I believe all the elements of causing criminal damage are present in this incident. I would also consider reporting the matter to the police. Another option is to report the damage as a claim to your insurance company who may well pursue the third party on your behalf.

Guys - with all due respect, why enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed man. It's obvious he has nothing of substance to contribute & is merely a sh*t stirrer.

Ok guys - hope this works. Photo shows westbound carriageway of A27 approaching the junction at Sussex Pad. According to the police evidence, (OP's post #55), their car would have been positioned in the extreme right-hand lane at the lights.

n44bbo I'm sorry to say that on the basis of the latest information you have provided, your defence case appears to be considerably weakened. The police car was stationary, positioned ahead of you on the same westbound carriageway in the extreme right hand filter lane at the lights as you approached. It is apparent you failed to notice the presence of the police car as you approached and passed it at the lights. (I have a photograph of the junction which may help illustrate my point & would appreciate some advice on how to include it in a reply post). In consideration of all the circumstances, my ultimate advice & opinion (and that's all it is - you don't have to accept it) is that you seek the services of a solicitor specialising in road traffic matters to advise and represent you in this matter. The red-light camera remains an outstanding 'issue' & one worth exploring as it may turn out to hold the key to your only possible hope of an acquittal.

To the OP - n44bbo If you still need any further help with your problem, it would be useful to know exactly where you and/or the police say they were postioned when they allegedly saw you drive through the red light. You make mention in previous posts of 'the police car parked nearby' & of them being 'stationary on a slip road'. By 'slip road' do you mean the road to Lancing College, the one to the airport or somwhere else? Also, did you actually see them as you approched/passed the lights?

Agree with you Tony P, we are beginning to ski a bit off piste. I will be contributing further to the original debate presently. Over the past few days I was visiting relatives who have moved to the south coast and my journey took me via the location of the OP's problem. I stopped for some minutes to 'examine the scene' as they say and consider that the OP may be quite justified in his feelings of getting a raw deal at the hands of the police.

Chesterexpress-to fail to read my original post properly the first time around I can excuse as carelessness. However, to do so yet again following my earlier response to you, is just sheer bloody ignorance & negligence which I will not make allowances for. If you don't quite understand something Ive posted, just ask instead of engaging in insulting one-liner jibe responses which do you no justice whatsoever as well as in this case betraying your obvious lack of knowledge of the differing types & rules of evidence applicable to the offence of exceeding a speed limit. Take a look at sections 89(1) & particularly 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. If you wish to come back to me & continue with constructive debate on this subject, that's fine by me - if not cease & desist as big willy contests aren't my thing.

Chesterexpress - it may surprise you to learn that I agree with your second sentence the principle of which is already refelected in my earlier post and merely reinforces the very point I was making. So, do pray clarify - where exactly is it I have I stated to the effect that a driver cannot be convicted for an offence of speeding on the evidence of a single police officer? As for your opening remark, - you really couldn't be any further from the truth if you tried. PS - having been away for the past few days & time being somewhat short, I will post in more detail later.

Sorry JonCris - you're way off beam, your statement is plain wrong & completely misleading for the OP as well as others who may read it. No court in the land would accept the uncorroborated 'opinion' of a single officer to convict a driver in a speeding case. I also very much doubt that they would do so solely on the opinions of two officers without other corroborative evidence. More to the point, the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) would never seek to bring such a case before the Courts in the first place. Opinion evidence of 'excessive speed' may well be accepted in support of other charges such as dangerous/reckless/careless driving. Cameras are a different issue - they have to be approved devices, subject to requisite calibration & accuracy checks & of course don't always need a police presence to function.

a) Police officers I believe are still required to make entries in a 'Pocket Book' of events/offences they deal with. These notes should be a contemporaneous record, made 'at the time' or as soon as practicable thereafter. Have you received copies of the pocket book entries made by both the officers? I suspect not in which case request that these be disclosed to you. Compare then the accuracy & detail between the entries and that given in the statements. If there are any significant discrepancies/additions/omissions between the two, it could be reasonably argued that 5 months after the event, the accurate recollection of the incident by the officers will have faded. As a generality, it's not that unusual for witness statements to be made some considerable time after an incident depending on circumstances, although I'm surprised it should be so in this case. b) On the face of it a good point and one that could assist you - however bear in mind that some cameras are dummies or may be non-operational for other reasons. I suggest you make enquiries to ascertain the status of this camera at the time & date in question. Bear in mind the authorities may be reluctant to disclose that a particular camera is a dummy for obvious reasons. c) I would advise that you tread very carefully on this one - the officers are corroborating each others evidence and a court would not take kindly to your suggesting they are 'being uneconomical with the truth' without compelling evidence to the contrary. By all means dispute the evidence of the officers to try and convince the court that they are mistaken and that you went thro' the lights on amber & not red. d) This has to be totally your call - sticking by your principles often carry a price so be prepared to lose - it may well boil down to your word against theirs. If you do lose the case, bear in mind also that you will no doubt have to pay prosecution costs as well as incurring a fine & penalty points. Good Luck!

Unless I'm very much mistaken and the law has changed on this subject in recent years, the defence to this type of offence is to state 'that the defect ocurred during the course of the journey'. You do not have to prove that the lights worked at the time of the offence - how can you possibly do that when the very issue of the FPN indicates that the lights were obviously not working at the time of the 'pull'. It is obviously difficult for anyone to prove thay they checked the lights before the commencement of a journey but conversely & more importantly, neither could the police prove that you did not. If you did check the lights before the journey , I believe that it's not too late to avail yourself of the above defence - after all what have you got to lose. Get the lights fixed asap and present yourself with vehicle for examination at the local nick with a request that the FPN be withdrawn. Alternatively, visit an MOT station with the defects on the vehicle rectified and request written confirmation of same which you could then present to the police.(The MOT Station would charge a fee for this). The police used to issue 'Vehicle Rectification Forms' for this type of offence as an alernative to FPN's or prosecution. I must add that I'm not certain if that is still the case today.

That's Asda Price - Every Little Helps:rolleyes:

It is not an offence per se to park wholly/partly on a pavement/footpath. There has to be additional evidence of actual obstruction caused - note actual, not potential. I am personally aware of a driver who used to park his car wholly (ie all 4 wheels) on a pavement at the side of a main road outside his house during the night. He received several warnings before the police finally issued a FPN for obstruction. The FPN was successfully appealed on the grounds that the police did not submit any evidence of actual obstruction caused. It is of course an offence to drive on a pavement/footpath, but whether parking with two wheels on a pavement completes this offence is another arguement.

Hi All, I know this is probably very basic stuff, but can you craighten (or anyone) please advise me how to post images of letters/documents etc directly into a reply box as you have done earlier in this thread. I dont want to upload first to another site. Many Thanks

Wow!! - I've certainly learned something new today - the police can issue an FPN which if remains unpaid/unchallenged, by-passes the conventional criminal courts system & is passed straight to the likes of DRAKE for enforcement. (I have first-hand knowledge of their 'methods' which have also previously been reported in the media - a law unto themselves). Meanwhile.........my car whilst parked-up, gets 'written-off' back in July following a non-stop RTA which I and even two PCSO'S witnessed - I managed to get the VRM & reported the matter to the police immediately. The police have known from the outset who the owner/driver is & where he lives yet he still remains to be interviewed & dealt with, among other things. for no insurance whilst continuing to drive around with impunity. Please note, I only make mention of this in order to vent my anger and frustration at the injustice of the 'system' and have no intention of hi-jacking the thread with this completely seperate issue. Wishing you all a Merry Christmas & a Happier New Year.