[Closed] Any speeding prosecution experts

Does nobody follow the old adage about 'rules'?

You know, being for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men?

No?

Always amused at people who are so conceited that they believe this shite.

'Laws' tend to be regarded slightly differently.

Matt

Just a thought.

Say you were driving up the A1 one day. Say you're in the Bawtry area, for arguments sake. As most of us are wont to do, the speedo creeps past 70, past 80, maybe even touching 85. Yes the limit is 70, but the entire traffic flow is geared towards a more "robust" speed, so it's actually maybe possibly a bit safer to go with the flow.

10-or-so miles up the road, you're passing the Doncaster area and traffic is sluggish, due to the horse-racing meet. 45-50 mph tops. And on your journey continues.

A couple of days later, a NIP drops through the letterbox. You've been "caught" at 83mph on the Doncaster Racecourse turnoff of the A1.

What do all you hand-wringing, holier-than-thou, pious types do? Take it on the chin, because yes, you were speeding 10 miles down the road, so all things work out in the end? Didn't think so.

What, exactly, is different to OP's situation? Plod say he's speeding in a place he most definitely wasn't (assuming OP isn't a bare-faced liar....) Whether he was speeding half a mile away or 10 miles away is irrelevant. He wasn't speeding where plod says he was. The law is an extremely particular ass, as I know to my cost, so it has to work the same both ways.

Ever wondered why you have to carry those pole things everywhere?

Well, apart from enhancing my turning and balance, no, not really. Oh, and I don't HAVE to carry them. I choose to. No law dictates that I have to have them.

What, exactly, is different to OP's situation?

This is the thing.

Irrespective of the fact that the OP believes he was exceeding the limit at some point, if the location of the alleged offence on the NIP is incorrect then how can we be sure that the rest of the accusation is correct?

Let me reword the OP slightly,

Been clocked doing 79mph on the A66 which I deny.
The location they have given in the form of a 12 digit grid reference does not relate to where the Cumbria Safety Camera van was parked up.
Where they state the location of he van was, my speed was 60mph.

Now where do we stand? How would the ivory tower brigade have responded to that as an OP?

[quote=The Flying Ox said]hand-wringing, holier-than-thou, pious types

Are these "types", people who if caught speeding, accept it and pay up or some other group ?

I was trundling down the A9 at 50mph today and had an arctic (a) catch up with me and (b) drive ridiculously close behind me. Still, at least I did my civic duty be preventing him further transgressing the law.

haha you've reworded it slightly!!! It's gone from "I accept that I was speeding" to "I deny that I was speeding" 😆

I was trundling down the A9 at 50mph today and had an arctic (a) catch up with me and (b) drive ridiculously close behind me.

I find that easing off the loud pedal momentarily and then accelerating back to speed sorts that out. They generally learn after three or four times.

haha you've reworded it slightly!!!

I believe I did say that.

It's gone from "I accept that I was speeding" to "I deny that I was speeding"

Yep, something that makes it very, very different, and rather pointless really, given the OP's OP which was, to paraphrase, "I was speeding. Oops. Silly me. I got caught, but there's some technicality I could try and wrangle around, costing the police and courts much time and money but making me feel better about it by sticking in to the man, man"

😉

You dont need them sticks for skiing Flashy, but they are great for poking us snowboarders in the lift line 😀 going a bit off thread but have you seen the powder in Europe !!!! Going in Feb and April but we really should just jack it all in and go out there NOW !!! I will if you will ......

Are these people who if caught speeding, accept it and pay up or some other group ?

I'd say they're armchair legal enthusiasts with a passing knowledge gained from various ITV "Traffic Cops" style programming, a twisted Animal Farm "four wheels bad, two wheels good" mentality, and not enough nous to drive to the conditions of the road, weather and surrounding traffic because some half-remembered braking distance chart devised in 1931 suggests it might be dangerous to do so.
EDIT: and a misguided belief that all of the above makes them safer drivers.

Would that be "other group"?

Stuff like this really pisses me off. You were speeding. You got caught. You are trying to wangle out of it on a technicality. Why should you be a special case?

Perhaps this will convince you to knock 10mph off your speed next time and you'll be able to stop when you go around a corner and find a stationary car in your lane rather than ploughing into the back of it.

Take whatever punishment you are given and learn from it FFS.

Yep, something that makes it very, very different,

Well, no, it's exactly the same question, only without admission of guilt. As soon as the OP said he thought he was guilty, you lot all ran for the pitchforks rather than answering the question.

If he'd not been so candid here regarding his transgression but still asked the exact same question, would he have got the same response? I doubt it.

Stuff like this really pisses me off. You were speeding. You got caught. You are trying to wangle out of it on a technicality. Why should you be a special case?

Why should you be a special case?

Because the evidence presented is incorrect.

<wallops the side of the Internet>

Two different arguments here;
A) should he accept the fine and pay up [i]morally[/i] speaking; yes, probably.
B) would the prosecution case stand up in court legally? I'm no expert, but it's less than definite.

Bit like 'should I pay for my tv licence, as I don't watch live telly, but use the iplayer, BBC website, and BBC radio' discussion, really.

CaptainFlashheart - Member
Ever wondered why you have to carry those pole things everywhere?
Well, apart from enhancing my turning and balance, no, not really. Oh, and I don't HAVE to carry them. I choose to. No law dictates that I have to have them.

No, it's not a law, but it is a 'rule' which you could choose to break, with er 'free will' that little gift we all have and can choose to exercise.

I'm surprised you ski, you are one of my favourite posters on this sight excellent wit and repartee, I also note you choose to wakeboard with that free will of yours, so I can't help wondering why you don't choose to free your mind on the mountain. Not that it's any of my business of course, just wondering. Back to the poles thing you skiers have the benefit of our sidecuts these days so really no need for all that pole planting and I'm wondering why y'all still hang on to them. I gave up skiing in 93 after a nasty Avalanche incident and having learned to snowboard, never went back.

Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with dodging speeding fines, so pardon the red herring.

Because the correct procedure is in place to prevent miscarriages of justice, and we can't have that, can we?

He admitted he was speeding during the course of the journey.

It's not the bloody Birmingham Six, you know. It is playing the system to evade a punishment that was merited.

Why do people think this is some sort of sophisticated game of 'legal' cat and mouse with those draconian authorities?

Driving a motor vehicle is the one thing nearly all of us do that can easily lead to serious death or injury of others - why do you think motor insurance is mandatory?

There are two people at my work who have been whingeing recently about being caught speeding and the 'inconvenience' of it all. Try telling that to the family of someone who has been killed by a speeding driver.

Don't take the piss.

Would your colleagues be whingeing if they'd killed someone as a result of their speed?

If you are getting tickets its for a reason.

Yep. Poor observation. It's quite easy to do 120+ every time you start the engine and never get caught.

Egg f***ing zactly.

I'm not saying that I'm perfect in this respect, either.

I had a SP30 four and a bit years ago. About 6-45am on a Saturday morning on the way to the birth of my daughter.

I could have mentioned this in the hope of evading a punishment - and may well have got away with it. As it was, it was a planned caesarean, so I would have been being economical with the truth at best. Actually I would have been being deceitful and using the birth of a child to dodge a warranted punishment.

I was just a bit over-eager to get there - but I was still in the wrong - no argument. It really is that simple.

Is the grid reference error contained within a Fixed Penalty Offer or has the matter already gone to court and this error is contained within the prosecution evidence?

If it's in a Fixed Penalty Offer then it makes f all difference. That's not a presentation of the evidence, a typo in there will not undermine any future prosecution if he declines their offer - which is an offer to dispose of the matter with a FPN rather than prosecute him.

It's just the same as if they sent me one and put Kenny Senor not Kenny Senior - that's not a technicality that fatally undermines the prosecution.

If the OP had a FP offer and turns it down, he'll get summonsed to court, where evidence will be led by the prosecution that camera van such-and-such was parked in layby such-and-such at 5 o'clock on whatever day, when bren2709 drove past at 79mph where the limit is 60mph. And here's a video of him doing it.

You will not avoid a conviction because someone has mistyped or misread a grid reference in an item of preliminary correspondence. I know this from first hand experience 🙁

Regardless of whether I think that the OP should cough up, this isn't 'playing the system'. The fact that both parties are expected to produce evidence that is factually accurate is a fairly basic foundation upon which our legal system is built. Slippery slopes and all that.

EDIT; not a reply to kenny senior, who makes a good point from experience.

both parties are expected to produce evidence that is factually accurate

Which, if it goes to court, is exactly what they'll do.

Why do people think this is some sort of sophisticated game of 'legal' cat and mouse with those draconian authorities?

Because, for better or worse, that's exactly what our legal system is.

The OP believes he is in the wrong. However, he may be mistaken. This is why we require these pesky little details like 'evidence' in order to obtain a conviction.

But surely inciting someone to defend themselves based on the incorrect evidence you claim to be prosecuting them on and then whipping out different evidence in court isn't exactly fair...?

Again, I speak from personal experience, the different evidence presented wasn't even relevant and I still got shafted due to the layperson magistrates' vague grasp on the use of tense in the English language.

Because, for better or worse, that's exactly what our legal system is.

Oh god, another one who has just finished 'Bakunin for Beginners'.

I despair - unless this is a mickey take.

This is not extraorinary rendition. It is not the Birmingham Six. It is not Winston Silcott.

It is a speeding offence for someone who was speeding anyway.

Time to grow up.

This is not extraorinary rendition. It is not the Birmingham Six. It is not Winston Silcott.

It is a speeding offence for someone who was speeding anyway.

[b]Time to grow up.[/b]

Possibly not, but what the court will consider is whether the error renders the NIP incorrect, that is to say is it enough of an error so as to prevent the OP appreciating the time, date, location and nature of the alleged offence, which is the purpose of the NIP and particularly the 14 day rule.

If the OP could persuade the court that when he checked that grid reference on his map, he was completely in the dark as to where he had committed the alleged offence, then he may succeed on the basis that the NIP wasn't compliant. Given that he does seem to know where it was and this appears to be a simple typo that has given a location to the side of the main road where he actually (allegedly) did it, he might struggle to do that.

If the error was along the lines of 'on the A69' not 'on the A66' then that is a completely different location. A strategy in those circumstances would be to wait until the 14 days had passed, then inform the police that you can't name the driver because you weren't on the A69 at that time/day, you were on the A66. They can send you a new corrected NIP but of course that won't comply with the 14 day rule.

There is no black and white, but in my opinion, and that's all it is, the case in point is too trivial an error to make this NIP incorrect. In the same way as an NIP addressed to ben2709 not bren2709 would be ok, whereas an NIP to gatling9536 instead of bren2709 wouldn't.

All this of course assumes what he's got is an NIP.

But surely inciting someone to defend themselves based on the incorrect evidence you claim to be prosecuting them on and then whipping out different evidence in court isn't exactly fair...?

It's not going to have been a deliberate error with the aim of [i]inciting someone to defend themselves[/i]. They are perfectly entitled to summons him straight to court to defend himself, so there is no need to incite people to defend themselves if that was what they wanted to do, is there?

An FPN is an offer, not a right. They're simply giving him the option of a reduced penalty if chooses not to take up the courts time and money.

Oh god, another one who has just finished 'Bakunin for Beginners'.

I've no idea what that is. Was he in Star Wars?

This is not extraorinary rendition. It is not the Birmingham Six. It is not Winston Silcott.

No-one other than your good self seems to think it might be. And I'm not sure what point you're trying to make anyway. We only have to follow legal procedure for serious crimes?

It is a speeding offence for someone who was speeding anyway.

So if we think someone is guilty of a crime but can't prove it, it's ok to stitch them up for a different one? They were (allegedly) guilty anyway, right?

Ok, I was curious, so I googled it.

Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (Russian: ?????? ????????????? ???????; IPA: [m??x??il ?ba?kun?in]) (30 May [O.S. 18 May] 1814 – 1 July 1876) was a Russian revolutionary, philosopher, and theorist of collectivist anarchism. He has also often been called the father of anarchist theory in general.

You're barking, and I'm not talking to you any more.

It is entirely proper, in the interests of justice, that the OP puts the prosecution to the test if he believes that they will be unable to produce enough evidence to convict. I'm not going to speculate on whether, if the matter proceeds to court, the 'technicality' would result in acquittal - unless there is established case law for an exactly identical situation even a lawyer would be only giving an opinion on how it is likely to pan out; if it makes it as far as court then unless you have (expensive) legal representation don't be surprised if convicted. You are unlikely to impress the magistrate by arguing a technicality on location definition (at least with a technicality on equipment calibration / type approval (s)he may give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely believed you were not speeding).

The courts recognise the utilitarian value of early guilty pleas. You can therefore expect that an offence which gathers a £60 fixed penalty will get a higher penalty at court. You can also expect that if you go through the trial process without pleading guilty you will get a higher sentence (usually 50% more) than pleading guilty at the first hearing in court. So you might be looking at 3x the penalty for trying to argue the case.

Add that to court costs etc which are charged in England.
Plus your own legal advice (if taken).
Plus your time (you will probably have to appear at least twice, and possibly three times before actually getting 'your day in court').

As a result, usually, the only people who take it all the way are: on a high number of points OR are out to try and make a political point.

+1 everything Kenny Senior has said on this page. If youv'e been offered an FPN as a result of an NIP by all means turn it down, you have that right, and go to court. Where you will see the evidence offered, which won't be a grid reference.

NIP + FPN = "We've identified you as the driver of that car doing that speed, would you like to admit it and accept a ticket and pay £60 and take 3 points now, or go to court?"

Take the second option, see the evidence you know will be presented, admit you where the driver of the car in question on the road at the time in question and hope the mags dont give you more than the fine and points offered in the FPN (they will if only to cover the costs needlessly incurred). Or deny it, commit perjury, do not pass go, do not collect £200....

edit: and +1 noid, posting as I typed.

crashtestmonkey - Or deny it, commit perjury, do not pass go, do not collect £200....

OP admits to speeding, time to suck it up and pay the fine I reckon.

And before I get called holier than thou, I often go over the limit, as do most folks on here I imagine. But if I'm caught I'll take it on the chin and pay up - thats one of the risks you take when you speed. that and crashing......

For what it's worth, I took a speed camera FPN to court and won, with the case thrown out and the speed camera partnership paying my costs, on the thorny issue of identifying the driver. Myself and my wife had driven the car, on the same route and genuinely couldn't hand on heart say for sure who was driving. I wrote and said that I would be happy to accept the FPN, but couldn't say for sure that it was definately me. Obviously they declined and attempted to prosecute me for failure to supply details. I had also asked for the photo, which didn't shed any light. Turns out that there is a statutory defense if you can show 'due dilligence' in attempting to identify the driver. Was a horrible experience though, 3 points and £60 would have been far easier, but fraudulent.

Morally : accept the fine and points.
Selfishly : weasel out of it if you can

Only you can decide on the best course of action.

I gave up skiing in 93 after a nasty Avalanche incident and having learned to snowboard, never went back.

Er.... Well done 😐 ?

I gave up snowboarding in 94 (after doing around 100 weeks) and went back to skiing.
Never went back.

What's your point caller ?

Out of interest wouldn't the fact that it is a speed [i] camera[/i] mean that the video oh the OP driving at speed trump the fact that the grid reference might be a little off? Just a thought.

Nice rolly eyes there Neal. The clarification that you only drive at 65 in the car was nice too.

I can condescend too look!

[img] [/img]

Nice rolly eyes there Neal. The clarification that you only drive at 65 in the car was nice too.

I can condescend too look!

No problem at all.

If you weren't trying so hard to catch me out and score points, then I wouldn't be so condescending when you got it totally wrong 🙂