Speed Camera Loophole Exposed
Discussion
I've had a few emails about this - apparently it's all over facebook, twitter, linkedin, etc.
It's an article from 2003 reproduced on a government auctions website - headed Extract from the Western Mail.
It is, of course, complete nonsense. If you receive a notice of intended prosecution then not signing the form is not a loophole.
http://governmentauctionsuk.com/auction-guide-deta...
It's an article from 2003 reproduced on a government auctions website - headed Extract from the Western Mail.
It is, of course, complete nonsense. If you receive a notice of intended prosecution then not signing the form is not a loophole.
http://governmentauctionsuk.com/auction-guide-deta...
This was something that I think actually worked for a few people back in the day. There was even an "unsigned_forms" mailing list, template letters on PePiPoo, the works. But thankfully for the control freaks (and of course the very future of humanity), the courts eventually managed to fudge it away, leaving some adventurous but unfortunate motorists with nasty convictions which heavily loaded their insurance premiums.
Serves them right for daring to have their day in court. If every motorist challenged their speeding ticket in court then the whole system would collapse and road deaths would...well, not go up, but since when was that the point?
It does provide a lesson that in following Internet advice, one is still very much liable if it's wrong, but it does not automatically follow that all advice on PePiPoo etc is incorrect, as some would like.
Serves them right for daring to have their day in court. If every motorist challenged their speeding ticket in court then the whole system would collapse and road deaths would...well, not go up, but since when was that the point?
It does provide a lesson that in following Internet advice, one is still very much liable if it's wrong, but it does not automatically follow that all advice on PePiPoo etc is incorrect, as some would like.
GPSHead said:
Serves them right for daring to have their day in court. If every motorist challenged their speeding ticket in court then the whole system would collapse and road deaths would...well, not go up, but since when was that the point?
There's a bit of a difference between pleading not guilty (on the basis that you're, well, not guilty) and deliberately trying to game the system with i-dotting-t-crossing pettyfogging despite knowing full well that you are bang to rights.The 'unsigned' route is still suggested if the offence was in Scotland. The english courts stopped it but the PF in Scotland hasn't yet had the balls to confront it.
The consensus of opinion on pepipoo is that if the offender lived in the same force area of the offence, then many visits would be made by local plod to get a signature. If one lived many miles away but still in Scotland, maybe less visits as its not a 'local' issue for them and they probably wont know the full details of the case, they would just be asked by another division to attain the signature.
If you lived in England..... well, would an English force send an officer once a week for up to six months to get the signature?
Would all depend on how easy you would find it to pretend to be "out" every time the door bell went.
The consensus of opinion on pepipoo is that if the offender lived in the same force area of the offence, then many visits would be made by local plod to get a signature. If one lived many miles away but still in Scotland, maybe less visits as its not a 'local' issue for them and they probably wont know the full details of the case, they would just be asked by another division to attain the signature.
If you lived in England..... well, would an English force send an officer once a week for up to six months to get the signature?
Would all depend on how easy you would find it to pretend to be "out" every time the door bell went.
agtlaw said:
I've had a few emails about this - apparently it's all over facebook, twitter, linkedin, etc.
It's an article from 2003 reproduced on a government auctions website - headed Extract from the Western Mail.
It is, of course, complete nonsense. If you receive a notice of intended prosecution then not signing the form is not a loophole.
http://governmentauctionsuk.com/auction-guide-deta...
Why is it nonsense?It's an article from 2003 reproduced on a government auctions website - headed Extract from the Western Mail.
It is, of course, complete nonsense. If you receive a notice of intended prosecution then not signing the form is not a loophole.
http://governmentauctionsuk.com/auction-guide-deta...
Because, contrary to the drivel spouted on Peepipoo and other such "going as fast as I want is a fundamental human right" sites, the law does not operate by sorcery, or by antique standards of technicality and ballsaching, so that if some magic word isn't used, or a document that evidences driving isn't signed, it doesn't matter. Substance tends to trump form, and, as a general rule, taking the piss doesn't work.
Breadvan72 said:
Because, contrary to the drivel spouted on Peepipoo and other such "going as fast as I want is a fundamental human right" sites, the law does not operate by sorcery, or by antique standards of technicality and ballsaching, so that if some magic word isn't used, or a document that evidences driving isn't signed, it doesn't matter. Substance tends to trump form, and, as a general rule, taking the piss doesn't work.
Not sure how you could possibly describe Pepipoo as a "going as fast as I want is a fundamental human right" type of website. Several of their most prominent members are police or ex-police, and anyone moaning about how unfair the system is gets laid into almost immediately. I also find it rather refreshing that they simply present people with the facts without judging them, makes a change from how such threads are dealt with here....Martin4x4 said:
Why is it nonsense?
Mawdesley v Chief Constable of Cheshire (2003)"I am satisfied that if it is properly to be inferred from the evidence before the court that an unsigned Section 172 form was made by the Defendant, it is admissible in evidence as a confession."
Without getting too technical, if it can't be admitted by means of the normal route [s12(1)(a) RTOA 1988] then it goes in as a confession.
To many this requirement for self-incrimination has always a bit incongruous and not in the spirit of English law.
Is there any other area of legislation where the authorities effectively say, "We believe that an offence has been committed and we also think you must know who committed it. So either you confess or you provide the name and address of a person who will confess. If you fail to do this you will be punished twice as severely as the person who committed this offence and pleaded guilty".
In all other areas of the law there seems to be a caution which contains the words ".... You are not obliged to say anything....".
With the S172 requirement, this has clearly been lost.
Is there any other area of legislation where the authorities effectively say, "We believe that an offence has been committed and we also think you must know who committed it. So either you confess or you provide the name and address of a person who will confess. If you fail to do this you will be punished twice as severely as the person who committed this offence and pleaded guilty".
In all other areas of the law there seems to be a caution which contains the words ".... You are not obliged to say anything....".
With the S172 requirement, this has clearly been lost.
We are licensed to operate (potentially dangerous) machines. A quid pro quo for that is that if the machine is seen doing something against the law, we can be asked to state who was operating the machine at the time. It's hardly a huge erosion of liberty. By temperament and by profession I am suspicious of State power and zealous about civil liberties, but speed control is not a subject that gets my liberty bells ringing.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 16th August 16:16
Breadvan72 said:
We are licensed to operate (potentially dangerous) machines. A quid pro quo for that is that if the machine is seen doing something against the law, we can be asked to state who was operating the machine at the time. It's hardly a huge erosion of liberty.
It is, because forcing self-incrimination or, as detailed in recent posts, forcing a confession runs contrary not only to the principles of natural justice but also (it seems) to the law (before the baseless war on speed further debased the law). Now, you AAL whereas IANAL but this is from a legal beagle type website so please feel free to outline for the layman where it goes wrong.The In House Lawyer website said:
The common law rule of PSI was described in Blunt v Park Lane Hotel Ltd [1942] as being ‘the rule… that no one is bound to answer any question if the answer thereto would, in the opinion of the judge, have a tendency to expose [him] to any criminal charge or penalty, or forfeiture which the judge regards as reasonably likely to be referred or sued for’ and further that the rule ‘applies to oral evidence, interrogatories and the discovery of documents’...PSI only applies to offences under the law of any part of the UK...Over the years, a number of carve-outs to the rule have been established by both Parliament and the courts. These exceptions to the rule remain largely unrelated and have been developed in a piecemeal fashion to cover a wide range of situations that continue to grow in number. Most statutes that remove PSI do so only in particular situations and in most cases the removal is subject to restrictions on what use can be made of the evidence/documents.
A NIP/S172 for 35 in a 30 doesn't come with relevant restrictions on use, the result is disproportionate and it isn't at the same level of seriousness to a reasonable person as other carve-outs. Section 172 puts an unacceptable obligation on the registered keeper or anybody else who can provide the information to supply the identity of a driver. A far better solution is to use methods which identify the driver at the time of an offence but that wouldn't allow for lazy policing based on an arbitrary number and it would reduce cashflow.TooMany2cvs said:
There's a bit of a difference between pleading not guilty (on the basis that you're, well, not guilty) and deliberately trying to game the system with i-dotting-t-crossing pettyfogging despite knowing full well that you are bang to rights.
While on the whole I agree I do not have a problem with someone using a technical defence for a technical offence. agtlaw said:
Martin4x4 said:
Why is it nonsense?
Mawdesley v Chief Constable of Cheshire (2003)"I am satisfied that if it is properly to be inferred from the evidence before the court that an unsigned Section 172 form was made by the Defendant, it is admissible in evidence as a confession."
Without getting too technical, if it can't be admitted by means of the normal route [s12(1)(a) RTOA 1988] then it goes in as a confession.
Aretnap said:
Upheld at the ECHR - http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.a...The dissenting opinions are worth reading imo - links here
I suspect it was never going to be decided the other way though. There was too much at stake.
In that context, many other EU jurisdictions have in their national legislation a presumption that the registered owner/keeper is the driver. The burden is on you to prove otherwise. Reversing the law in E&W to fall in with that would have been a step too far at that time for Westminster to contemplate. My bet is that there was some very intense lobbying behind the scenes. Find for us so that we don't have to go down that route.
The dogs could thus rest easy in their slumbers.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff