leniency...

[lincsloon]

Hi all,

 

My girlfriend was issued with notice of intended prosecution, which arrived this morning, for doing 35mph in a 30 zone on 27/7/2013.

Even though it was last week she cannot recall if she was speeding, so can't really contest it.

 

She was travelling through Lincoln to see her daughter who had had a major operation the day before and had her pregnancy teerminated.

 

Clearly my girlfriend would have been in a stressful and anxious frame of mind, albeit she is usually a careful driver with no other speeding offences in 32 years of driving.

 

The other issue is that because of this poxy Government's cutbacks our local hospital in our town is useless,

so for things that are more than minor we have to travel 30 miles to Lincoln. And my girlfriend is unfamiliar with the town and it's road systems.

 

My question is will these people listen to a genuine reason/excuse and exercise some leniency,

[filrobbo]

No

[filrobbo]

But you can go to court and have your say

[dx100uk]

actually you might well have an impact if this story was verified with proof to the court

and with such a clean record.

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Was this a fixed camera/ mobile police camera/ handheld device?

[Aretnap]

Unlikely IMO. If she'd been rushing the daughter to the hospital she might have a complete defence of necessity. If she'd been told that the daughter was getting worse and she'd better get to the hospital to see her fast that woud't be a defence in law, but it would certainly have been strong mitigation. However visiting her the day after an operation, doubtless distressing, but what difference did it actually make whether she got there a minute or two later? That sort of mitigation can just as easily work in reverse... if she took it to court the magistrates might wonder whether she should have been driving at all if she was that upset and distracted.

 

Being unfamiliar with the local roads is never accepted as a good excuse - speed limit signs are the same everywhere.

 

Camera partnerships tend nt to apply much discretion so I'd be somewhat surprised, though not shocked, if they cancelled the NIP themselves because of these circumstances. If they don't then 35 in a 30 she'll be offered a speed awareness course instead of points, allowing her to keep her clean licence. Pleading her case in front of,the magistrates would mean rejecting the course and the offer would not reappear later - unless the mags found special,reasons not to endorse (which I think is unlikely) they would be obliged to endorse her licence with a minimum of 3 points. IMO her best option would be to take the course. Sorry. I hope her daughter is doing OK.

[filrobbo]

We're as the innocent utill proven guilty in a court of law gone.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Anyone is at liberty to challenge any action brought against them for any reason, the charge is for an offence that has been seen to occur but challenge is still an option.

[Aretnap]

We're as the innocent utill proven guilty in a court of law gone.

Don't see what this has to do with anything. If she wants to dispute that she was speeding the prosecution will have to prove in court that she was. But it sounds like she doesn't really dispute it, and the reasons she was speeding are irrelevant to whether she's guilty, expect in a few very special cases such as duress (which means an immediate threat of serious physical harm, not an just unpleasant or distressing situation).

[filrobbo]

I wouldn't pay until they proved it was me driving 100% proff in court.

[crem]

I wouldn't pay until they proved it was me driving 100% proff in court.

 

they don't need 100% proof if it gets to court. They will simply present the evidence that they sent an s172 to the RK which requires the RK to state who was driving at the time. If you have ignored an s172 then you are guilty of a much bigger offence than the original speeding incident. If you have answered the s172 correctly, then you have confirmed 100% who was driving before it gets to court.

[dx100uk]

sri we cant allow those posts

dx

[Consumer dude]

There is no leniency In law, only evidence, however then there is the truth..

[filrobbo]

Ok dx

[citizenkain]

lol,theres a laugh!

[lincsloon]

Was this a fixed camera/ mobile police camera/ handheld device?

 

Fixed camera we think, it's at a place called Cross O'Cliff Hill in Lincoln, if it's the one we think it is a steep hill, and she'd have been travelling downhill at the time they've got it recorded.

[lincsloon]

Don't see what this has to do with anything. If she wants to dispute that she was speeding the prosecution will have to prove in court that she was. But it sounds like she doesn't really dispute it, and the reasons she was speeding are irrelevant to whether she's guilty, expect in a few very special cases such as duress (which means an immediate threat of serious physical harm, not an just unpleasant or distressing situation).

 

This is the thing,

 

how can you dispute something, when you're not sure whether you're guilty of this 'offence' or not,

she cannot recall whether she was at 35mph or not,

like most people she wouldn't be constantly looking at the speedo.

 

To me it's a [problem],

 

if you dispute it in court you lose the right to the speed awareness course,

which seems like punishment for DARING to dispute the offence.

 

To someone who's unsure surely it should be classed as clarificatiion rather than disputing,

and the right of the course shouldn't be forfeited afterwards,

makes my blood boil.

[dx100uk]

no don't dispute it.

 

regardless of if she was or not 'knowingly' speeding - it happens.

 

yes you should be aware of your speed at all times.

 

the fact here is that its not the worlds worst offence.

 

she had other things on her mind

 

respectfully, make sure the judge is aware of the circumstances.

 

dx