Discussion
Having just received a NIP for speeding and viewing the Gatso pictures of me alledgely speeding on line the whole number plate is NOT readable 
.So I have written to the police force in question and requested to see the pictures on photographic paper as sometimes pictures are distorted when uploaded to a web site. I have two questions: 1 If the number plate can not clearly be read is it inadmissable in court?
2 When I asked to see the prints I was told that A £10.00 fee is payable for the printed images in line with recommendations from the Association of Chief Police Officers .Is that legal? What happened to the Freedom of Information Act? The Police are charging me money as I try and prove my innocence
Your advice would be welcome. JT
derekg500 said:
Thing is...were you speeding?
If not, you have a point.
If you were speeding, just take a big brave pill and cough up!!
And don't tell us you don't know.
I drive a 175000 mile Diesel Citroen which is not very quick.The reason I would like to see the evidence is it is my right, as it is yours if you have been accused of a crime. I dispute the speed I am accused of as simple as that.
They could have done it by searching for similar details and they're not supposed to do that. The fee he's being asked to pay is an admin fee probably because he want's it on photographic paper. I'd tell them to provide the info foc on ordinary paper as it's his right to see the trial evidence. Bog them down with lots of blustering letters 'non prejudice' and see them in court if they don't show a photo of a legible plate.
Boosted.
Boosted.
So if you pay your 10 quid, and plod send you clear photo's of you reg number, will you still fight this, or are you saying that it may not have been your vehicle?
The photo's must be reasonably clear for them to know it was you.
Although it hurts, I would just pay the fine and move on.
The photo's must be reasonably clear for them to know it was you.
Although it hurts, I would just pay the fine and move on.
Thanks Boosted.All I want is to see the evidence as the pictures on line are poor and not clear.I assume that if the plod input most of your number plate along with the car make, model and colour then they can trace you. But as I understand things the picture must be clear? I am not expecting colour pictures just a clear image without being ripped off at the same time.£10 is the maximum permitted fee for a Data Protection Act information request. That's where the figure comes from. I'm really unsure as to how this applies to disclosure (of evidence). In order to get to disclosure, you're going to have to fight the case ... hmmm ... I think you're going to have to pay up, but add the £10 to the costs claim if you decide that you're going to contest the case.
Good luck.
Good luck.
J1mmyD said:
£10 is the maximum permitted fee for a Data Protection Act information request. That's where the figure comes from. I'm really unsure as to how this applies to disclosure (of evidence). In order to get to disclosure, you're going to have to fight the case ... hmmm ... I think you're going to have to pay up, but add the £10 to the costs claim if you decide that you're going to contest the case.
Good luck.
Thanks I have just had a quick look at the Freedoom of Information act and it say's that the authorities can charge, but only in line with regulations set by the Government and they are set in such a way at the moment that most requests will be answered free of charge. Even if the regulations say there should be no fee for finding the information, the authority can still charge you the cost of things like photocopying (although the Government has recommended that this should be at no more than 10p a sheet and that if it comes to a small amount, like £10, the authority should supply the work for free).
I am thinking is it worth the hassle.Should I just say they want my money and that's all they are interested in.Trouble is if they can charge a fee for showing you the evidence where is this going to lead?just trouble said:Yes, the fee can vary. The ABD ended up paying over £100 to get the data from Wilts scammers that they used to "justify" scamvans on bridges over the M4.
Thanks I have just had a quick look at the Freedoom of Information act and it say's that the authorities can charge, but only in line with regulations set by the Government and they are set in such a way at the moment that most requests will be answered free of charge.
Statutory Instrument 3244 said:
Maximum fee for communication of information under section 13 of the 2000 Act
7. - (1) Any fee to be charged under section 13 of the 2000 Act by a public authority to whom a request for information is made is not to exceed the maximum determined by a public authority in accordance with this regulation.
(2) The maximum fee is a sum equivalent to the total of -
(a) the costs which the public authority may take into account under regulation 4 in relation to that request, and
(b) the costs it reasonably expects to incur in relation to the request in -
(i) informing the person making the request whether it holds the information, and
(ii) communicating the information to the person making the request.
(3) But a public authority is to disregard, for the purposes of paragraph(2)(a), any costs which it may take into account under regulation 4 solely by virtue of the provision made by regulation 5.
(4) Costs which may be taken into account by a public authority for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b) include, but are not limited to, the costs of-
(a) giving effect to any preference expressed by the person making the request as to the means or form of communicating the information,
(b) reproducing any document containing the information, and
(c) postage and other forms of transmitting the information.
(5) For the purposes of this regulation, the provision for the estimation of costs made by regulation 4(4) is to be taken to apply to the costs mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) as it does to the costs mentioned in regulation 4(3).
just trouble said:
£10 is the maximum permitted fee for a Data Protection Act information request. That's where the figure comes from. I'm really unsure as to how this applies to disclosure (of evidence). In order to get to disclosure, you're going to have to fight the case ... hmmm ... I think you're going to have to pay up, but add the £10 to the costs claim if you decide that you're going to contest the case.
Good luck.
Even if the regulations say there should be no fee for finding the information, the authority can still charge you the cost of things like photocopying (although the Government has recommended that this should be at no more than 10p a sheet and that if it comes to a small amount, like £10, the authority should supply the work for free).
If you have been given a conditional offer & you didn't commit the offence, then go to court.
If you go to court, you will get full disclosure.
I am sure you know from the photo you have been given if it's you or not.
If you are disputing that, or you don't think they have the required evidence, then refuse the conditional offer.
Surely you are entitled to full disclosure before you go to court in order to prepare your defence? Without disclosure you could ask for an adjournement?
JT, I don't think they are allowed to search the database to find a matching car. Somebody here will know. Afaik they have to match your plate to your car and address first time around so you realy do need to see those pics.
A broken/damaged plate works wonders, works wonders etc. No police left to bother you nowadays and they have much more serious things to deal with!
Boosted.
JT, I don't think they are allowed to search the database to find a matching car. Somebody here will know. Afaik they have to match your plate to your car and address first time around so you realy do need to see those pics.
A broken/damaged plate works wonders, works wonders etc. No police left to bother you nowadays and they have much more serious things to deal with!
Boosted.
vonhosen said:Vonhosen, any additional thoughts, in the light of the 1967 Criminal Justice Act?
If you have been given a conditional offer & you didn't commit the offence, then go to court.
If you go to court, you will get full disclosure.
I am sure you know from the photo you have been given if it's you or not.
If you are disputing that, or you don't think they have the required evidence, then refuse the conditional offer.
just trouble said:
I just bet it is, it's to shut people up and make them pay up without a fight. These are scammers doing what they do best.
Boosted.
just trouble said:
A broken/damaged plate works wonders, works wonders etc. No police left to bother you nowadays and they have much more serious things to deal with!
Boosted.
Thought about a broken plate or the lacquer spray
[/quote] The front plate could be an accident, the spray on the back is deliberate but to be caught by a gatso from the rear means you probably weren't paying attention, imo.
Boosted.
I think vonhosen is tied up on another thread, so this might be of interest to anyone taking the Court route who doesn't see a photo...ianal but it looks like the worst thing to do is ask for it...
Essence of Article on Mister Solicitor Nick Freeman said:
Speed camera prosecutions can be thrown out of court because of a loophole in the law.
Many prosecutions are based on inadmissible evidence and can therefore be thrown out. The evidence is inadmissible because defendants are not given photos from cameras at least seven days before a trial, thereby breaching the 1967 Criminal Justice Act.
The problem for most people accused of speeding is they will not realise that this fact of law can render the evidence inadmissible in Court. People need to be aware of their rights.
Some camera partnerships say a road user cannot have the evidence but fail to tell them they are entitled to see it.
Traffic lawyer Nick Freeman, who has successfully defended the likes of David Beckham, Ronnie O'Sullivan and Sir Alex Ferguson, explained: 'Most of the prosecuting authorities go to court without producing the photo, and so there is no admissible evidence as to what the speed is.'
'And it is not just a case of serving the photograph. It has got to be submitted at least seven days before the trial. '
The evidence must be supplied even if the defendant has not asked for it - so the worst thing a defendant can do is ask for a photograph.
It has emerged that photos issued by new RedSpeed cameras are also inadmissible as evidence in court.
Defendants are sent two Gatso-style photos showing they travelled a certain distance in a certain time. But the time interval, which is necessary to calculate speed from the photos, is not included. Without it, the photos are not admissible evidence of speed.
And while the authorities may produce the time interval in court, by not submitting it earlier, they render that inadmissible as well.
turbobloke said:
If you have been given a conditional offer & you didn't commit the offence, then go to court.
If you go to court, you will get full disclosure.
I am sure you know from the photo you have been given if it's you or not.
If you are disputing that, or you don't think they have the required evidence, then refuse the conditional offer.
Of course where I am saying "If you go to court, you will get full disclosure" I am talking about you getting full disclosure before the court hearing. But once you've gone down that route the conditional offer is withdrawn. You have been given a photo, you know whether it's you or not. The choice is take the conditional offer or chance your arm at court (if it is you on the photo). If you go the court route then you'll get disclosrure prior to the hearing, but the conditional offer has gone.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 11th May 23:34
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff