Discussion
Just recived my summons for a FPN for going through red lights and the Notice reads-
'At 17:50 on monday 14th nov 2005i was in a marked police veh in company with pc****. We were stationary at a set of traffic lights on jacobs well roundabout.
We were facing towards Manchester road abserving traffic from out left from hallings. I saw the traffic lights change in seq to green at which point we began to move forward it was then that i noticed a (My car) (reg) come from the left at speed and drove infront of our police veh.
As our traffic lights sequence green it was obvious to me that this veh had travelled through the other set of traf lights at seq red. we followed the veh onto thornton rd and sig the drv to pull over.
The driver was spoken to, offence pointed out and cautioned at which piont he replied "it was not red". EFPN issued which he refused to sign.
We then returned to Jacobs well Roundabout to make sure the they were working which they were.'
What the above does not mention is that there was a set of light between the lights he mentioned above that he would have to have gone through which are in opposite seq to the ones i was passing through and have no belay between i.e where there is a pause where both lights are at red. also the fact that there are two lanes heading in the direction he was travelling and from both the lights which i was travlling through cannot be seen ie the colour.
the question i have is would any of what he says hold in court?
'At 17:50 on monday 14th nov 2005i was in a marked police veh in company with pc****. We were stationary at a set of traffic lights on jacobs well roundabout.
We were facing towards Manchester road abserving traffic from out left from hallings. I saw the traffic lights change in seq to green at which point we began to move forward it was then that i noticed a (My car) (reg) come from the left at speed and drove infront of our police veh.
As our traffic lights sequence green it was obvious to me that this veh had travelled through the other set of traf lights at seq red. we followed the veh onto thornton rd and sig the drv to pull over.
The driver was spoken to, offence pointed out and cautioned at which piont he replied "it was not red". EFPN issued which he refused to sign.
We then returned to Jacobs well Roundabout to make sure the they were working which they were.'
What the above does not mention is that there was a set of light between the lights he mentioned above that he would have to have gone through which are in opposite seq to the ones i was passing through and have no belay between i.e where there is a pause where both lights are at red. also the fact that there are two lanes heading in the direction he was travelling and from both the lights which i was travlling through cannot be seen ie the colour.
the question i have is would any of what he says hold in court?
So maybe you should take it to court, get them to confirm exactly where you were seen on the junction, which direction travelling in etc. Maybe use a drawing of the junction. Then produce photos of the junction showing where they were mistaken regarding you running a red light. If you're right then it should be very apparent.
Make sure you get a copy of any statements/evidences before you go so you can have answers ready.
Stick one up the CPS!
Make sure you get a copy of any statements/evidences before you go so you can have answers ready.
Stick one up the CPS!
Got to say two officers stand up in court in silly hats and you one your own tell em they were wrong.....no chance...pay your fine. You will not win
In there evidence they will say that the nose of the car had risen proving you were accelerating not going down as if you were trying to brake.
Does not matter if its a Panda or not its basic police bread and butter.
In there evidence they will say that the nose of the car had risen proving you were accelerating not going down as if you were trying to brake.
Does not matter if its a Panda or not its basic police bread and butter.
viper paul said:
Got to say two officers stand up in court in silly hats
really? Don't think we wear hats in court. 1st incorrect bit of advice.
viper paul said:
In there evidence they will say that the nose of the car had risen proving you were accelerating not going down as if you were trying to brake.
So now he also knows what they are going to say. Excellent stuff
chris d said:
The most important thing is that 'the truth' prevails
You missed out the 'sometimes' at the end
If the driver cannot provide evidence that he was not guilty then the chances are he will lose the case on the evidence of two police officers. However, if he can show that his lights were green at the same time as the lights were green for the officers' car then he should be found not guilty.
viper paul said:
Got to say two officers stand up in court in silly hats and you one your own tell em they were wrong.....no chance...pay your fine. You will not win
In there evidence they will say that the nose of the car had risen proving you were accelerating not going down as if you were trying to brake.
Does not matter if its a Panda or not its basic police bread and butter.
I hate to disagree, but I won a very similar case to this by defending myself in court. YOU CAN WIN. The only difference in my case was that it was not two police witnesses I had to cross-examine in court - it was also the trainee they had in the back of the panda car at the time... Also have to admit though that when i took the case to a solicitor he didnt think he would be much help and he thought that it was a lost case...
My advice is the if you are innocent of the charge fight it, of not accept the rap. ya55erm, if you want any more info, I think I still have my notes and I dont mind helping out, if you want to send me an email, feel free. Would be glad to help.
sean5302 said:
The site where this incident is supposed to have happened is central Bradford. A few hundred yards from the main city police station.
The officers from West Yorkshire Police will know this area like the backs of their hands.
Are we really suggesting that TWO police officers would maliciously concoct a story that you have driven through a red traffic light? What advantage would they gain? Surely, it's just extra hassle and paperwork for them.
Have you actually been back to the lights yourself, with one of your cronies, and had a look at the sequence of lights to prove what you're saying? Surely an aggrieved, honest motorist would have done just that by now.
In my case, THREE police officers constructed a story to *prove* what they had actually guessed. It was obvious that their statements were constructed together as two of them mentioned that they saw me drive through a red light 4 seconds after it had turned red. One of them f'ed up though as he said it was 4 seconds after his light had turned green... But to make up for this inaccuracy he fabricated that he saw numerous vehicles swerve, brake and take evasive action.
I showed in court that none of the police officers could see the entrance to the junction OR the red light they could supposedly see. The visiting crown court judge who was presiding at the magistrates court in summing up immediately discounted two of the officers testimonies and said that there was enough doubt in the third for the case not to stand.
Although there are people who are doubting the poster's innocence, although it is rare, this type of thing *DOES HAPPEN*. The real tragedy is that the poster will need to take time off work and his own free time proving it.
thanks guys for the advise,
the problem is that its a fine line and a gamble which i have to take weather i admit what i have not done or stand up and say i didnt do it!
After the officer had written the ticket i asked him if i had said that i did go through red would he have let me go and he said yes but i couldnt have known this!
if anyone knows the area they will know how bad the traffic is on that road when its busy and this is due to the light seq.
i know the effect of going through red lights, ive seen it for my own eyes.
as the above post states amber means stop if safe to do so which it wasnt but who's the judge of that me who was in the situation or the officer who could just see my roof line?
thanks again for the help guys.
the problem is that its a fine line and a gamble which i have to take weather i admit what i have not done or stand up and say i didnt do it!
After the officer had written the ticket i asked him if i had said that i did go through red would he have let me go and he said yes but i couldnt have known this!
if anyone knows the area they will know how bad the traffic is on that road when its busy and this is due to the light seq.
i know the effect of going through red lights, ive seen it for my own eyes.
as the above post states amber means stop if safe to do so which it wasnt but who's the judge of that me who was in the situation or the officer who could just see my roof line?
thanks again for the help guys.
ya55erm said:
thanks guys for the advise,
the problem is that its a fine line and a gamble which i have to take weather i admit what i have not done or stand up and say i didnt do it!
After the officer had written the ticket i asked him if i had said that i did go through red would he have let me go and he said yes but i couldnt have known this!
if anyone knows the area they will know how bad the traffic is on that road when its busy and this is due to the light seq.
i know the effect of going through red lights, ive seen it for my own eyes.
as the above post states amber means stop if safe to do so which it wasnt but who's the judge of that me who was in the situation or the officer who could just see my roof line?
thanks again for the help guys.
I see what you mean. My case was similar in that the police looked up to see my car when their lights turned green and I was in the centre of the box junction. What they failed to assume was that I was waiting in the centre of the junction for about ten seconds before they saw me...
What my case came down to was that I took some photos of the exact view that the officers had to prove that they could not see the red light or even a green light as they could not see around the shield around the lights. Similarly each one of them did not know the correct light sequence. Further to that, I took another photo with a line of traffic waiting in the centre of the carriageway when 'their' light was on green. That way I could show it was a problem with the light system. That photo got some very interesting questions when I asked each officer whether each or any of those cars had also jumped the lights...
Your case will also hinge around when they first saw your car, they need to have seen it before the start of the junction to see you pass the light for the conviciton to stand. In court, in cross examination I picked out items from each of the statements and asked questions to show that my hypothesis was correct, they looked up and *assumed* I had jumped the lights without seeing me.
Even if they were looking at you, following a moving object and them simultaneously following another is a notoriously difficult thing to do accurately. The third umpire in cricket is often used for run-out decisions, and that if where the umprie has complete concentration on the wickets and crease. His accuracy would be a lot less if he were to be following a complete field of vision.
ya55erm said:
After the officer had written the ticket i asked him if i had said that i did go through red would he have let me go and he said yes but i couldnt have known this!
Eh! So it goes like this...
Eh up, Officer, why on earth have you pulled me over.
Listen 'ere sonny jim, you've just gone through a red light.
That's correct Officer, I did.
Right then, on ya way.
Yeah right.
ya55erm said:
thanks guys for the advise,
the problem is that its a fine line and a gamble which i have to take weather i admit what i have not done or stand up and say i didnt do it!
After the officer had written the ticket i asked him if i had said that i did go through red would he have let me go and he said yes but i couldnt have known this!
if anyone knows the area they will know how bad the traffic is on that road when its busy and this is due to the light seq.
i know the effect of going through red lights, ive seen it for my own eyes.
as the above post states amber means stop if safe to do so which it wasnt but who's the judge of that me who was in the situation or the officer who could just see my roof line?
thanks again for the help guys.
Ya55erm - its not "a gamble" - its a question of determining the facts and whether you or they are in the right. It only becomes a gamble if you know you are wrong and trying to get off on a technicality...!?
justinp1 the same is the case with me, the sheild covers the view of the opposite traffic. going back to the area to take loads of pic which show that he couldnt have seen the lights themself.
It is a gamble when talking to an officer about an offence because if you say you did then they can prosicute as youve admitted it yourself for example-
you get stopped-
right, do you know how fast you were going?
yeah, 33 mph!
ok ill give you 3 point and ill have £60 please
or you can be cheeky and risk it-
right, do you know how fast you were going?
why, what speed have you got me at?
33 mph but cause your a cheeky so and so ill give you 3 point and ill have £60 please!
catch my drift?
so to me it doesnt matter what attitude you take with the officer its you luck and the situation which gets you away with it!
It is a gamble when talking to an officer about an offence because if you say you did then they can prosicute as youve admitted it yourself for example-
you get stopped-
right, do you know how fast you were going?
yeah, 33 mph!
ok ill give you 3 point and ill have £60 please
or you can be cheeky and risk it-
right, do you know how fast you were going?
why, what speed have you got me at?
33 mph but cause your a cheeky so and so ill give you 3 point and ill have £60 please!
catch my drift?
so to me it doesnt matter what attitude you take with the officer its you luck and the situation which gets you away with it!
7db said:
Officers need to have a view of the lights and of the line which you crossed to be bulletproof in prosecution, AIUI.
Quite correct. My case was thrown out because of this. Although I do think that this was the point of law which meant that the judge did not have to directly call the 'witnesses' liars.
In court, from three expert witnesses in the same car, one could see the red light clearly, one could definately not see the light, and one could not remember if they looked at the light or not when I turned the pressure up. Thats when the fudge fell apart and the CPS brief gave up.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff