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 inciting someone to defend themselves. 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….

he has no need to commit perjury; he does not need to give evidence; but a magistrate would only give a fine as low as the FPN in exceptional circumstances – which this is not.

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 camera 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!

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 🙂

I understand the overriding purpose of the criminal law is to convict the guilty and aquit the innocent. It is the duty of all parties to assist the court in this and identify the real issues in the case. So when you go to court and say “i was speeding but the grid reference is wrong ” the prosecution will correct the charge. If you say nothing and go to trial and wait till the close of the prosecution case before pointing out your error then the prosecution will apply to reopen their case and amend the charge.

It really is not a silly game anymore.

I understand the overriding purpose of the criminal law…

Is a speeding ticket actually a question of criminal law? (That’s a genuine question).

Konabunny the answer is yes

Tom B – Member

I’m a speeding expert-i don’t speed. In 9 years and 160k miles i’ve never been prosecuted for speeding. Go figure….

I’ve never been prosecuted for anything either, because I’ve never broken any laws, especially speed limits.
😆 😆 😆

🙄

Tom B – Member

Cheers bren. I’m no expert but don’t almost all speedos read about 10% under actual speed. So your 79mph from the police would have been showing over 85 on your speedo?

Common misconception.
They cannot under-read, but the accuracy varies a lot between different marques. I’ve had cars that read 1mph over all the way from 0-140mph, and others at the other end of the spectrum, 110% + 6.25mph.

Judging by the example cited, I think “under” was a typo there.

Back to the original point of

Any speeding prosecution experts

Apparently the forum is full of them. 😀

BenHouldsworth – Member

Igrf, these things don’t trigger if your under the speed limit so tough s**t, if your 32 in 30 then sorry but trying to blag it is no better than the whiplash folk who drive insurance up, just be responsible

He was caught by a van, which will contain a speed camera triggered by a human operator, and they are not infallible.
How you can equate driving above the speed limit, an offence that requires no victim with fraud that affects millions is quite puzzling.

davidjones15 – Member

Didn’t it used to be 30mph over for the automatic ban?

There has never been a speed that led to an automatic ban.

dannyh – Member

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.

Do you have any idea how many people are killed each year, by a car driver, because they were speeding?

There has never been a speed that led to an automatic ban.

What I meant was putting you in a higher risk of having a ban. Technicalities, eh? 🙄

PeterPoddy – Member

If you are getting tickets its for a reason.

Yep. Poor observation.

So you can spot a camera hidden in an unmarked trailer from 1,000m away, can you?
No, no you can’t.

davidjones15 – Member

What I meant was putting you in a higher risk of having a ban. Technicalities, eh? 🙄

You asked a question so I answered it, no need to be a cock about it. 🙄

You asked a question so I answered it, no need to be a cock about it.

Bless. 😆

FeeFoo – Member

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

This is something I have never understood.
If you accept what you are doing is morally wrong and would therefore “take it on the chin” as many posters have written, then why do it in the first place?
Is that not worse than someone who tries to avoid conviction for a victimless crime they do not agree with? 💡

Meanwhile, getting back on topic…

OP: unless you have large funds to spare there is little chance of gaining anything by taking this to court, other than an increased fine and costs.
As Kenny Senior states, the minor inaccuracy of the van’s location would not be enough to get this thrown out.

Do you have any idea how many people are killed each year, by a car driver, because they were speeding?

Because they were speeding, or whilst they were speeding?

I for one don’t know how many people are killed each year because drivers are speeding. How many?

What I meant was putting you in a higher risk of having a ban.

I believe the term you’re looking for is “eligible for disqualification”. I think this is something like ~45% of the posted speed. 50 in a 30, 100 in a 70, and such. Ish.

Ah, here.

http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingban/speedingoffences/drivingbanspeedingoffences.htm#I_have_been_caught_speeding._Is_an_instant_driving_ban_likely

Limit. | Speed Alleged.
-------+---------------------
30 mph | In excess of 51 mph
40 mph | In excess of 66 mph
50 mph | In excess of 75 mph
60 mph | In excess of 85 mph
70 mph | In excess of 100 mph

I believe the term you’re looking for is “eligible for disqualification”

Whatever the term is, I was generalising a bit. Interesting how some folk require precise language on one hand but are prepared to be less accurate when trying to get a prosecution, innit pc sbob? 😉

He he, if its not people trying to weasel out of speeding tickets

Then its people trying to weasel out of a really specific statement such as “automatic ban” by saying they were “generalising”

😉

davidjones15 – Member

Whatever the term is, I was generalising a bit. Interesting how some folk require precise language on one hand but are prepared to be less accurate when trying to get a prosecution, innit pc sbob? 😉

You asked question.
I answered it.
You get the hump.
I suggest there’s no need.
You start winking at me.

Either you’re using some strange masonic greeting that I know nothing about, or you’re simple/trying not to lose face.

Equally confused either way tbh. 😕

Great late entry for “high horses of the year” thread guys!

You asked question.
I answered it.
You get the hump.
I suggest there’s no need.
You start winking at me

You’ve pulled!!!!
Your superior wit and wisdom has won you the chance of internet sex with a total stranger.

RESULT!!

RESULT!!

If it’s got tits, I’m in! 😀