S.172 NIP - Incorrect time
Discussion
simoid said:
That's a good point with the mobile phone - if it's an iPhone it probably knows where it was at the alleged time. Fiddle about in locations in the settings somewhere.
Just had a look at mine and it's seriously accurate. Now to find an app that will join all the dots together and show it all on a map with timestamps.drf765 said:
I think you have missed the principle and the point.
As I mentioned, you are entitled to your opinion...that don't make it right.
Forgive me for saying so, however the question I posed was 'how far out can the time be before it prejudices the defence'. May I be so bold as to suggest the post you made above fails to address this?As I mentioned, you are entitled to your opinion...that don't make it right.
drf765 said:
I think you have missed the principle and the point.
As I mentioned, you are entitled to your opinion...that don't make it right.
What is that point?As I mentioned, you are entitled to your opinion...that don't make it right.
If the State want to subject its citizens to pettiness and triviality, then throwing it back in their face is particularly satisfying.
35 in a 30? Good luck to him. The authorities can f@ck right off. It's petty. They are a bunch of bullies (I'm not referring to purely speeding with that) and use all manner of minor trivialities to justify their attempts at demanding money with menaces, so their inability to even bother to get their facts right is contemptuous.
drf765 said:
janesmith1950 said:
Sir, I think you miss the point. It's the principle rather than this case in point.
I think you have missed the principle and the point.As I mentioned, you are entitled to your opinion...that don't make it right.
They've presented him with the "facts" as they believe it.
He should respond with the facts in response, i.e. He wasn't there at that time. He is under absolutely no obligation to do anything else whatsoever.
If he has evidence to support this then they have no case.
janesmith1950 said:
drf765 said:
I think you have missed the principle and the point.
As I mentioned, you are entitled to your opinion...that don't make it right.
Forgive me for saying so, however the question I posed was 'how far out can the time be before it prejudices the defence'. May I be so bold as to suggest the post you made above fails to address this?As I mentioned, you are entitled to your opinion...that don't make it right.
In this case it is clearly made out by the OP that his wife isn't disadvantaged because he knows and probably she knows he was driving and the driver knows the police haven't chanced the clock to wintertime in the camera. The reason addressed this point was because you say that in this case you think it unreasonable for the police to pursue the case in these circumstances.
jm doc said:
drf765 said:
janesmith1950 said:
Sir, I think you miss the point. It's the principle rather than this case in point.
I think you have missed the principle and the point.As I mentioned, you are entitled to your opinion...that don't make it right.
They've presented him with the "facts" as they believe it.
He should respond with the facts in response, i.e. He wasn't there at that time. He is under absolutely no obligation to do anything else whatsoever.
If he has evidence to support this then they have no case.
He has queried the pitch for his wife by attempting to be a smart-arse though. Good luck with that tactic.
The police do have a case though. It's a speeding case that occurred at 1500BST/1400GMT on the day stated. The OP has said who was driving. There seemed to be no doubt, reasonable or otherwise.
drf765 said:
It can be hours out but if the driver isn't disadvantaged by that then the conviction can follow. Alternatively it might only be one hour out but if prejudicial then aprosecution may not succeed.
In this case it is clearly made out by the OP that his wife isn't disadvantaged because he knows and probably she knows he was driving and the driver knows the police haven't chanced the clock to wintertime in the camera. The reason addressed this point was because you say that in this case you think it unreasonable for the police to pursue the case in these circumstances.
I think the point I make is that it's unfair to prosecute anybody if the time on the equipment is out by such a margin. Thwre will be cases where the 'offender' knows they were bang to rights and othwr where there is prejudice.In this case it is clearly made out by the OP that his wife isn't disadvantaged because he knows and probably she knows he was driving and the driver knows the police haven't chanced the clock to wintertime in the camera. The reason addressed this point was because you say that in this case you think it unreasonable for the police to pursue the case in these circumstances.
For such a regulatory offence designed to rule by generality, I don't see why the authorities should be afforded benefit of the doubt whearas the accused should not?
drf765 said:
jm doc said:
And by the way, what else on that bit of equipment was uncalibrated??!
If you can share the thesis on how not altering the time to GMT renders any other part of the machine unreliable and make that thesis valid you will be up for a Nobel prize.drf765 said:
He doesn't have to do anything at this point as the notices issued are not to him.
He has queried the pitch for his wife by attempting to be a smart-arse though. Good luck with that tactic.
The police do have a case though. It's a speeding case that occurred at 1500BST/1400GMT on the day stated. The OP has said who was driving. There seemed to be no doubt, reasonable or otherwise.
If the letter states 15:00 without a specific time zone then one would assume they mean the CURRENT time zone of the country which is GMT. He has queried the pitch for his wife by attempting to be a smart-arse though. Good luck with that tactic.
The police do have a case though. It's a speeding case that occurred at 1500BST/1400GMT on the day stated. The OP has said who was driving. There seemed to be no doubt, reasonable or otherwise.
If the car was parked up at 15:00GMT and that can be proven then where's the case? If the letter doesn't state BST then surely they can't argue they mean BST as any reasonable person would read 15:00 to be correct.
I wouldn't consider forgetting to change the time to GMT from BST to be a small and insignificant error considering the clock change happened on 30 October. If someone in the Police force has not noticed that the time is incorrect and we're over a month on from the change, what other equipment in the van hasn't been looked over properly before use? I'd also assume that there are multiple people in and out of the van on a weekly basis and daily checks should be taking place which are obviously not happening.
If I was the OP I'd be gathering my evidence and getting legal advice. I can prove my car was parked up at the time that's on the ticket and really, thats all that matters.
I remember reading (on here) a while back, about a chap who had gone to court to argue his innocence on a minor typo on his speeding ticket. Paraphrasing:
Prosecutors opened by saying they'd made an error on the ticket and would like it amended. Defendant, stood and said 'bugger, that was my defence', and went away with much bigger costs than just accepting the initial speeding ticket.
I'm not saying it is fair, or correct, I'm far from being a fan of brake and safety camera partnerships, and I'm not a lawyer; but I think unless you're on 9 points or otherwise have a massive amount to lose, you'd be better off putting your hand up and taking the three points.
Prosecutors opened by saying they'd made an error on the ticket and would like it amended. Defendant, stood and said 'bugger, that was my defence', and went away with much bigger costs than just accepting the initial speeding ticket.
I'm not saying it is fair, or correct, I'm far from being a fan of brake and safety camera partnerships, and I'm not a lawyer; but I think unless you're on 9 points or otherwise have a massive amount to lose, you'd be better off putting your hand up and taking the three points.
jm doc said:
drf765 said:
jm doc said:
And by the way, what else on that bit of equipment was uncalibrated??!
If you can share the thesis on how not altering the time to GMT renders any other part of the machine unreliable and make that thesis valid you will be up for a Nobel prize.
janesmith1950 said:
drf765 said:
It can be hours out but if the driver isn't disadvantaged by that then the conviction can follow. Alternatively it might only be one hour out but if prejudicial then aprosecution may not succeed.
In this case it is clearly made out by the OP that his wife isn't disadvantaged because he knows and probably she knows he was driving and the driver knows the police haven't chanced the clock to wintertime in the camera. The reason addressed this point was because you say that in this case you think it unreasonable for the police to pursue the case in these circumstances.
I think the point I make is that it's unfair to prosecute anybody if the time on the equipment is out by such a margin. Thwre will be cases where the 'offender' knows they were bang to rights and othwr where there is prejudice.In this case it is clearly made out by the OP that his wife isn't disadvantaged because he knows and probably she knows he was driving and the driver knows the police haven't chanced the clock to wintertime in the camera. The reason addressed this point was because you say that in this case you think it unreasonable for the police to pursue the case in these circumstances.
For such a regulatory offence designed to rule by generality, I don't see why the authorities should be afforded benefit of the doubt whearas the accused should not?
drf765 said:
jm doc said:
drf765 said:
jm doc said:
And by the way, what else on that bit of equipment was uncalibrated??!
If you can share the thesis on how not altering the time to GMT renders any other part of the machine unreliable and make that thesis valid you will be up for a Nobel prize.You cannot therefore rely on any part of the evidence produced by said equipment.
drf765 said:
janesmith1950 said:
drf765 said:
It can be hours out but if the driver isn't disadvantaged by that then the conviction can follow. Alternatively it might only be one hour out but if prejudicial then aprosecution may not succeed.
In this case it is clearly made out by the OP that his wife isn't disadvantaged because he knows and probably she knows he was driving and the driver knows the police haven't chanced the clock to wintertime in the camera. The reason addressed this point was because you say that in this case you think it unreasonable for the police to pursue the case in these circumstances.
I think the point I make is that it's unfair to prosecute anybody if the time on the equipment is out by such a margin. Thwre will be cases where the 'offender' knows they were bang to rights and othwr where there is prejudice.In this case it is clearly made out by the OP that his wife isn't disadvantaged because he knows and probably she knows he was driving and the driver knows the police haven't chanced the clock to wintertime in the camera. The reason addressed this point was because you say that in this case you think it unreasonable for the police to pursue the case in these circumstances.
For such a regulatory offence designed to rule by generality, I don't see why the authorities should be afforded benefit of the doubt whearas the accused should not?
ashleyman said:
If the letter states 15:00 without a specific time zone then one would assume they mean the CURRENT time zone of the country which is GMT.
^^This^^To argue, as drf675 seeks to do, that GMT/BST can both apply to the same day is simply untenable. The basis on which the time is recorded in the UK changes twice each year on certain dates and is regulated by an Act of Parliament. If the device states that an alleged offence occurred at a specific time (e.g. 15.00hrs) on 05/11/16 then that time cannot be anything other than GMT. A failure to recalibrate (if that is in fact what has occurred) is no trifling omission. To suggest otherwise in disingenuous.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff