Get speeding charges dropped

[pedro_uk]

Ive just read this on another forum and thort it might be of interest to you all

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A simple letter using legal wording has opened up a new route to get speeding charges dropped, according to experts. The statement is at the centre of a high court appeal to be heard this summer. but for now police forces accross the country are dropping cases when it has been used. People accused of speeding have been simply been sending in the statement in response to NOTICES OF PROSECUTION (NIPS).

Speed cameras rely on a law requiring you to say who was driving your car at the time of the alledged offence. Not saying who it was will lead to a charge of withholding information under section 172 of the road traffic act, While admitting to being the driver will lead to a fixed penalty for speeding.
But another law says that before suspects are questioned about an offence they should receive a formal caution - and no caution is given when a speeding notice is delivered through the post.

The standard statement below, is designed to accompany an admission to being the driver. It points out that, since no caution has been given, the admission cannot be used as evidence in court.

Specialist road traffic lawyer Robert Dobson whos clients case is to be heard by the high court says " In English law there's a requirement that if a statement is going to be used against somebody, that person has to be cautioned under section 78 of the police and criminal evidence act. If a caution hasn't been given, then the argument runs that anything that's said cannot be used as evidence in court. We've complied with section 172 of the road traffic act by identifying the driver. But what we are saying is that we're not going to allow that information to be then used against us. Any charge under section 172 must fail as we have complied. And if any charge is brought for speeding we'll say how do you know who was driving?"

The loophole letter called the PACE Witness Statement is a catch 22 for police and camera partnerships according to Dobson.

Even though someone has admitted to being the driver, that admission can't be used against him as he didn't recieve a caution. If an officer then visits him to issue a caution then only statements after said caution can be used and the caution gives the right to silence.

Forces have dropped cases all over the country. very few people who have used this letter have been convicted. The met and many more forces have not issued summons to anybody who has sent the statement back.

Remember different forces reach different decisions and there is no guarrantee that a case will be dropped.

THE PACE WITNESS STATEMENT

If your car is snapped speeding you will be sent a notice of intended prosecution asking who was driving. If it was you and you want to respond with a PACE statement fill out the form by writing "Please see the attached" where it asks for details. Then attach a letter with the standard wording shown below.

[INSERT THEIR REFERENCE NUMBER HERE]

[INSERT YOUR REGISTRATION NUMBER HERE]

DEAR CHIEF CONSTABLE.

Further to the above Notice of Intended Prosecution, I confirm That the following individual was driving the above vehicle at the time of the alledged motoring offence.

[INSERT ALL THE DETAILS ASKED FOR ON THE NIP HERE, INCLUDING NAME ADDRESS, DATE OF BIRTH AND DRIVER NUMBER]

As this statement is provided under the threat of criminal penalty (funke v France) and as I have not received the caution required by paragraph 10.1 of PACE Code C (Mawdesley v the Chief Constable of Cheshire (2004) 1 All E.R.58 ), I make this statement on the express understanding that it shall not be used or disclosed in any proceedings of whatever nature against myself.

Yours Sincerely

[INSERT YOUR SIGNATURE HERE]

[INSERT YOUR NAME IN PRINT HERE]


looks and sounds complicated but basically they can't use your details in court because noone said "you have the right to remain silent" and all that to you before they sent the letter out to you.

this was in motorcycle news and can be found at PePiPoo: Helping the motorist to get justice which is an anti speed camera campaigners website which is funding the high court appeal.

It might work it might not, but if it saves you £60 and 3 points why not try it

[Stillborn Crisps]

I'm preparing to do this myself and have been reading up on that forum.

It's not quite a 'nothing to lose' situation though, because if you go to court and don't get off, they fine you more (£100 or so) as I understand it, and are capable of issuing more penalty points, though I've heard that's quite rare for 'minor' speeding offences.

[jannercobbler]

I have used this exact route and I can inform you I was still found guilty at a Magistrates court and the subsequent appeal to the Crown court, so it is not as cut and dried as stated.

There is a case currently going through Europe on this, and are awaiting the outcome although several are confident that the ruling will be in the motorists favour and thus mean that the UK will have to fall into line with the rest of Europe.

It will also mean that the Courts would have to return my fines that I have paid and wipe my Licence clean.

I suggest reading the other forum fully and subscribing for the latest updates.


Paul

[Stillborn Crisps]

Yes, I'm still unsure as to whether to do it or not, as I know it's not like with the bank charges where there's almost a 100% success rate.

Was it daunting going to the court? Do you think you could have won if you'd have argued it differently? What sort of thing did you have to say?

I think I understand the process and principle on a basic level, but when it comes down to actually arguing it, I'm not sure if I could. :-/

[moltonbrownqueen]

If you want my honest opinion, to avoid speeding fines and points on your license, DON'T BREAK THE SPEED LIMIT!!!!

This is not a point such as, 'these fines are unjust and unlawful' you have, quite simply, broken the law of the land.

There would be major uproar if burgulars, muggers, rapists, murderers etc could avoid the judicial system simply by finding a loophole and abusing it.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not totally pro-gatso, but the initial point of speed cameras is to keep vehicle speed down.

If you won't pay the fine, don't do the crime!!

This post will not make me the most popular person on site, but, whateva!

[jannercobbler]

Going to the magistrates court was quite daunting, and then the subsequent appeal to the Crown court was even worse, I took a friend with me and we spent weeks researching the case law before hand.

You have to remember that you are up against the CPS that asttend court on a daily basis.

Would I have won if I did things differently???

Not sure, my friend and I had the correct approach and the correct arguement, It wasn't just on the Speeding issue, but on another point of law that wasn't followed correctly. The Judge refused to accept our arguement even though the information came direct from the CPS website. Go figure?

I am now waiting for the European courts ruling and then see where I go from there.


moltonbrownqueen

I also agree with you on the speeding issue and feel that if your not prepared to pay then don't do it.

My point wasn't that there was a loophole, it was that the correct procedures were not followed, I also think that if you speak to anyone on the other forum they will say the same.

We are happy to be punished if we commit a crime BUT only if the correct procedures are followed.