Pulled for speeding - Question re in car video

[Pixelpeep]

tehguy said:

They don't need video evidence, the opinion of two officers alone (or just one if it's a motorway) is sufficient to convict. The point being that the police are supposed to be trusted people and there is no reason for them to lie. Why would they risk their jobs/freedom (perverting the course of justice is an imprisonable offence) just to secure a speeding conviction on someone they have never met before? They are not trying to fit you up.

I am not suggesting they are, although if its so hard for me to prove otherwise the risk to them re losing their jobs is almost non-existent so to secure a conviction one MIGHT add 10mph to their initial 'opinion' ?

Whilst i understand the attitude test and have never been rude or aggressive when being questioned this does highlight the fact that if the officer wanted to, they could make life harder for the suspect, through various powers that are available to them (is this proper justice?)

tehguy said:

You can of course plead not guilty and opt for a Newton hearing, where you admit you are speeding but contest the actual speed. Don't forget, the offence is the same, the speed just determines the level of punishment. The court cannot offer you a speed awareness course or a fixed penalty so all you will be trying to reduce is the points and fine, if they accept that you were doing 50 instead of 55 in a 40 then the outcome will most likely be the same anyway, but you'll have wasted a lot more money by going to court because you'll have to pay costs too.

so what's the point? is that what you're asking? - how about the truth? i find it quite offensive that i have to go so far out of my way financially and mentally try and prove the offence wasn't as severe as first alleged.

tehguy said:

Follow-checks can be done over as little as 1/8 of a mile and they don't need to utilise the equipment fully in order to do it, a trained officer using a stopwatch and a calibrated speedometer is sufficient. If he drove at a constant speed and was not gaining on you, then you were obviously travelling at more than that speed.

there was no stopwatch, there was no constant speed there was no constant distance. when he entered the half mile stretch of road and accelerated to catch me i was already half way down it due to his extremely low entry speed into the road.

Why would he accelerate to 55mph and then stop trying to catch me? if i was doing over that he would have kept trying to match my speed, for a proper calculation?

tehguy said:

You'll have a very tough time fighting this, considering you don't actually have ANY evidence at all that you weren't doing 55mph, except for thinking that you weren't (which a court will not accept as evidence).

but i can question their method of speed calculation - as i believe it is wrong.

[CoolHands]

tehguy said:

You'll have a very tough time fighting this, considering you don't actually have ANY evidence at all that you weren't doing 55mph, except for thinking that you weren't (which a court will not accept as evidence).

is that how it works now? You don't have any evidence you WEREN'T doing something?

[auto1]

[quote=tehguy]

They don't need video evidence, the opinion of two officers alone (or just one if it's a motorway) is sufficient to convict. The point being that the police are supposed to be trusted people and there is no reason for them to lie. Why would they risk their jobs/freedom (perverting the course of justice is an imprisonable offence) just to secure a speeding conviction on someone they have never met before? They are not trying to fit you up.

Sorry this does happen, Two of us went to court as a witnesses (Jumping a red light) when he really didn’t,

The police issued what seamed to be a generic statement, with the wrong set of lights on it.

Also the timing was impossible, easily proved. (As I said he didn’t do it I was there).

When it came to court the officer didn’t’ turn up (some excuse that he was on leave.)
It was thrown out.
Not having a go at the police in general, but this did happen.

[SS2.]

CoolHands said:

You don't have any evidence you WEREN'T doing something?

The officer(s) would present their evidence, the accused would present theirs.

It may be that, in both cases, the 'evidence' consists of nothing more than verbal or written statements / recollections of events.

Once both parties had presented their evidence, it would fall to the magistrates to decide how much weight to apply to each version and, in turn, whether or not the guilt of the accused had been proven to the required standard (ie beyond reasonable doubt).

Absent any fundamental procedural or evidential errors on behalf of the prosecution, or the accused being unable to present strong evidence to discredit / disprove the sworn statements of serving police officers, then it is likely that a guilty verdict would follow.

[agtlaw]

SS2. said:

... or the accused being unable to present strong evidence to discredit / disprove the sworn statements of serving police officers, then it is likely that a guilty verdict would follow.

This is either a very clumsily expressed opinion and or a misunderstanding of the burden and standard of proof in a criminal proceedings.

[SS2.]

agtlaw said:

This is either a very clumsily expressed opinion and or a misunderstanding of the burden and standard of proof in a criminal proceedings.

For an allegation of excess speed, the evidential requirements for the prosecution have been defined earlier in this thread. Absent the accused being able to discredit, disprove or cast reasonable doubt upon that evidence (and assuming no fatally flawed procedural SNAFUs), it remains most likely that the court would have little option but to convict.

Edited by SS2. on Monday 30th December 11:33

[agtlaw]

SS2. said:

Absent the accused being able to discredit, disprove or cast reasonable doubt upon that evidence, it remains most likely that the court would have little option but to convict.

A misunderstanding then. It's not for the defendant to disprove the prosecution case.

[Grandfondo]

agtlaw said:

SS2. said:

Absent the accused being able to discredit, disprove or cast reasonable doubt upon that evidence, it remains most likely that the court would have little option but to convict.

A misunderstanding then. It's not for the defendant to disprove the prosecution case.

The letter of the law might say that but in reality...

[cashmax]

I had a similar situation a while ago on the M6 where the officers lied about my speed, had no video evidence at all, despite being in a fully equipped car. Since there were 2 of them, I stood no chance. When it came to the cps, they offered a lower speed, but I ended up pleading guilty to the alledged speed of well over a ton to ensure I got a short ban instead of points.

Sucks doesn't it.

[Froomee]

10 Pence Short said:

The '30' in SP30 has nothing to do with the speed limit.

Just means public road (non-motorway) which I believe is less of a risk for insurers than an SP50 conviction due to the nature of the offence so although annoying isn't the worst thing in the world.

Anyhow my point was that providing an early guilty plea and mitigation may actually end up easier, cheaper and with a better end result than contesting the charge as magistrates don't tend to take very kindly to the suggestion that officers exaggerate/ are inaccurate or however you would word it.

This is all from my experience... Despite both mine and my friends offences being pretty severe in the scheme of things I got 6 points/£345 fine for 78mph in a 30mph and he got a 56 day ban and a £400ish fine for doing around 170mph (convicted for 135mph) for about 4/5 miles at around 10/11pm when the roads were hardly quiet.

Good luck either way OP

[jbsportstech]

Froomee said:

Just means public road (non-motorway) which I believe is less of a risk for insurers than an SP50 conviction due to the nature of the offence so although annoying isn't the worst thing in the world.

Anyhow my point was that providing an early guilty plea and mitigation may actually end up easier, cheaper and with a better end result than contesting the charge as magistrates don't tend to take very kindly to the suggestion that officers exaggerate/ are inaccurate or however you would word it.

This is all from my experience... Despite both mine and my friends offences being pretty severe in the scheme of things I got 6 points/£345 fine for 78mph in a 30mph and he got a 56 day ban and a £400ish fine for doing around 170mph (convicted for 135mph) for about 4/5 miles at around 10/11pm when the roads were hardly quiet.

Good luck either way OP

Agreed magistrates courts dont like people claiming police to be incorrect unless you have an expert witness or proof they have not acted in accordance with the law.

Going to court and stating 'they got my speed wrong' will just pee them off and they will not go easy on you.

If you were speeding you are best to plead guilty at the first opportunity.

[RB Will]

I know a PHer who came away with I think 4 points and about. £300 fine after initially being summoned for undisclosed speed. Police were claiming 140+ but they were always too far away to get my friend on video.

So in court all the video showed was a policeman having an excessive hoon then pulling someone over at a set of lights for no apparent reason.

Friend did not flat out deny speeding but disputed the degree to which he was so rather than 140+ he got done for 90 something (on a DC 70 limit)

[clarkey]

Slightly off topic, but didn't Mr Newton admit to some back door action, but the 'newton hearing' bit was whether Mrs Newton was up for it or not?

[Steffan]

clarkey said:

Slightly off topic, but didn't Mr Newton admit to some back door action, but the 'newton hearing' bit was whether Mrs Newton was up for it or not?

Indeed it was. Bit of a Solomon decision for the judge IMO. Arguably removes the decision from the jury which most Judges would like. Unsurprisingly the defences do not like them.

[clarkey]

Steffan said:

Indeed it was. Bit of a Solomon decision for the judge IMO. Arguably removes the decision from the jury which most Judges would like. Unsurprisingly the defences do not like them.

A Solomon decision - did the judge threaten to split her anus in two with a sword?

[All that jazz]

tehguy said:

They don't need video evidence, the opinion of two officers alone (or just one if it's a motorway) is sufficient to convict. The point being that the police are supposed to be trusted people and there is no reason for them to lie. Why would they risk their jobs/freedom (perverting the course of justice is an imprisonable offence) just to secure a speeding conviction on someone they have never met before? They are not trying to fit you up.

[Steffan]

clarkey said:

Steffan said:

Indeed it was. Bit of a Solomon decision for the judge IMO. Arguably removes the decision from the jury which most Judges would like. Unsurprisingly the defences do not like them.

A Solomon decision - did the judge threaten to split her anus in two with a sword?

I think aomebody already had. The Solomon judgement is a biblical allegory and well worth reading.

[98elise]

Can you get a copy of the video. If you can then your average speed can be calculated quite simply, providing the are two reference points where your car can be seen. The speed of the police car will not alter the calculation.

All you need is time and distance covered for your car.

[10 Pence Short]

If there was a video but it is subsequently not available to the defence, you would possibly have grounds for the case being stayed as an abuse of process.

[robinessex]

He followed me for 4 miles and is using the footage of our last 0.5 miles as the offence. - clearly this was the 'best' evidence of speeding he had captured in the entire time he had been following me.

the whole route was through backroads and country roads, most 30mph, some 50mph but the one he stopped me on was the first 0.5 miles of a 30 coming from a 50.

Not a hope in hell of prooving your speed in the different speed zones, so not a hope of a speed conviction unless he followed you in the last 30mph zone at +30mph.