S.172 NIP - Incorrect time

[agtlaw]

If disputed then the prosecutor must prove that the car is in the place alleged at the time alleged. Doubt is resolved in favour of the defendant. If a notice of intended prosecution is 'invalid' then no conviction can follow - even if there is no doubt that an offence was committed.

[simoid]

drf765 said:

But there isn't any doubt. The OP knows he was NOT driving and knows the time.

EFA etc

[The Surveyor]

agtlaw said:

If disputed then the prosecutor must prove that the car is in the place alleged at the time alleged. Doubt is resolved in favour of the defendant. If a notice of intended prosecution is 'invalid' then no conviction can follow - even if there is no doubt that an offence was committed.

The prosecutor has 'proven' that the car was in that place at the time of the alleged offence using the photo with the time on it. Any 'doubt' would only be as valid as any other speculative claim where the accused simple says "Honest Guv, I was somewhere else". Is the court likely to throw this out on the basis that the time on the OP's phone was more accurate that their clock... or some random hotels CCTV time was more accurate that there calibrated camera's time.

If there is no suggestion of the car being cloned, and there is no actual evidence to dispute the time, surly any court would just support the prosecution here.

[agtlaw]

The Surveyor said:

The prosecutor has 'proven' that the car was in that place at the time of the alleged offence using the photo with the time on it.

I disagree. Read the OP.

You have also failed to understand the different considerations applying to the Notice, as opposed to the index offence.

Edited by agtlaw on Monday 5th December 12:10

[anonymous-user]

The Surveyor said:

The prosecutor has 'proven' that the car was in that place at the time of the alleged offence using the photo with the time on it. Any 'doubt' would only be as valid as any other speculative claim where the accused simple says "Honest Guv, I was somewhere else". Is the court likely to throw this out on the basis that the time on the OP's phone was more accurate that their clock... or some random hotels CCTV time was more accurate that there calibrated camera's time.

If there is no suggestion of the car being cloned, and there is no actual evidence to dispute the time, surly any court would just support the prosecution here.

The NIP must provide the location and time of the offence (RTOA). The defendant can produce CCTV images of the vehicle (and I imagine transaction evidence from the hotel/witness statements/cctv of reception) being at a location other than that of the offence at the time alleged.

It might be that the time being wrong is fatal to the prosecution, in that it invalidates the NIP. If not, the defendant's evidence shows they were not present in the location alleged at the time alleged. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt and any reasonable doubt means an acquittal.

[The Surveyor]

agtlaw said:

The Surveyor said:

The prosecutor has 'proven' that the car was in that place at the time of the alleged offence using the photo with the time on it.

I disagree. Read the OP.

I have read it and understand ( I think !) that there is doubt over the timing of the photo, but the point was that the 'doubt' is based on nothing concrete. Certainly nothing more concrete than anybody else could claim in defence of a speeding ticket.

The prosecution has a photo of the OP's wife's car passing a camera at a listed time, travelling over the speed limit. The OP has no real evidence that the time was incorrect on the camera or on the NIP so can't show that there is any real doubt over the evidence. Whether they're correct or not is irrelevant if they can't present anything in support of their claim.

[The Surveyor]

janesmith1950 said:

The NIP must provide the location and time of the offence (RTOA). The defendant can produce CCTV images of the vehicle (and I imagine transaction evidence from the hotel/witness statements/cctv of reception) being at a location other than that of the offence at the time alleged.

And when the prosecution shows their test data for the camera, and when Premier Inn can't, who's clock do you think the magistrate will believe? As before, the OP can't provide anything more substantial than anybody else could in conjuring up a defence to a speeding ticket. I'm not saying that the OP is wrong, just that he can't present anything more than just an embellished story about the time being wrong, they'll have heard it all before.

[rscott]

The Surveyor said:

janesmith1950 said:

The NIP must provide the location and time of the offence (RTOA). The defendant can produce CCTV images of the vehicle (and I imagine transaction evidence from the hotel/witness statements/cctv of reception) being at a location other than that of the offence at the time alleged.

And when the prosecution shows their test data for the camera, and when Premier Inn can't, who's clock do you think the magistrate will believe? As before, the OP can't provide anything more substantial than anybody else could in conjuring up a defence to a speeding ticket. I'm not saying that the OP is wrong, just that he can't present anything more than just an embellished story about the time being wrong, they'll have heard it all before.

Surely when the prosecution shows their test data, it'll prove that the camera had the wrong time on it?

[The Surveyor]

rscott said:

Surely when the prosecution shows their test data, it'll prove that the camera had the wrong time on it?

The wrong time compared to what?

If the time was wrong when they tested it, they would have corrected it otherwise why test it!

[speedking31]

SCP said:

I must point out that to make a false allegation is a serious offence and can upon conviction lead to a term of imprisonment.

I wonder how many SCP members are in prison for making allegations like this?

[agtlaw]

The Surveyor said:

agtlaw said:

The Surveyor said:

The prosecutor has 'proven' that the car was in that place at the time of the alleged offence using the photo with the time on it.

I disagree. Read the OP.

I have read it and understand ( I think !) that there is doubt over the timing of the photo, but the point was that the 'doubt' is based on nothing concrete. Certainly nothing more concrete than anybody else could claim in defence of a speeding ticket.

The prosecution has a photo of the OP's wife's car passing a camera at a listed time, travelling over the speed limit. The OP has no real evidence that the time was incorrect on the camera or on the NIP so can't show that there is any real doubt over the evidence. Whether they're correct or not is irrelevant if they can't present anything in support of their claim.

If the time is correct then the points made on this thread plainly don't arise.

Apart from you, we are all working on the basis that OP has stated the truth. If he takes legal advice then some fact checking would be done and there would be some evidence gathering.

Your comment that no contrary evidence exists is surprising in light of comments made by the OP.

[drf765]

rscott said:

The Surveyor said:

janesmith1950 said:

The NIP must provide the location and time of the offence (RTOA). The defendant can produce CCTV images of the vehicle (and I imagine transaction evidence from the hotel/witness statements/cctv of reception) being at a location other than that of the offence at the time alleged.

And when the prosecution shows their test data for the camera, and when Premier Inn can't, who's clock do you think the magistrate will believe? As before, the OP can't provide anything more substantial than anybody else could in conjuring up a defence to a speeding ticket. I'm not saying that the OP is wrong, just that he can't present anything more than just an embellished story about the time being wrong, they'll have heard it all before.

Surely when the prosecution shows their test data, it'll prove that the camera had the wrong time on it?

Exactly that. The prosecution will probably say, from the circumstances described, "The clock on the camera was not put back on 31 Oct so was reading one hour ahead. The offence thereore was recorded at 1400 GMT/1500 BST. Simple mistake given the circmstances."

The court can then consider what disadvantage this simple and understandable situation has put on the keeper and in turn the driver of the vehicle. It is entirely for the court to say whether the error has prevented a just prosecution and acquit the driver of the speding offence or indeed that the error allows a conviction because it has made no difference to the driver and the keepers' recall of the events.

The OP, has in post 1, shown there is no disadvantage because he knows, assuming the hotel car park time is right, that the police camera hasn't had its time put back.

I don't think a court will accept that there has been a disadvantage in the circumstances written by the OP...but it might. Someone willing to defend the case on a tentative issue as described is perfectly entitled to do so but the chances of success seem slim IMHO.

[agtlaw]

Your opinion is somewhat undermined by your clear misunderstanding of the law. E.g. Your earlier post that they only have to get the date right. I'd go as far as saying that as far as legal matters are concerned, your 'advice' can safely be ignored.

[drf765]

agtlaw said:

Your opinion is somewhat undermined by your clear misunderstanding of the law. E.g. Your earlier post that they only have to get the date right. I'd go as far as saying that as far as legal matters are concerned, your 'advice' can safely be ignored.

OK, see if this defence works then. Maybe your Wilkinson's will already have the answer but it isn't the answer that you are saying it gives. I would say good luck but you don't need it.

[agtlaw]

drf765 said:

OK, see if this defence works then. Maybe your Wilkinson's will already have the answer but it isn't the answer that you are saying it gives. I would say good luck but you don't need it.

Not if you're involved, Steve.

[rscott]

The Surveyor said:

rscott said:

Surely when the prosecution shows their test data, it'll prove that the camera had the wrong time on it?

The wrong time compared to what?

If the time was wrong when they tested it, they would have corrected it otherwise why test it!

So their records should show that the time was initially wrong, but was corrected. That proves the OP's case - that they time the SCP wee asking about wasn't the time of the alleged incident.

[The Surveyor]

agtlaw said:

If the time is correct then the points made on this thread plainly don't arise.

Apart from you, we are all working on the basis that OP has stated the truth. If he takes legal advice then some fact checking would be done and there would be some evidence gathering.

Your comment that no contrary evidence exists is surprising in light of comments made by the OP.

All I'm questioning is the principle that it doesn't matter here whether the clock on the camera was correct or not, it has to come down to what the magistrate on the day is going to believe given the photo evidence from the SCP, viewed against what the OP has said. The SCP may drop the charges if there are other claims that the camera time was wrong, but that hasn't happened yet so you have to look at it from the perspective that the prosecution evidence is sound.

I'm not doubting what the OP says, just whether that will be believed based upon circumstantial evidence from a hotel CCTV clock which could be as wrong at the SCP's camera, and which doesn't actually show the car to be anywhere at the time of the NIP anyway. That may be enough for some doubt but so far the only 'fact' is the SCP's photo of their car, at a stated time, in a specific place, speeding.

[The Surveyor]

rscott said:

So their records should show that the time was initially wrong, but was corrected. That proves the OP's case - that they time the SCP wee asking about wasn't the time of the alleged incident.

Oh that's great. Case dismissed Mrs Marple....

Edited by The Surveyor on Monday 5th December 15:13

[KevinCamaroSS]

The Surveyor said:

All I'm questioning is the principle that it doesn't matter here whether the clock on the camera was correct or not, it has to come down to what the magistrate on the day is going to believe given the photo evidence from the SCP, viewed against what the OP has said. The SCP may drop the charges if there are other claims that the camera time was wrong, but that hasn't happened yet so you have to look at it from the perspective that the prosecution evidence is sound.

I'm not doubting what the OP says, just whether that will be believed based upon circumstantial evidence from a hotel CCTV clock which could be as wrong at the SCP's camera, and which doesn't actually show the car to be anywhere at the time of the NIP anyway. That may be enough for some doubt but so far the only 'fact' is the SCP's photo of their car, at a stated time, in a specific place, speeding.

You plainly have very little understanding of criminal law. The defence only has to throw the smallest amount of doubt on the evidence for the prosecution to fail. Evidence that he/she was at a hotel at the alleged time of the offence throws doubt into the case, any prosecution would therefore fail.

[rscott]

drf765 said:

rscott said:

The Surveyor said:

janesmith1950 said:

The NIP must provide the location and time of the offence (RTOA). The defendant can produce CCTV images of the vehicle (and I imagine transaction evidence from the hotel/witness statements/cctv of reception) being at a location other than that of the offence at the time alleged.

And when the prosecution shows their test data for the camera, and when Premier Inn can't, who's clock do you think the magistrate will believe? As before, the OP can't provide anything more substantial than anybody else could in conjuring up a defence to a speeding ticket. I'm not saying that the OP is wrong, just that he can't present anything more than just an embellished story about the time being wrong, they'll have heard it all before.

Surely when the prosecution shows their test data, it'll prove that the camera had the wrong time on it?

Exactly that. The prosecution will probably say, from the circumstances described, "The clock on the camera was not put back on 31 Oct so was reading one hour ahead. The offence thereore was recorded at 1400 GMT/1500 BST. Simple mistake given the circmstances."

The court can then consider what disadvantage this simple and understandable situation has put on the keeper and in turn the driver of the vehicle. It is entirely for the court to say whether the error has prevented a just prosecution and acquit the driver of the speding offence or indeed that the error allows a conviction because it has made no difference to the driver and the keepers' recall of the events.

The OP, has in post 1, shown there is no disadvantage because he knows, assuming the hotel car park time is right, that the police camera hasn't had its time put back.

I don't think a court will accept that there has been a disadvantage in the circumstances written by the OP...but it might. Someone willing to defend the case on a tentative issue as described is perfectly entitled to do so but the chances of success seem slim IMHO.

Except that, for a prosecution to be brought, a NIP containing the correct details (including date & time of incident) must be served on the registered keeper within 14 days. That hasn't happened in this case.

I'll happily trust the advice of agtlaw - a known lawyer - over that of a relatively new poster with clear misunderstandings of the law.