Motoring red light offence

[DaveLK]

I'm new to this folks so please bear with me! In September I was stopped by the Police for going through a red light. I thought they had maybe dropped the case as I hadnt heard back from them for ages but alas this week I got a court summons letter. I want to plead not guilty as I believe the Police have a very shaky case but am just after some advice before I do this.

 

Essentially I was turning right from at a busy box junction. I did this from the left hand lane (I know this was wrong but its such as busy junction that people do it all the time and it seems to be accepted as its such a busy junction and helps to keep the traffic flowing better). As I passed the lights they were on amber so I went through and turned right. However, one of the cars sat in the middle of the junction (in the right hand lane) also waiting to turn right was an unmarked police car. From their position they could not see the traffic lights as I crossed the line because they were ahead of me. So I dont know how they can say with any confidence that I went through a red light. The statement says I caused danger because the lights had turned and the traffic was starting to move in the opposite direction. Funny thing is I actually cleared the junction before the Police car as I was moving through whereas they had been at a standstill waiting to turn right!

 

So I have 2 main questions:

Should I attend court and ask for the Policeman to attend as well so that he can be questioned as I dont agree with his statement?

Would the fact that, strictly speaking, I did something wrong by turning right from a left hand lane potentially count against me? I.e. would they see it as an indication that I am a 'law breaker' even though I can produce photos to show people doing it at every set of lights? Ocould I get done for that even though I've not been charged of that?

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated as I need to reply very soon and am pretty stressed about this.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

[patdavies]

You state that as you passed the light it was on amber.

 

The offence is complete - amber means stop unless unsafe to do so. You will need to prove that it would have been unsafe in order to win the case.

[DaveLK]

Pat,

ok many thanks for your rapid response. It was one of those situations where it went to amber just before I reached the line so it was too late to stop in time. How would I prove it was unsafe to stop? And if I were able to do that what do you think of my case?

 

Dave

[crem]

You will need to prove that it would have been unsafe in order to win the case.

 

Why (and how) would he need to "prove" it was unsafe to stop? Whether it was unsafe or not, to a certain extent, is a matter of opinion. IMO the OP's opinion as an experienced driver that he felt it would be unsafe to stop using the amber should be accepted unless there is evidence to the contrary that his assessment of this situation was totally wrong.

[DaveLK]

Crem, many thanks for your response.

 

Setting aside this issue of proving that it was unsafe to stop, what do people think of my case (which is basically that the Policemen cant possibly know that I committed the offence as they were 15 to 20m ahead of the stop line as I crossed it)?

 

Dave

[crem]

what do people think of my case (which is basically that the Policemen cant possibly know that I committed the offence as they were 15 to 20m ahead of the stop line as I crossed it)?

 

I don't know about this particular junction, but many traffic light systems have a secondary light at the diaganal corner from the "main" light that you would have stopped at near the white line. It is perfectly possible for the the policeman to have noticed the light in front of him turning amber and also noticed you crossing the white line in his mirror. It doesn't resolve the "opinion" element of whether it was safe to stop, however, if the policeman claims you crossed the line "substantially" after it went amber, I think you will find a policeman's opinion is "persuasive"

[DaveLK]

Crem thats a good point you make but I've been back to the junction and there are no other lights apart from those located close to the stop line so theres no way the Policeman could see the red light in question. His only case would be that based on the time it took me to pass him I must have gone through on red

[crem]

All traffic light systems have at least 2 paired lights, this improves visablity for the lead vehicle when stopped at the red light and also covers for the possiblility of a light bulb being broken. Where is the secondary one on this system if not on the opposite corner?

[DaveLK]

All traffic light systems have at least 2 paired lights, this improves visablity for the lead vehicle when stopped? at the red light and also covers for the possiblility of a light bulb being broken. Where is the secondary one on this system if not on the opposite corner?

 

Yes there are 3....1 either side of the stop line and another no more than 5 metres past the stop line. The police car had past all of these when I crossed the stop line and there are no others on opposite corner of junction

[ptol]

I suspect that the word of one police officer that he could see you cross the line after other cars had stopped would be enough to convict you. You may be able to argue visibility issues, as the police were probably not looking at you at the point when you crossed the line.

[Al27]

Visibility might be an issue if you hadn't gone through on amber. At the moment your defence seems to be that you went through but the witness had no way of knowing for sure because of visibility.

 

Unless you're going to lie and state you didn't pass the line on amber, I don't see what you can do.

[mightymouse_69]

 

Unless you're going to lie and state you didn't pass the line on amber, I don't see what you can do.

 

The OP can "put the prosecution to proof" - something which occurs when the defendant admits to their representative that they are guilty, but they do not wish to plead so. The result is a case whereby no defence as such is put forward, rather the defendant will merely challenge prosecution evidence in the hope that the crown cannot prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

 

However in a case like this, it is a slightly different ball game and is therefore a risky strategy.