Flashed by speed camera, pleaded not guilty and WON
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
I think there are two separate issues.
1) Whether or not there is a 30 limit on the stretch of road in question, which as you say is unambiguous.
2) How the limit needs to be indicated in order to be enforceable.
What seems to have happened here is that there was a 30 limit, but the signs weren't to spec so it wasn't enforceable. It would be interesting to know what would have happened if the OP had been doing 80MPH. If he had been done for exceeding NSL then there wasn't a 30 limit there. If the 30 limit was there but unenforceable there is an argument that he couldn't be done for speeding irrespective of his speed.
The limi is enforceable. What happened in this case was the prosecutor didn't have the evidence of the speed limit with him at trial like he should have done. That doesn't mean the OP's claim that it was defective is right...as it happens he isn't right and he was simply lucky. Perhaps his luck was made by the barrister asking a lot of questions before trial. 1) Whether or not there is a 30 limit on the stretch of road in question, which as you say is unambiguous.
2) How the limit needs to be indicated in order to be enforceable.
What seems to have happened here is that there was a 30 limit, but the signs weren't to spec so it wasn't enforceable. It would be interesting to know what would have happened if the OP had been doing 80MPH. If he had been done for exceeding NSL then there wasn't a 30 limit there. If the 30 limit was there but unenforceable there is an argument that he couldn't be done for speeding irrespective of his speed.
tapereel said:
The limi is enforceable. What happened in this case was the prosecutor didn't have the evidence of the speed limit with him at trial like he should have done. That doesn't mean the OP's claim that it was defective is right...as it happens he isn't right and he was simply lucky. Perhaps his luck was made by the barrister asking a lot of questions before trial.
Perhaps they should have got an expert witness in eh Steve ?tapereel said:
The limi is enforceable. What happened in this case was the prosecutor didn't have the evidence of the speed limit with him at trial like he should have done. That doesn't mean the OP's claim that it was defective is right...as it happens he isn't right and he was simply lucky. Perhaps his luck was made by the barrister asking a lot of questions before trial.
"The lucky man is he who knows how much to leave to chance"Perhaps the prosecutor couldn't obtain evidence of the correct speed limit being properly signed because it wasn't actually properly signed?
Given the OP was there, and everyone else on PH wasn't, perhaps we should do away with making up scenarios to fit our pre-conceived view?
For the sore losers out there that feel the system has been "cheated", surely you can console yourselves with the vast revenue raised from speeding fines each year?
Ian
Ian Geary said:
"The lucky man is he who knows how much to leave to chance"
Perhaps the prosecutor couldn't obtain evidence of the correct speed limit being properly signed because it wasn't actually properly signed?
Given the OP was there, and everyone else on PH wasn't, perhaps we should do away with making up scenarios to fit our pre-conceived view?
For the sore losers out there that feel the system has been "cheated", surely you can console yourselves with the vast revenue raised from speeding fines each year?
Ian
This. Perhaps the prosecutor couldn't obtain evidence of the correct speed limit being properly signed because it wasn't actually properly signed?
Given the OP was there, and everyone else on PH wasn't, perhaps we should do away with making up scenarios to fit our pre-conceived view?
For the sore losers out there that feel the system has been "cheated", surely you can console yourselves with the vast revenue raised from speeding fines each year?
Ian
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff