NIP for crossing train level crossing **FPN of £50 and no points**

[UKDomains]

Aretnap, your link says file not found?

[Aretnap]

Odd. Trying again

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/3263.html

 

Seems to be case sensitive. Try replacing the small a in admin with a capital one

[UKDomains]

Thanks Aretnap, the capital A worked.

 

You ask if the signs were adequate: I suppose so, seeing that each one were meant for large/slow moving vehicles. Except I was in a car.

[Aretnap]

I believe a road is classed as private if it is unadopted ie not maintained at public expense.

It's defined by the Act as a road to which the public do not have access ie anywhere the equivalent RTA offence doesn't apply,

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/42/section/56

[Billy's mate]

I have nothing to contribute to the thread as it's all covered, but I'm following it avidly. Good luck with your case and your citizenship, you seem like the type of person we need in this country, one who in turn will help others in trouble.

[Horsen]

Can I suggest that people have a look at this crossing and the roads leading to it on google earth or any of the other programmes that let you have a drivers eye view. i know the image data was collected a couple of years back but it might enable the people on here to offer the help that might be required.

From my interpretation of the road signs on both the B road and the A roads that this crossing links to, then it is classed as a private/user crossing, so the RTA may not be applicable and that is the reason it falls under the other act.

The signage on the B road is a No through road. There is no signage on the A road which makes believe it is a private road from that side.

Also on Google earth the phone can be clearly seen under the sign. You might even be able to claim ambiguity as one site claims it is a public highway but the authorities are claiming it isn't.

But as Aretnap points out it is a strict liability offence so all of this wouldn't matter.

[BazzaS]

Can I suggest that people have a look at this crossing and the roads leading to it on google earth or any of the other programmes that let you have a drivers eye view. i know the image data was collected a couple of years back but it might enable the people on here to offer the help that might be required.

From my interpretation of the road signs on both the B road and the A roads that this crossing links to, then it is classed as a private/user crossing, so the RTA may not be applicable and that is the reason it falls under the other act.

The signage on the B road is a No through road. There is no signage on the A road which makes believe it is a private road from that side.

Also on Google earth the phone can be clearly seen under the sign. You might even be able to claim ambiguity as one site claims it is a public highway but the authorities are claiming it isn't.

But as Aretnap points out it is a strict liability offence so all of this wouldn't matter.

 

"Strict liability" refers to intent / the "Guilty mind" (mens rea) not being required to prove a charge - the issue of if the person intended to commit the offence not bring required to be found guilty, only the guilty act (actus reus)

 

Speeding is a strict liability offence. : you can't say as a defence "I knew it was a 30 mph limit, and I was going 37, but didn't mean to do 37". The fact that the person was doing 37 in a 30 is enough on its own, BUT .....

 

You can say as a defence "it wasn't a road that was obviously restricted from the pattern of streetlights, and the signs where it went from 40 to 30 were obscured / vandalised / non-existent". (Else, how would the "ordinary driver" know they were required to slow down?)

 

One of the concepts of "rule of law " is that it should not be arbitrary : the citizen should be able to know what is expected of them . ( "Ignorance is no defence" still applies if the reasonable person would / should have known of the law ).

However, if "the man in the street" could not have known they were likely to commit an offence due to inadequate signage, it would be against the public interest to prosecute, and a defence could be lodged, even for a "strict liability " offence

[UKDomains]

Just updating this thread as something has happened:

 

I've been summonsed to appear at magistrates on the 28th of July.

 

Alleged offence: Failed to comply with road traffic sign

Contrary to: Byelaw 14(1) and Byelaw 24 made under section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 by the strategic rail authority and confirmed under schedule 20 by the Secretary of State for transport on 22 June 2005.

 

I know it's lawyer time now... But HELP!

 

I don't think I have money for a lawyer

Any place I can get representation that wont make me bankrupt?

[Bazooka Boo]

You can always defend yourself, no need to waste money on a solicitor...

 

Or you could always use the duty brief on the day, if they still have them there??

 

IMO, this is quite a long thread, and you can easily defend yourself with the info given over the five pages, there is plenty of valid arguments.

[UKDomains]

Bazooka thanks I was thinking that, but didn't want to create any Criticism.

 

I will get my thoughts together and summarise everything shortly

[UKDomains]

Who do I speak to to find out status of that road? Local authority?

[Bazooka Boo]

Who do I speak to to find out status of that road? Local authority?

 

Yes I think so??

I have this link for any query on the subject... [email protected]

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-road-classification-and-the-primary-route-network

[Aretnap]

Note that several different offences have been mentioned on this thread, and some of the advice is only relevant to specific offences. If in the end you've been charged under railway byelaw 14(1)

 

(1)

No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall use it on any part of the railway in contravention of any traffic sign

 

 

then I don't think the status of the road (ie public or private) has any relevance.

[UKDomains]

What keeps on getting to me is that each time I get something from them, the charge changes.

[Bazooka Boo]

Can you list the different charges?

[UKDomains]

Hi All,

Sorry have not updated this thread in ages, been so busy with work and have been away for some periods of time as well.

 

I have to attend court tomorrow. I'm just going to take everything said in this thread and push on the fact that the signs are confusing and go against what British Transport Police actually expect each and every driver to do.

[UKDomains]

I have also requested the Train driver be present to be questioned. He stated various things in his written statement which I know to be untrue, embellished and also the fact that he gave his statement more than a month later I would argue his statement might be over-embelished.

[UKDomains]

well I'm off to court in half an hour. Discovered when looking at the "evidence" photos sent to me by CPS, they're wrong. Taken from the wrong direction. Dont know if this has any relevance.

 

Going to be arguing the ambiguity of the signs involved, as well as mens rea.

[honeybee13]

Good luck, UKD. Please come back and tell us how it went.

 

HB

[UKDomains]

Argh. Arrived at court at 10 as requested to be told to come back for afternoon court.

[Conniff]

Hang in there and go for a coffee.

[UKDomains]

Hah, I'm so nervous would love something stronger. But as I'm driving that won't help my case at all. Lol.

[ploddertom]

There's a good few of us got fingers & other things crossed for you.

[Billy's mate]

Any news ??

[UKDomains]

Hey all, case adjourned until 24th March! Will update tonight when on laptop, just got home.