Flashed by speed camera, pleaded not guilty and WON

[Danielson73]

So, last October I was flashed by a speed camera, doing 40mph in a 30mph zone at around midnight on the A4147 Maylands Avenue, Hemel Hempstead.

At the time something did not feel right, and after I received the NIP I decided to check the terminal signs prior to the camera to see how I missed them. Evidently the near side terminal sign was not illuminated (unit missing completely) and the offside sign was dirty. I turned down the generous offer of a speed awareness course and decided to plead not guilty instead and see what happens. I took photos of the signs, reported the defects and requested street lighting inspection records from the highway authority (which were duly supplied). I have an advantage here over Joe blogs in that I work in the highway maintenance sector so know how these things work.

I employed a reputable nationally known Solicitors, and nine months later (this week) I attended magistrates court, with a barrister. The day before trial at 16:45hrs, finally the CPS indicated they would seek adjournment so an officer could investigate further. At trial the following day the magistrates refused adjournment, thanks to my barrister and the trial would be in the afternoon. My barrister liaised with prosecution who subsequently indicated they would offer no evidence and intended to drop the case. Into court we went, prosecution offered no evidence and so I was 'free to go' and was awarded all costs (£1k).

I could not have won this without the help of the Solicitors and barrister who were excellent, despite my technical knowledge regarding road signs the nuances of court were beyond me.

Now then, from my investigations the signs in question have been defective for at least 5 years. It seems farcical that someone has to spend a not inconsiderable sum to get justice where there is an obvious issue. The highway authority have done nothing about it,evidently are inspecting the road every two months and fail to spot the defect each time.

There was a comical moment prior to court where the prosecution said they would seek adjournment so an officer could come to court to say the signs were correct at the time of the offence, "which is ridiculous" said my barrister given the evidence. The speed I was travelling was never in question. Apparently, in the photo of the offence my barrister said it "was pitch black" and you could barely make out my car.

So, I'm wondering what to do about all this? There must have been thousands caught at this location over the last few years. The condition of road signs generally is poor in the uk in recent years,and I've now noticed other terminal signs in the area, which don't comply (badly faded), but also have a speed camera a short distance away. i.e. A4147 nr Blackwater Lane.

[Danielson73]

Slight update. I emailed Herts Safety Camera people under FOI asking how many have been caught by this camera in the last few years, and to include whether the offences were during the day or at night.

Surprise suprise, they duly responded!

3,037 in total since 1st July 2012. (Latest I know signs were not correct)

Of which 1,831 caught at night.

So bit surprised it was not more, but that's at least £180,000 in fines just for the night time offences from one camera!

I've emailed a couple of broadsheets and a tabloid but no biting yet.

[Danielson73]

Since my court appearance in July, the 30mph sign has miraculously been fixed! (I reported it last November).

I suppose the whole point of me going to court was to demonstrate that highway authorities are not maintaining signs properly and the Police are clueless in the matter.

Due to the technicalities of the sign regulations, in particular what the regs say with regards to principal roads, there was a clear breach. If this was a quiet residential street, then fair enough I would not have contested it. As it happens, the A4147 is a shambles through Hemel as far as speed limit signing goes, with other terminal signs for 40mph and 50mph not conforming, and speed cameras close by. So, there were a whole host of other problems with the signing in general which I would have presented had I felt the need. I could have gone to town on the highway authority on this road; sight lines, visibility, sign condition....

My barrister mentioned in his deliberations with the prosecution that it can never have been the intention for street lights to be an indicator of a speed limit in the regs.
This whole argument is too technical for most, and on the balance of probability the element of doubt was far too heavily in my favour given the facts on the road in question. I'm not sure what the CPS could have said to counter it, evidently they agreed.