S.172 NIP - Incorrect time

[cmaguire]

Garybee said:

Oh look, another PH'er looking for something to have an argument about. To provide context to my previous comment you could always quote the comment I replied to. Obviously I believe murder and speeding are EXACTLY the same. I'm certainly not light-heartedly pointing out how the previous poster's analogy doesn't work.

Ultimately this is an internet forum. I mostly come here only to pass some time and mostly couldn't care a less what anyone says or does as ultimately it affects me in no way whatsoever. So I don't argue with any real conviction.
As far as this thread goes the 'crime' is in my opinion entirely trivial and I hope the OP 'gets away' with it on the basis the State have cocked up, because they love to micro-manage everything we do and it's tiresome in the extreme. He or she did it, there is little doubt about that in my mind, but I dislike them far more than him. What always mystifies me about so many threads in this section is how desperate so many appear to be to see all and sundry hammered for trivial nonsense that would have been a non-event 25 years ago.

[Red Devil]

drdel said:

While its always nice to 'get one over' on the establishment: pick your fights carefully; there's always a risk of tripping up.

1. The OP knows he's been popped. (Lord Howard and his wife could not remember who was driving - while accepting their honesty the Court decided the technology proved the offence had occurred - they were both fined!)
2. The OP has no real, factual evidence that can prove it was not his car speeding.
3. There is no evidence the camera 'clock' impacts the speed measuring capability.
4. If the OP pushes (he's already in danger of having said too much) and it gets in front of a Magistrate the whole story looks silly as it does not unwind the fact that the car was photographed speeding.

I'd pay up it might be the best financial decision!

If you're going to quote the Howard case you might at least get your facts right.
The court decided no such thing. Nor was his wife fined.
Only he was convicted, and it was for a S.172 failure to name.
Nothing whatsoever to do with technology.

He used the Hamilton defence but only referred to 'my wife'.
DJ Barnes held that he did not meet the reasonable diligence test.
On the basis that he referred to 'my wife' rather than giving her name and address

In that context, if you name the wrong person in answer to S.172 you risk landing up in even worse trouble (Huhne/Pryce).
You're damned if you do and damned if you don't in this not-so-Great country of ours.

Howard has said he intends to appeal (unlike the majority he can well afford the cost).
If so, it will put the judge's reasoning to the test and we shall see.