Caught doing 113mph....pleading not guilty?
Discussion
The guy who has the desk next to me at work was caught doing 113 on an Mway.
He was followed by a police can over a fair distance, it looks like they had no specific speed detection equipment, going from what my associate is telling me, just video with an MPH of the police car and time.
Anyway my question: My friends legal team(?) have advised him to not turn up at court and to plead not guilty.
He is happy to admit to going 70+, but not 110+.
Surly he’s better off pleading guilty to speeding, then arguing that it was less than 110, or am I understanding this wrong?
He was followed by a police can over a fair distance, it looks like they had no specific speed detection equipment, going from what my associate is telling me, just video with an MPH of the police car and time.
Anyway my question: My friends legal team(?) have advised him to not turn up at court and to plead not guilty.
He is happy to admit to going 70+, but not 110+.
Surly he’s better off pleading guilty to speeding, then arguing that it was less than 110, or am I understanding this wrong?
Liokault said:
The guy who has the desk next to me at work was caught doing 113 on an Mway.
He was followed by a police can over a fair distance, it looks like they had no specific speed detection equipment, going from what my associate is telling me, just video with an MPH of the police car and time.
Anyway my question: My friends legal team(?) have advised him to not turn up at court and to plead not guilty.
He is happy to admit to going 70+, but not 110+.
Surly he’s better off pleading guilty to speeding, then arguing that it was less than 110, or am I understanding this wrong?
your "friend" ???? or you? He was followed by a police can over a fair distance, it looks like they had no specific speed detection equipment, going from what my associate is telling me, just video with an MPH of the police car and time.
Anyway my question: My friends legal team(?) have advised him to not turn up at court and to plead not guilty.
He is happy to admit to going 70+, but not 110+.
Surly he’s better off pleading guilty to speeding, then arguing that it was less than 110, or am I understanding this wrong?
I'd say the reason is that the difference in sentence between pleading guilty and innocent for speeding is fairly neglible - the points are pretty formulaic if found guilty. If you don't show up and go innocent the burden is on the police to prove and any number of admin technicalities can result in a case failing.
It may be a preliminary hearing, at which point there will be an allocation to trial, with a view to entering a guilty plea on a contested basis (a Newton Hearing) or by agreement with the prosecution - a basis of plea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_hearing
If you simply enter a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, none of the facts would be contested and the case would proceed straight to sentencing, although it is possible to enter a guilty plea on a reserved basis ("Attorney General's reference (nos 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of 2011) [2011] EWCA Crim 2174).
I presume that there is good reason to believe that the 113 mph figure is inaccurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_hearing
If you simply enter a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, none of the facts would be contested and the case would proceed straight to sentencing, although it is possible to enter a guilty plea on a reserved basis ("Attorney General's reference (nos 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of 2011) [2011] EWCA Crim 2174).
I presume that there is good reason to believe that the 113 mph figure is inaccurate.
Liokault said:
The guy who has the desk next to me at work was caught doing 113 on an Mway.
He was followed by a police can over a fair distance, it looks like they had no specific speed detection equipment, going from what my associate is telling me, just video with an MPH of the police car and time.
Anyway my question: My friends legal team(?) have advised him to not turn up at court and to plead not guilty.
He is happy to admit to going 70+, but not 110+.
Surly he’s better off pleading guilty to speeding, then arguing that it was less than 110, or am I understanding this wrong?
As someone else has already said, your friend needs a new legal team. If the police had video recording equipment in the car that is the evidence of speed. It will be Police Pilot or something similar which is based on Vascar linked to recording equipment. They will have used this over a fixed distance to come up with a figure of speed.He was followed by a police can over a fair distance, it looks like they had no specific speed detection equipment, going from what my associate is telling me, just video with an MPH of the police car and time.
Anyway my question: My friends legal team(?) have advised him to not turn up at court and to plead not guilty.
He is happy to admit to going 70+, but not 110+.
Surly he’s better off pleading guilty to speeding, then arguing that it was less than 110, or am I understanding this wrong?
He can ask for a copy of the recording and examine the procedure they used, but it's very difficult to argue against if they followed the correct procedure. However, frequently they don't.
J
CYMR0 said:
I presume that there is good reason to believe that the 113 mph figure is inaccurate.
Unclear, but I think it’s based on the difference in ban between sub 110 and over 110 mph along with the manner in which his speed was calculated by the police (single officer in a car,with video), makes it worth arguing over.Incidentally, we were just chatting about this over lunch, he was unaware that he had to retake his test after a ban, not just get his license handed back to him (I have limited sympathy for him, but I shouldn’t be finding this as funny as I do).
The office we're sitting in is about 270 miles from his house, so his ability to drive is important to him.
How would he (honestly) say his driving was other than the speed? In other words, if the video shows a standard of driving that falls below that expected of a competent driver, or otherwise shows aggravating circumstances - traffic density, etc - then does he really want that shown in court?
When I am King of the World this is the first thing I'd change. I'd make the punishment a 0 day ban but you have to retake your test. I'd also make testing annual. A licence isn't a right, you need to prove you deserve it.
Of course you can't do that instantly so I'd make all new licences only last 5 years until you need a re-test and then work down to every year so that the testing infrastructure can grow to cope with the demand.
The next thing on the list is to look at places which have lots of offences and no accidents and then decide if it's right to criminalise people who are clearly not doing anything dangerous.
Simon
Of course you can't do that instantly so I'd make all new licences only last 5 years until you need a re-test and then work down to every year so that the testing infrastructure can grow to cope with the demand.
The next thing on the list is to look at places which have lots of offences and no accidents and then decide if it's right to criminalise people who are clearly not doing anything dangerous.
Simon
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff