West Mids Camera Partnership - intimidation?
Discussion
This from the West Mids Camera Partnership site:
Plead Not Guilty
A date will then be set for trial and witnesses may be called. You will be given the opportunity to ask questions and present your own evidence. The magistrates will then decide if you are guilty or not guilty. If found guilty the fines imposed may be greater than the standard fine and you can also be charged costs.
But before you choose this option you should be aware that there are certain defences which will not be accepted in court. These include:
“I was unaware of the speed limit”
Provided speed limit signage meets the minimum legal requirements, there is no defence.
“There was no camera warning sign”
For a speeding conviction to be valid there are only two requirements – appropriate speed limit signage, and evidence that the speed limit was broken. There is no legal requirement to inform a motorist that a speed camera is ahead.
“It was another vehicle, not mine, that activated the camera”
All speed camera equipment have secondary checks, so that each recorded vehicle speed is verified twice.
If you are found guilty you could face a fine of:
£1000 (£2500 on motorways)
3-6 penalty points (or possible disqualification if speed was very high)
Court costs
So make sure you know the risks before you choose to go to court.
Plead Not Guilty
A date will then be set for trial and witnesses may be called. You will be given the opportunity to ask questions and present your own evidence. The magistrates will then decide if you are guilty or not guilty. If found guilty the fines imposed may be greater than the standard fine and you can also be charged costs.
But before you choose this option you should be aware that there are certain defences which will not be accepted in court. These include:
“I was unaware of the speed limit”
Provided speed limit signage meets the minimum legal requirements, there is no defence.
“There was no camera warning sign”
For a speeding conviction to be valid there are only two requirements – appropriate speed limit signage, and evidence that the speed limit was broken. There is no legal requirement to inform a motorist that a speed camera is ahead.
“It was another vehicle, not mine, that activated the camera”
All speed camera equipment have secondary checks, so that each recorded vehicle speed is verified twice.
If you are found guilty you could face a fine of:
£1000 (£2500 on motorways)
3-6 penalty points (or possible disqualification if speed was very high)
Court costs
So make sure you know the risks before you choose to go to court.
Slightly redrafted:
Plead Not Guilty (please, we make more money that way)
A date will then be set for trial and witnesses may be called. This date may be repeatedly changed without warning, especially if the police witnesses are holidaying or working in New Zealand, or the CPS solicitor has chipped her (or his) nail-varnish. You will be given the opportunity to ask questions and present your own evidence. The CPS might not have properly briefed their solicitor, but this is almost standard practice in motoring cases, so don't worry about it. It won't affect the outcome of the case. The magistrates will then decide that you are guilty. The fines imposed will be greater than the standard fine and you can also be charged costs.
But before you choose this option you should be aware that there are certain defences which will not be accepted in court. These include:
The equipment is flawed - as has been repeatedly demonstrated"
The Home Office has certified the equipment ... so that's that!
"The operator was not using the equipment as set out in the ACPO Code of Practice"
The CoP is a set of guideelines ... they can be ignored for the purposes of revenue generation.
"The photographic evidence shows 'Error 3'"
Regardless of what the operating manual for the equipment says, this means the equipment was operating normally.
So make sure you know that this is all a taxation supplement needed to keep paying the scameratti before you choose to go to court.
Streaky
Plead Not Guilty (please, we make more money that way)
A date will then be set for trial and witnesses may be called. This date may be repeatedly changed without warning, especially if the police witnesses are holidaying or working in New Zealand, or the CPS solicitor has chipped her (or his) nail-varnish. You will be given the opportunity to ask questions and present your own evidence. The CPS might not have properly briefed their solicitor, but this is almost standard practice in motoring cases, so don't worry about it. It won't affect the outcome of the case. The magistrates will then decide that you are guilty. The fines imposed will be greater than the standard fine and you can also be charged costs.
But before you choose this option you should be aware that there are certain defences which will not be accepted in court. These include:
The equipment is flawed - as has been repeatedly demonstrated"
The Home Office has certified the equipment ... so that's that!
"The operator was not using the equipment as set out in the ACPO Code of Practice"
The CoP is a set of guideelines ... they can be ignored for the purposes of revenue generation.
"The photographic evidence shows 'Error 3'"
Regardless of what the operating manual for the equipment says, this means the equipment was operating normally.
So make sure you know that this is all a taxation supplement needed to keep paying the scameratti before you choose to go to court.
Streaky
streaky said:
Slightly redrafted:
Plead Not Guilty (please, we make more money that way)
If it goes to court, then I believe the fine goes straight to HM gov. (fleecing department).IIRC the pratnerships only get the money from FPNs. It is therefore in the scammers best interests that the case not be taken to court.
MMC said:
“It was another vehicle, not mine, that activated the camera”
All speed camera equipment have secondary checks, so that each recorded vehicle speed is verified twice.
A couple of years ago the CPS dropped a prosecution against me based on exactly this defence. OK, in my case there were clearly two cars in the picture and the crosshairs were on neither car.
The single photo was the only evidence offered, so how could they have verified the vehicle speed twice?
And as Streaky so succinctly described, it took them three attempts and nine months to get the case to court with the relevant witness (the camera operator), who then admitted he could not remember any of the details because it was so long ago!
As Mark suggested, sounds more like scaremongering to me than anything factual. If there's any shred of doubt, I'd say go for it - but have nerves of steel as they regularly hold out 'till the last possible moment before admitting defeat.
hallmark said:
...A couple of years ago the CPS dropped a prosecution against me based on exactly this defence. OK, in my case there were clearly two cars in the picture and the crosshairs were on neither car.
Clearly demonstrating that either the sight was not lined up with the laser and/or laser spreads wide with distance. Isn't it interesting that neither of these is acknowledged as a source of error by the partnerships?
I wonder how they chose you to prosecute? Or perhaps they did you both in the hope that at least one would stick?
I would like to add another question to that list…..
“I wasn’t speeding, the equipment measured my speed incorrectly”
All speed camera equipment have secondary checks, so that each recorded vehicle speed is verified twice – apart from Lidar and SPECS; we (quite literally) blindly believe these can’t possibly give a wrong reading so we don’t bother with secondary checks
“I wasn’t speeding, the equipment measured my speed incorrectly”
All speed camera equipment have secondary checks, so that each recorded vehicle speed is verified twice – apart from Lidar and SPECS; we (quite literally) blindly believe these can’t possibly give a wrong reading so we don’t bother with secondary checks
'“It was another vehicle, not mine, that activated the camera”
All speed camera equipment have secondary checks, so that each recorded vehicle speed is verified twice.'
Blatantly not true, just see the thousands of refunds Northumbria Scammers had to do because of mistakes of this nature on the Cradlewell bypass. When it was eventually challenged by someone (a council van driver with a tacho) they said "there was a red sports car in the background which was speeding, the operator incorrectly assumed it was the van." Where was the check there then?
All speed camera equipment have secondary checks, so that each recorded vehicle speed is verified twice.'
Blatantly not true, just see the thousands of refunds Northumbria Scammers had to do because of mistakes of this nature on the Cradlewell bypass. When it was eventually challenged by someone (a council van driver with a tacho) they said "there was a red sports car in the background which was speeding, the operator incorrectly assumed it was the van." Where was the check there then?
MMC said:
This from the West Mids Camera Partnership site:
Plead Not Guilty
A date will then be set for trial and witnesses may be called. You will be given the opportunity to ask questions and present your own evidence. The magistrates will then decide if you are guilty or not guilty. If found guilty the fines imposed may be greater than the standard fine and you can also be charged costs.
But before you choose this option you should be aware that there are certain defences which will not be accepted in court. These include:
“I was unaware of the speed limit”
Provided speed limit signage meets the minimum legal requirements, there is no defence.
Per Trev's programme it would seem a lot of traffic loolipops with the yellow border are not valid.
Und they do not appear in latest edition of DfT publication "Know Your Traffic Signs" Perahps they should make sure this ist legal und also that they place tempo signs in correct place.
(Manchester reported refund ages ago when scam prosecuted for people for driving at 40 mph in a 40 mph zone. They placed scam in wrong place... Mad Doc picked it up - he placed ift on Paul's site at time 
) MMC said:
(or rather the prats wrote
“There was no camera warning sign”
For a speeding conviction to be valid there are only two requirements – appropriate speed limit signage, and evidence that the speed limit was broken. There is no legal requirement to inform a motorist that a speed camera is ahead.
Perhaps - but they make biggest thing about adhgering to guidelines regarding "visibility"
MMC said:
Or rather prats wrote
“It was another vehicle, not mine, that activated the camera”
All speed camera equipment have secondary checks, so that each recorded vehicle speed is verified twice.
Asa others posted - not necessarily und we all know about slippage...
which they claim does not happen but this ist about as reliable as their statistics page MMC said:
or rather prats wrote :rolleyes@
If you are found guilty you could face a fine of:
£1000 (£2500 on motorways)
3-6 penalty points (or possible disqualification if speed was very high)
Court costs
So make sure you know the risks before you choose to go to court.
Ist scare mongering as they know people are waking up to rights und fact that camera can und does not tell fullest truth..
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff