speeding on the A127 Rayleigh essex

[guffedoffdriver]

I received a notice of intension to prosecute for doing 58mph in a 50 mph zone , this obliged me to name the driver of the vehicle , fair enough as it is a criminal offence to not supply  the information ,

 

I admitted being the driver , under the impression that I was being accused of crime ( i.e. speeding) 

 

next  i received a letter offering me 3 "choices"  

1, driving safety course £100 ,

2, conditional fixed penalty £100,  or 

3, be dealt with at a magistrates court ,

 

with the inference,  being that should i have the temerity to wish to actually request to see the " evidence of my crime"  then i will suffer harsher punshment ,

 

surely this is a violation of presumption of innocence , 

i am being co-ersed into a "lesser punishment"  under duress , 

 

help please 

[BankFodder]

As a matter of curiosity, besides being the driver, did you do the deed?

[Man in the middle]

11 hours ago, guffedoffdriver said:

surely this is a violation of presumption of innocence , 

i am being co-ersed into a "lesser punishment"  under duress , 

 

No you're not.

 

The right you have is to see the matter dealt with by  a court. That remains and if you choose that route you will be provided with all the evidence the police intend to rely on to convict you before you enter a plea.

 

However, if you want to accept the offence as it stands the police are prepared to offer two different out-of-court disposals which you cannot demand as of right.

 

If you choose one of them you will not incur a criminal conviction and it does not impinge on the presumption of your innocence

 

. The out of court disposals will cost you considerably less than if you are convicted in court.

 

It costs the police far less to process your alleged offence that way and, of course, no court costs are involved so the savings are shared.

 

That is why you are made the offers. It's similar to being offered a caution. You have no right to one but the police will offer it, if they think fit, for both their benefit and yours.

 

You can take up one of their offers or decline them and see the matter dealt with in court.

[guffedoffdriver]

Perhaps I should elaborate on my original post ,

 

My objection to being arbitrarily punished without any provided evidence should be obvious,

 

I have been told that it is the states  intension to  prosecute me once they have found out who I am , if I do not tell  them who I am I have committed a further offence. Punishable by law ,  so far,  so kafta.

 

Once I have told them who I am , they then tell me I have 3 options, Two of them will cost me £100 , One of these Two  options will incur me £100 and 3 points on my driving licence, option no 3 is the ONLY option that I will be able to actually see the evidence that the state claims it has against me , but by opting to see this evidence it is in no uncertain terms indicated that I will incur a harsher penalty if not found innocent ,

 

It is this built in unfairness that I object to , I seem to recollect that at some point during my drive home having been to visit my   diagnosed terminally ill sister ( an irrelevant point ) driving in Sunday evening  traffic,  there was an ambulance with lights and sirens on , like any law abiding motorist I got out off its way , if to do so in a timely fashion I would have to accelerate so that I could enter the inside lane so as not to impede the emergency vehicle in its progress ,

 

If that was the reason for my alleged excessive speed then I would have a legitimate excuse.

 

I am not saying that it is definitely why I was allegedly doing 58 mph in a 50mph zone , but it could well have been , my point is if I am being fined £100 at the very least , and the Safety driving course is a fine by proxy , with no evidence offered then it amounts to a Stasi state extracting money by menaces, and I would be suspicious of the motives of  anyone defending such behaviour.   

[Robert63]

When I received a similar letter I was able to go online and was able to view pictures of the event. I took the speed awareness course, no points on my licence. 

[Man in the middle]

2 hours ago, guffedoffdriver said:

If that was the reason for my alleged excessive speed then I would have a legitimate excuse.

 

No you wouldn't. But if you think you have then  you have the option of having the matter heard in court. If you plead Not Guilty but are convicted (as you will be if you defend the matter on the basis you describe) you will face a fine of half a week's net income, a surcharge of 10% of the fine and prosecution costs of £620. So a bit more than £100.

 

Robert63 is quite right. Before you responded naming yourself as driver you could have asked for "photographs to help identify the driver". You are not entitled to evidence at that stage but most forces will provide photos for that purpose. That said, they rarely help with that task (especially those taken from the rear) as their purpose is to identify the vehicle not the driver. But they may give you some idea of the circumstances of the allegation. However, once you've named the driver you no longer have that option.

 

2 hours ago, guffedoffdriver said:

my point is if I am being fined £100 at the very least , and the Safety driving course is a fine by proxy , with no evidence offered then it amounts to a Stasi state extracting money by menaces,

 

I've explained to you as best I can why that is not so. You obviously have a different view to most people. As far as I'm aware Stasi states do not give their suspects the opportunity of a fair trial if they believe they are not guilty nor do they provide the opportunity to avoid criminal convictions by having matters dealt with out of court.

 

2 hours ago, guffedoffdriver said:

and I would be suspicious of the motives of  anyone defending such behaviour.   

 

Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm defending nothing. I'm simply explaining the situation as it is not necessarily as you'd like it to be. I did that to try to assist you (which I thought was the point of your post). I didn't do it to start a baseless and unjustified argument resulting in my motives falling under suspicion. If you are suspicious of my motives feel free to make your argument on another forum. I suggest www.pepipoo.com. There are lots of knowledgeable people who respond on there of whom you can be equally suspicious when they provide similar explanations.

[Gick]

The OP is beginning to sound like a Freeman on the Land!!!

[Man in the middle]

19 minutes ago, Gick said:

The OP is beginning to sound like a Freeman on the Land!!!

 

I was wondering that very thing yesterday when I read the latest post, especially when the "Stasi State" reared its head! I don't quite understand how the offer of avoiding a prosecution and settling the matter at a considerably reduced cost by accepting the allegation as its stands amounts to oppressive behaviour. After all, the choice to have the matter heard in open court where he can, if he chooses, put the prosecution to proof, always remains.

[BazzaS]

Have you tried pointing out "I wasn't driving, only travelling". <Tongue-in-cheek, in case you wondered>

 

Thing is, the OP wants their right to exceed the speed limit remain unchallenged / unfettered, but no doubt would be livid if involved in an accident caused / exacerbated by someone else's excess speed.

 

OP, exercise your right to a fair trial. Use your presumption of innocence (innocent until proven guilty).

 

Then, when you are found guilty and hammered with the penalties, you can decide (using your new found experience) if being offered the speed awareness course is the action of a "Staasi state"