Speed Camera Loophole Exposed

[agtlaw]

I've had a few emails about this - apparently it's all over facebook, twitter, linkedin, etc.

It's an article from 2003 reproduced on a government auctions website - headed Extract from the Western Mail.

It is, of course, complete nonsense. If you receive a notice of intended prosecution then not signing the form is not a loophole.

http://governmentauctionsuk.com/auction-guide-deta...

[agtlaw]

Martin4x4 said:

Why is it nonsense?

Mawdesley v Chief Constable of Cheshire (2003)

"I am satisfied that if it is properly to be inferred from the evidence before the court that an unsigned Section 172 form was made by the Defendant, it is admissible in evidence as a confession."

Without getting too technical, if it can't be admitted by means of the normal route [s12(1)(a) RTOA 1988] then it goes in as a confession.

[agtlaw]

Red Devil said:

With regard to the second paragraph. In fact the punishment is currently greater not equal to. A S172 conviction can net you 6 points (plus a fine of up to £1000). In many cases an over-the-speed-limit conviction only brings with it 3 points (or even the offer of a SAC). If that isn't disproportionate I would like to know what is.

The third one hits the spot for me.

Completely wrong.

The maximum sentence for speeding is a fine of up to £2,500. Fail to provide info has a maximum fine of £1000.

A lifetime disqualification from driving is available for both offences.

[agtlaw]

Red Devil said:

agtlaw said:

Red Devil said:

With regard to the second paragraph. In fact the punishment is currently greater not equal to. A S172 conviction can net you 6 points (plus a fine of up to £1000). In many cases an over-the-speed-limit conviction only brings with it 3 points (or even the offer of a SAC). If that isn't disproportionate I would like to know what is.

The third one hits the spot for me.

Completely wrong.

The maximum sentence for speeding is a fine of up to £2,500. Fail to provide info has a maximum fine of £1000.

A lifetime disqualification from driving is available for both offences.

Well done for (deliberately?) missing the point (no pun intended) of what I wrote.

I'm concerned with what actually does happen in the majority of instances in the real world, not the upper extremities of what could. How often is the maximum available fine imposed? Practically never I would suggest. I have my doubts that there is a significant difference in the mean level of fines (S172 as against excess speed) either. If you have evidence to the contrary I will willingly concede.

Note the bit in bold above. I will wager that what I said about penalty points is true. The majority of those convicted for exceeding the limit will only get 3 on their licence, whereas S172 offenders will get 6. Do you know any of the latter who have received less? That is the disparity I was referring to. Points x2 are likely to have a bigger effect on insurance premiums as well. From where I'm standing that's getting close to double jeopardy.

Zeeky said:

ECHR dissenting Judge Pavlovschi said:

...In my opinion, if there are so many breaches of a prohibition, it clearly means that something is wrong with the prohibition. It means that the prohibition does not reflect a pressing social need, given that so many people choose to breach it even under the threat of criminal prosecution.

This reasoning is flawed. It presupposes that the criminal law can only prohibit conduct which is morally wrong. The purpose of regulations is to control conduct in certain circumstances to achieve desirable outcomes. Regulations are often, but not necessarily, amoral.

If we allow a few carefully selected and closely monitored people to use the roads individual choices could be wide. If we wish for mass use we have to accept that standards will be difficult to maintain and that monitoring and accountability impractical.

In this environment it is inevitable that we will limit choices made on how the roads are used in the interests of public safety.

This is particularly important where there is no serious and imminent risk created by each individual conduct (and no corresponding moral duty to behave differently) but, on a national scale, with many millions of similar actions, there is a significant risk to road safety.

So, the opposite is true. The less likely people are to comply with a regulation without the threat of sanction, the more necessary the regulation and sanction is.

If the State relied on people choosing how much tax to pay on the basis of what they believed was a morally correct sum the country would grind to a halt. And so it would be with the roads.

Cutting the remainder of that paragraph to make your point does you no credit. It needs to be taken as a whole to understand his POV.

Unlike you BV doesn't attempt to rubbish the judge's reasoning. Indeed he says he understands it but nevertheless comes down on the side of the majority verdict. I can respect that even though I am on the other side of that particular fence.

The point you made about punishment for s.172 being "in fact" greater then speeding remains completely and utterly wrong. You're apparently unwilling to concede this. I've had clients fined over £1000 for speeding. The fine is linked to income. Very high income means very high fine. In a s.172 case, the same client simply could not have been fined over £1000. You're also much more likely to be banned for speeding than s. 172.