Scamera loophole
Discussion
This may have been posted already and missed by me but its still worth re-posting incase other missed it. Found it in MCN -
LETTER THAT CAN SAVE YOUR LICENCE
A simple letter using legal wording has opened up a new route to get speeding charges dropped, according to experts. The statement is at the centre of a High Court appeal to be heard this summer, but for now police forces across the country are dropping cases when it has been used. People accused of speeding have simply been sending in the statement in response to Notices of Intended Prosecution (NIPs).
Speed cameras rely on a law requiring you to say who was riding your bike (or driving your car) at the time of an alleged offence. Not saying who it was will lead to a charge of withholding information under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, which admitting to being the rider will lead to a fixed penalty for speeding.
But another law says that before suspects are questioned about an offence they should receive a formal caution – and no caution is given when a speeding notice is delivered through the post.
The standard statement, reproduced below, is designed to accompany an admission to being the driver. It points out that, since no caution has been given, the admission cannot be used as evidence in court.
Specialist road traffic lawyer Robert Dobson, whose client’s case is to be heard by the High Court, said: “In English law there’s a requirement that if a statement is going to be used against somebody, that person has to be cautioned under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If a caution hasn’t been given, then the argument runs that anything that’s said cannot be used as evidence in court”.
Dobson added: “We’ve complied with Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act by identifying the driver. But what we’re saying is that we’re not going to allow that information to then be used against us. Any charge under Section 172 must fail as we have complied. And if any charge is brought for speeding, we’ll say, how do you know who was driving?”.
The loophole letter, called the PACE Witness Statement (after the Police and Criminal Evidence Act), is a Catch 22 for police and camera partnerships, according to Dobson.
Even though someone has admitted to being the rider at the time of the offence, that admission can’t be used as evidence as no caution was given. If an officer then visits the rider to caution him, only statements made after that can be used – and a caution gives the right to silence.
Dobson’s client’s case has been funded by anti-speed camera campaigner Mike Morgan, using donations made to his campaign website.
Morgan said: “Forces have dropped cases all over the country. To my knowledge, very few people who have used the letter have been convicted and a lot of cases have been dropped. I believe the Metropolitan Police, and many other forces, have not issued a summons to anybody who has sent back the statement”.
Letter reads:
[insert their reference number here]
[insert your registration number here]
Dear Chief Constable,
Further to the above Notice of Intended Prosecution, I confirm that the following individual was driving the above vehicle at the time of the alleged motoring offence:
[insert all of the details asked for on the NIP here, including name, address, date of birth and driver number]
As this statement is provided under threat of criminal penalty (Funke v France) and as I have not received the caution required by paragraph 10.1 of PACE Code C (Mawdesley v the Chief Constable of Cheshire (2004) 1 All E.R. 58), I make this statement on the express understanding that it shall not be used or disclosed in any proceedings of whatever nature against myself.
Yours sincerely,
[insert your signature here]
[insert your name here]
LETTER THAT CAN SAVE YOUR LICENCE
A simple letter using legal wording has opened up a new route to get speeding charges dropped, according to experts. The statement is at the centre of a High Court appeal to be heard this summer, but for now police forces across the country are dropping cases when it has been used. People accused of speeding have simply been sending in the statement in response to Notices of Intended Prosecution (NIPs).
Speed cameras rely on a law requiring you to say who was riding your bike (or driving your car) at the time of an alleged offence. Not saying who it was will lead to a charge of withholding information under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, which admitting to being the rider will lead to a fixed penalty for speeding.
But another law says that before suspects are questioned about an offence they should receive a formal caution – and no caution is given when a speeding notice is delivered through the post.
The standard statement, reproduced below, is designed to accompany an admission to being the driver. It points out that, since no caution has been given, the admission cannot be used as evidence in court.
Specialist road traffic lawyer Robert Dobson, whose client’s case is to be heard by the High Court, said: “In English law there’s a requirement that if a statement is going to be used against somebody, that person has to be cautioned under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If a caution hasn’t been given, then the argument runs that anything that’s said cannot be used as evidence in court”.
Dobson added: “We’ve complied with Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act by identifying the driver. But what we’re saying is that we’re not going to allow that information to then be used against us. Any charge under Section 172 must fail as we have complied. And if any charge is brought for speeding, we’ll say, how do you know who was driving?”.
The loophole letter, called the PACE Witness Statement (after the Police and Criminal Evidence Act), is a Catch 22 for police and camera partnerships, according to Dobson.
Even though someone has admitted to being the rider at the time of the offence, that admission can’t be used as evidence as no caution was given. If an officer then visits the rider to caution him, only statements made after that can be used – and a caution gives the right to silence.
Dobson’s client’s case has been funded by anti-speed camera campaigner Mike Morgan, using donations made to his campaign website.
Morgan said: “Forces have dropped cases all over the country. To my knowledge, very few people who have used the letter have been convicted and a lot of cases have been dropped. I believe the Metropolitan Police, and many other forces, have not issued a summons to anybody who has sent back the statement”.
Letter reads:
[insert their reference number here]
[insert your registration number here]
Dear Chief Constable,
Further to the above Notice of Intended Prosecution, I confirm that the following individual was driving the above vehicle at the time of the alleged motoring offence:
[insert all of the details asked for on the NIP here, including name, address, date of birth and driver number]
As this statement is provided under threat of criminal penalty (Funke v France) and as I have not received the caution required by paragraph 10.1 of PACE Code C (Mawdesley v the Chief Constable of Cheshire (2004) 1 All E.R. 58), I make this statement on the express understanding that it shall not be used or disclosed in any proceedings of whatever nature against myself.
Yours sincerely,
[insert your signature here]
[insert your name here]
Gixer said:
...I confirm that the following individual was driving the above vehicle at the time of the alleged motoring offence:
[insert all of the details asked for on the NIP here, including name, address, date of birth and driver number]
As this statement...
So, who's details do you stick in there then??
Im sure I've heard of a similar thing to this before whereby you send back the form saying it was you, but don't sign it, or something like that. However, last I heard, they were cracking down on people that tried it on...
hedders said:
Is that the standard PACE defence i have heard so much about? or is this different?
Ahem!
gixer said:
The loophole letter, called the PACE Witness Statement (after the Police and Criminal Evidence Act), is a Catch 22 for police and camera partnerships, according to Dobson.
From my days in the Police I think it will work,
You make a statment in the letter naming yourself, but its not under caution so can't be used as evidence. When a witness makes a statement they have to read and sign the caution at the top of the statement form to allow the evidence to be heard in court.
The letter it is being suggested we can all send can't be used in court, unless you foolish write out a caution and sign it yourself
You make a statment in the letter naming yourself, but its not under caution so can't be used as evidence. When a witness makes a statement they have to read and sign the caution at the top of the statement form to allow the evidence to be heard in court.
The letter it is being suggested we can all send can't be used in court, unless you foolish write out a caution and sign it yourself
Interesting case in the ABD mag On The Road this month, about a bloke contesting a NIP on the grounds that it was generated by a Partnership that includes the Police Authority and the Court, thus he was to be prosecuted with evidence generated by the Police and tried by a Court that had an interest in the outcome (or sunnink like that!). Didn't say how he got on though, anyone know?
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff