Speed Cameras

[eiaddyo]

This is a bit of an old chestneut.

 

Speed Cameras.

 

I work for a Car Leasing Collection Agency. As you can imagine there are a few of us (not me) that are racking up Points from being caught on Speed Cameras.

 

This has worked 4 times to my certain knowledge.

 

Driver 1 gets snapped on Camera.

Ticket comes in a few days.

Driver 1 Replies that he does not know who was driving at time due to the fact that we swap cars regularily during our days work .

 

Summons arrives - but summons are for Non Disclosure not Speeding (Carry exact same penalties)

 

Driver 1 Responds not guilty and takes court option.

 

Gets court date and attends court.

 

CPS drops case outside court just before being called in. (Vehicle is not registered to him and photo evidence is inconclusive plus he is entering a plea of not guilty.)

 

A variation was when driver1 responded that it was either him or driver 2 but didn't know which, again car is registered to lease firm, and photo evidence is inconclusive. Neither prosecuted.

 

I'm not sure, but I think the reason is because the onus is on the police to gather evidence and for the CPS to prove who is driving. In all of these cases there is a reasonable doubt as to the identity of the driver so they dont pursue it.

 

BTW - there is an equal number of drivers that don't contest and just take the points and the fine.

[eiaddyo]

Oh yeah forgot this one

 

If you ever get a Speeding ticket where your name address or some other detail that identifies you personally is wrong - take the court route.

 

You'll need to bone up on your law a bit - but I have it on good authority from a freind at the CPS that Judges/Magistrates (?) will throw out such cases on a technicality.

 

Apparently the Police / CPS have to show due diligence in verifying that they have the right person. Misspelling your name or address does not support due diligence - this introduces a doubt and the case should be dropped.

 

Worth knowing if it happens.

 

(I know this because another friends name is pronounced "Fanshaw" - its actually spelt "Featherstonehaugh" and he's used this to great effect for years)

 

E.I.Addyo

[meagain]

(I know this because another friends name is pronounced "Fanshaw" - its actually spelt "Featherstonehaugh" and he's used this to great effect for years)

 

Longest English surname according to Guinness

 

I find it sickening that you can be convicted in this country of "failing to disclose information". After all, if you're supposed to be under caution at the time, you have the right to remain silent, surely?

 

Reminds me of TV licence offences, where the evidence presented in court is usually limited to "TVL has no record of a licence at this address." I wonder how many people have used as their defence "TVL has no record of a TV at this address."

[Rich44]

you have the right to remain silent, surely?

 

Guess thats why they changed the caution the way they did too many people were just sitting there saying nothing and thus getting away with stuff so now you have to open your mouth so the police can get you to put your foot in it

[eiaddyo]

The moral of the story is that although daunting, it is sometimes worth the effort to let a case go to court.

 

Unless the evidence is absolutely solid, like clear photographic evidence and the vehicle being registerd to you, then there is always the point to be made that there is a legitimate doubt.

 

There may be some variations on the burdon of proof - but I have always understood this to be that the CPS have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of the alledged offence, and that there is a presumption of innocence .

When you receive your Speeding tickets they are worded so that they give you every opportunity to admit your guilt.

 

Now I do not condone speeding - I do not condone avoiding penalties if you are guilty, but I do object to getting points and a fine where I am not the driver of the vehicle.

 

E.I.Addyo

[meagain]

Guess thats why they changed the caution the way they did too many people were just sitting there saying nothing and thus getting away with stuff so now you have to open your mouth so the police can get you to put your foot in it

 

Lovely. Great when you get to court, and the prosecution's effective statement is "We couldn't build a case against the defendant through normal means, but we're going to prosecute anyway."

 

Seems "reasonable doubt" was blown out of the water for summary offences a while ago, meaning a case can now be decided, like a civil matter, "on balance of probabilities".

[eiaddyo]

I agree -

 

Like I've said - I have not personally been in this situation.

I have 3 points for speeding - 35 in a 30 with a forward facing camrera.

 

I have seen this defence applied successfully

 

 

again likre many cases, it seems to depend on the magistrate and the circumstances...

 

but as far as i am aware in the UK - you are innocent until proved guilty, but there is a valid argument on the "balance of probability."

 

I always understood this to be the difference between a criminal and a civil suit - the burdon of proof.

 

I'll stand to be corrected though..........

[seylectric]

I'm in a similar situation, been summons for not naming the driver. Alleged speeding offence, caught by Gatso, was almost 12 months ago! Summons for not naming driver arrived last week but is dated January. My point is, how am I supposed to be able to remember who was driving my car nearly 12 months ago? They're having a laugh!

 

Don't worry, I'm onto it.

 

 

Incidentally, non-disclosure carries a potentially higher fine but not penalty points (you are not being convicted of a motoring offence if you choose the non-disclosure route)

[eiaddyo]

My source in the CPS says that in all likelihood such a case would be dropped outside of court.

 

There is apparently a "Statute of Limitations" (or similar) that defines the time period over which such offences must be prosecuted. (It might be different for Non-Disclosure), but I understood that it was something like 3 weeks to get the original summons. It might be worth asking the question as to why this is being pursued now after a year.

 

It sounds like it would be definitely worth the trouble of going to court.

 

Good Luck

[Movingon]

Just on the right to remain silent:

 

We lost it. Because yes, you are within your rights to not say anything to the Police, BUT despite what the caution says, it WILL harm your defence case when you get to court, becaue there is an automatic presumption by the system that you're trying to hide something, and the prosecution lawyer will take great delight in presenting this angle.

 

Just for information of those who don't know, the caution in England and Wales is as follows; (dunno about Scotland):

 

"You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court."

 

So - if you have any mitigating information or ny defence to the offence at the stage of being questioned formally under PACE by the police, then you MUST STATE IT THEN!! Otherwise your defence will not wash with a Judge or a jury.

[Movingon]

My point is, how am I supposed to be able to remember who was driving my car nearly 12 months ago? They're having a laugh!

 

Just a slight worry with that defence; if the offence is not statute barred (as referred to above) due to time expiry, the court will have to consider whether it's more likely that YOU were driving YOUR OWN car, or whether in fact you simply can't remember because all sorts of people use your car all the time. The thing is, they may be able to quite easily convince a Jury (or a magistrate) that it's unlikely anyone but you was driving... and therefore you can be prosecuted for failure to disclose.

 

I don't know for sure whether this is an issue, but it's certainly an angle worth covering.

[hunkydory]

I'm in a similar situation, been summons for not naming the driver. Alleged speeding offence, caught by Gatso, was almost 12 months ago! Summons for not naming driver arrived last week but is dated January. My point is, how am I supposed to be able to remember who was driving my car nearly 12 months ago?

 

 

The offence of speeding is a summary offence which means the police have a six month period from the date of the offence to prosecute. If at the time of the offence you weren't stopped and reported for speeding, a Notice of Intended prosecution (NIP) has to served on the registered keeper of the car within 14 days of the offence. This means that if you were driving a company car,for example, by the time the NIP catches up with you it could be some months down the line.

 

If you were stopped and told you were being repotred for the offence, then the police have 6 months to lay the information i.e. six months to put the information to the Magistrates court and request the issue of a summons from the court.

 

The legal view is that you should know who is driving you car - which may seem a little harsh down the line. The offence of failing to furnish the Chief Constable with the details is a more serious offence.

 

Hope this clarifies things a bit - I used to issue summonses!

[Movingon]

So - let me get this straight. If I drive through a speed camera at a speed in excess of the speed limit (banged to rights Guv) and I haven't received an NIP or anything else within 14 days, then I can't be prosecuted?! (Assuming I'm driving my own car).

[hunkydory]

In a nutshell...yup! You have to receive either an NIP by post or be stopped & reported for the offence.

 

Also, if you get stopped for doing 30mph in excess of the speed limit (e.g 100 on the Motorway) and are stopped by the police & given a fixed penalty notice - pay it immediately! Basically, you can't plead by post if you are that much over the limit & facing a ban so the officer shouldn't issue you the ticket but automatically report you for summons. By paying the ticket, at least you won't get a ban! I've seen officers issue a ticket & the motorist not pay so the case proceeds to court and said motorist gets a fine, points and has to pay prosecution costs!

[Movingon]

See, when I was got by a speed camera (the one and only time in my entire life) I received notification of it 3 weeks later at least... and I bloody paid it!

 

 

I also don't remember seeing the phrase "Notice of Intended Prosecution"... but hey ho... live and learn.

[dw190]

So - let me get this straight. If I drive through a speed camera at a speed in excess of the speed limit (banged to rights Guv) and I haven't received an NIP or anything else within 14 days, then I can't be prosecuted?! (Assuming I'm driving my own car).

 

 

Not exactly true.

 

A NIP must be served on the "Registered Keeper" of the vehicle alleged to have committed an offence within fourteen days of the commissioning of the offence.

[Movingon]

"Assuming I'm driving my own car"....

 

Yes?

[dw190]

"Assuming I'm driving my own car"....

 

Yes?

 

Yes but!

 

The registered keeper is not necessarily the legal owner of a vehicle.

 

ie. Finance Companies "Own" vehicles which are on HP agreements.

 

So! Assuming I'm driving my own car and it is registered in my name. Yes.

[waynedear]

Just a little chuckle:p

 

I recieved notification that I had been caught doing 37mph on a local road, I was gutted as i already have 3 points, my lovely wife gave me some stick and had a right laugh about it.

I thought im not taking this lying down I requested photographic just to be sure as I cant remember seeing a camera, the photograph arrive a few weeks later and it actually made me smile....It was only my wife driving:p

[hagenuk]

Re: NIP and time limit

 

Check post mark - 2nd class post, invalid, end of story.

 

Rule is NIP must be posted by 1st class post so that NORMAL delivery would be no later than the 14th day after the date of the offence, allowing for Sundays and Bank Holidays of course.

 

It is well known that when the Camera Partnerships are busy they continue to send out NIPs out of time BECAUSE they know that most people will not know and will pay up.

 

Whether this is misfeasance in public office, or obtaining money by false pretences I do not know.

 

This applies ONLY to the FIRST NIP - normally sent to the registered keeper.

 

Subsequent NIPs sent to someone else as a result of informaiton provided by the registered keeper have no deadline and as far as I know, no legal requirement for 1st class post

 

The ultimate deadline is of course that a summons must be filed with the court within 6 months of the offence - albeit it can be served later, albeit that undue further delay can cause the prosecution problems.

[younganfree]

Just a little chuckle:p

 

I recieved notification that I had been caught doing 37mph on a local road, I was gutted as i already have 3 points, my lovely wife gave me some stick and had a right laugh about it.

I thought im not taking this lying down I requested photographic just to be sure as I cant remember seeing a camera, the photograph arrive a few weeks later and it actually made me smile....It was only my wife driving:p

 

You are lucky you could take this route.

 

In the FAQ on the NIP I got recently [spits on ground in disgust], in answer to the question 'Can I have a copy of the photograph?' it answers:-

"No. The photographic/videographic evidence is to support a Police prosecution case. The photograph should not be relied upon for identification purposes of the driver. The driver may not be in full view or the photograph may be a rear shot of the vehicle. Videographic evidence is only made available at a court hearing in support of a prosecution case."

[hagenuk]

Do you know who was driving your car at the time of the alleged offence?

[younganfree]

Do you know who was driving your car at the time of the alleged offence?

 

Mea culpa!

I just paid up. Can't remember speeding, or seeing a cop [aren't they supposed to be visible - they are supposed to be a speeding deterrant after all?], so assumed I probably did the crime!

Especially as they said I had no access to the evidence anyway. Didn't want the hassle of going to court and being found guilty and probably getting a harsher penalty.

[hagenuk]

Them being visible is a contentious issue, I think that they are supposed to be, however, they also consider themselves above the law - as evidenced by the number of NIP’s issued to police officers that do not result in a prosecution, almost all!

 

S172 para 4 of the Road Traffic Act allows that if you do not know who was driving and cannot with reasonable diligence ascertain who was driving then you cannot be convicted of an offence. This defence is sometimes referred to as a "Hamilton" as Neil and Christen Hamilton used it successfully.

 

Of course, it's a moot point now as you have paid.

[buzz]

again likre many cases, it seems to depend on the magistrate and the circumstances...

 

 

Unfortunately a few magistrates are out of their depth with a lot of these cases.

 

A friend of mine had to recently attend court for a motoring matter.

The prosecution mentioned that my friend had only been able to produce one part of his counterpart driving licence as it had become mislaid.

At this , the magistrate asked "What is a counterpart licence?" Even the prosecution lawyer looked in disbelief.

It was then explained what it was. It seemed to take a while for it to sink in.

 

Surely for someone who makes judgement on others in motoring matters, they should at least have a knowledge of the fundamental issues.

 

Buzz