enclosing their photographic evidence which consisted of two nice photographs of the rear of the car and a statement that, "since the driver appears to be taller than the passenger" it must have been me and not my wife that was driving.
I replied saying that with the poor quality of the photographs and front and rear headrests in the way it was still impossible to tell who was driving, especially since my wife and I are virtually identical in height when seated.
A few days later I received a response saying that they were not pusuing the matter on this occassion but would do so if it happened again.
I think their decision was based on:
1) TWO drivers had accepted that it COULD have been them.
2) It was totally impossible to tell from the photos who WAS driving the car.
3) The cost in time and money of taking the matter to court and trying to prove who was driving was higher than any return they were likely to see.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
So Kevin, they *will* enter into corespondance about it...
|
|
|
Should have read:
So Kevin, they *will* enter into corespondance about it?
|
Well, they did in this instance but I doubt that there's any legal requirement for them to do so. I suppose that all they need to do is note that as the registered keeper, you are technically refusing to identify the driver and send you a summons to appear in court.
I would guess that they are then required to provide you with copies of the evidence (photos etc.), but that may be only once a summons has been issued.
Are there any legally qualified folks on here who know what the regulations and procedures are in a situation like this ?
Kevin
|
|
|
|
Thanks a lot for that TRB
Dan J
|
|
|
Dwight Yorke's solicitor seems to be pretty well clued up, vide Daily Mail 5 Feb 02 Page 31, but perhaps too busy to "bring us up to speed" .....
Ronnie
|
|
|
