BiB advice please
Discussion
I'm looking to assist a driver who claims he was intimidated by a trafpol tailgating him into temporarily exceeding a speed limit. When stopped, he asked to see the video footage but was refused on the grounds that they could not stop the camera in case he claimed the officers had assaulted him while it was switched off.
The driver considers that the video footage could help to justify his defence of speeding by necessity and wishes to secure a copy or, at least, ensure that it is not erased or destroyed before he can request disclosure (if the matter comes to trial).
How can the video tape be secured?
The driver considers that the video footage could help to justify his defence of speeding by necessity and wishes to secure a copy or, at least, ensure that it is not erased or destroyed before he can request disclosure (if the matter comes to trial).
How can the video tape be secured?
OBSERVER said:
I'm looking to assist a driver who claims he was intimidated by a trafpol tailgating him into temporarily exceeding a speed limit. When stopped, he asked to see the video footage but was refused on the grounds that they could not stop the camera in case he claimed the officers had assaulted him while it was switched off.
The driver considers that the video footage could help to justify his defence of speeding by necessity and wishes to secure a copy or, at least, ensure that it is not erased or destroyed before he can request disclosure (if the matter comes to trial).
How can the video tape be secured?
I believe he needs to plead not guilty to any charge and then request a copy of the traffic video. This occurs, IIRC, 7 days before trial.
Better off asking over at www.pepipoo.com
ca092003 said:
I believe he needs to plead not guilty to any charge and then request a copy of the traffic video. This occurs, IIRC, 7 days before trial.
Better off asking over at www.pepipoo.com
Thanks but, to clarify, I know how to obtain the tape. What I'm trying to do is ensure it's not erased or destroyed before the chance to obtain it arrives.
OBSERVER said:
I believe he needs to plead not guilty to any charge and then request a copy of the traffic video. This occurs, IIRC, 7 days before trial.
Better off asking over at <a href="http://www.pepipoo.com">www.pepipoo.com</a>
Thanks but, to clarify, I know how to obtain the tape. What I'm trying to do is ensure it's not erased or destroyed before the chance to obtain it arrives.
I would imagine that such things are viewed very dimly by both the CPS, the bench and perhaps the IPCC. Can't see it happening, to be honest, but you never know...
ca092003 said:
Thanks but, to clarify, I know how to obtain the tape. What I'm trying to do is ensure it's not erased or destroyed before the chance to obtain it arrives.
I would imagine that such things are viewed very dimly by both the CPS, the bench and perhaps the IPCC. Can't see it happening, to be honest, but you never know...
I'm sure - but I don't know if there's a standard procedure to retain them or if they're automatically recycled after x days or what.
I believe if he uses a defence of speeding by necessity, he will fail!
Why did he not just slow down or stop and allow the tailgating car to overtake or make some other manouvre to make the problem go away.
Putting his foot down is a poor excuse. There are many other things he could have done.
The video footage will probably not help a great deal depending on the zoom setting. It may appear to be furthr or nearer to your fiend than it actually was!
If he goes to court, the officers will give evidence that he was exceeding the speed limit. If they are questioned about how close they were to your friend, they will probably give accurate distances, especially if the video is available to the court. They have nothing to gain by your friends conviction for speeding so why should they distort the facts?
Your friend has everything to gain by distorting the facts so I can see why he is putting this up as an excuse. It is nothing more than that and the magistrates have heard it all before!!!
There are few exemptions that can be used to rebut an offence of speeding. Mitigation can help reduce the penalty if found guilty. This mitigation is poor and will not help him at all in my experience.
Why did he not just slow down or stop and allow the tailgating car to overtake or make some other manouvre to make the problem go away.
Putting his foot down is a poor excuse. There are many other things he could have done.
The video footage will probably not help a great deal depending on the zoom setting. It may appear to be furthr or nearer to your fiend than it actually was!
If he goes to court, the officers will give evidence that he was exceeding the speed limit. If they are questioned about how close they were to your friend, they will probably give accurate distances, especially if the video is available to the court. They have nothing to gain by your friends conviction for speeding so why should they distort the facts?
Your friend has everything to gain by distorting the facts so I can see why he is putting this up as an excuse. It is nothing more than that and the magistrates have heard it all before!!!
There are few exemptions that can be used to rebut an offence of speeding. Mitigation can help reduce the penalty if found guilty. This mitigation is poor and will not help him at all in my experience.
OBSERVER said:
OBSERVER said:
Thanks but, to clarify, I know how to obtain the tape. What I'm trying to do is ensure it's not erased or destroyed before the chance to obtain it arrives.
I would imagine that such things are viewed very dimly by both the CPS, the bench and perhaps the IPCC. Can't see it happening, to be honest, but you never know...
I'm sure - but I don't know if there's a standard procedure to retain them or if they're automatically recycled after x days or what.
Sorry...now I'm with you.....
OBSERVER said:
Thanks but, to clarify, I know how to obtain the tape. What I'm trying to do is ensure it's not erased or destroyed before the chance to obtain it arrives.
It won't be. It will be entered into a property system which is specifically for exhibiting court evidence. It will be properly stored until the result of the decision of your friend to either plead guilty or not guilty. It will then be retained for several months in case there is an appeal about either conviction, sentence or both!
When your friend pleads not guilty, he will be furnished with the required disclosure. If that is not possible to do because of a loss of evidence, then the charge will be dropped by CPS!
gone said:
Thanks but, to clarify, I know how to obtain the tape. What I'm trying to do is ensure it's not erased or destroyed before the chance to obtain it arrives.
It won't be. It will be entered into a property system which is specifically for exhibiting court evidence. It will be properly stored until the result of the decision of your friend to either plead guilty or not guilty. It will then be retained for several months in case there is an appeal about either conviction, sentence or both!
When your friend pleads not guilty, he will be furnished with the required disclosure. If that is not possible to do because of a loss of evidence, then the charge will be dropped by CPS!
Not true in practice; I have been involved in two cases that went to trial, one of them against me personally where the police deliberately erased the video tape, in other words, destroyed essential evidence in a criminal trial and tried to imply this was standard procedure.
If you want to defend this case I strongly suggest you contact the senior officer in the division where they are based and ensure the tape is properly secured.
I won my case, but had to go to the High Court to do it; unless you have the experience and the constitution of a bulldog, you don't want to go there!
gone said:
Christ...! When I want people to speed up..(ie: when they are hogging lane 3..and i'm on blues and twos trying to get past..)...they sit at 70mph and crawl past...
because they assume you want them to speed up so that you can nick them perhaps? Might be insane but that appears to be the climate of fear current policies engender.
einion yrth said:
because they assume you want them to speed up so that you can nick them perhaps? Might be insane but that appears to be the climate of fear current policies engender.
Nah...it's always gone on....well before the camera epidemic....
People just don't think "what could I do now to assist this BiB behind me"???
They even brake
gone said:
I believe if he uses a defence of speeding by necessity, he will fail!
Why did he not just slow down or stop and allow the tailgating car to overtake or make some other manouvre to make the problem go away.
Putting his foot down is a poor excuse. There are many other things he could have done.
You're right, in theory, but we cannot know what goes on in another person's head. He claims that giving space to overtake would have been more difficult so he accelerated knowing a D/C was ahead and the tailgating car would be able to overtake there.
It does appear that these cases of claimed intimidation are being seen with some frequency and regularity. I'm sure some (perhaps most) of the claims are spurious but it's stretching probability to think that all are.
gone said:
The video footage will probably not help a great deal depending on the zoom setting. It may appear to be furthr or nearer to your fiend than it actually was!
I think the degree of excees speed does not quite justify that label.
gone said:
If he goes to court, the officers will give evidence that he was exceeding the speed limit. If they are questioned about how close they were to your friend, they will probably give accurate distances, especially if the video is available to the court. They have nothing to gain by your friends conviction for speeding so why should they distort the facts?
Why indeed? Nevertheless, as I said above, we do seem to be seeing these claims more frequently. Or am I imagining it?
Thanks for the info about the storage of tapes.
Streetcop said:
Christ...! When I want people to speed up..(ie: when they are hogging lane 3..and i'm on blues and twos trying to get past..)...they sit at 70mph and crawl past...
Well they don't want to get nicked for speeding (on video too) do they - would you?? You can't have your cake AND eat it.
To be honest if I see blue lights on behind me… I would ensure I was doing spot on the limit and then get into lane 1 or 2… I certainly wouldn’t accelerate or do anything “silly” to get out the way, after all they blue lights might be to pull me over so best not risk doing anything while being followed.
I wouldn’t sit in lane 3, but I would make sure my move to lane 2 was text book.
I think if they break, they are thinking SH**, plod behind me.
I wouldn’t sit in lane 3, but I would make sure my move to lane 2 was text book.
I think if they break, they are thinking SH**, plod behind me.
s a m said:
To be honest if I see blue lights on behind me… I would ensure I was doing spot on the limit and then get into lane 1 or 2… I certainly wouldn’t accelerate or do anything “silly” to get out the way, after all they blue lights might be to pull me over so best not risk doing anything while being followed.
I wouldn’t sit in lane 3, but I would make sure my move to lane 2 was text book.
Why 'spot on' the limit? Why 'text book'? (what IS text book incidentally
) If you are using your mirrors correctly on a motorway, you'd have seen the flashing headlights/blue lights in plenty of time to plan your lane change etc...
I think it makes a big difference whether you're confident they're on mission and you're just in the way.
If I see blue lights coming through traffic behind me I aim to get out of the way well before they reach me, and flash the car in front to get their attention too. But if blue lights suddenly appear behind me I would not accelerate over the speed limit to get out of the way. There's a fine line between helping the police out, and breaking the law in order to help them and hoping they will turn a blind eye.
If I see blue lights coming through traffic behind me I aim to get out of the way well before they reach me, and flash the car in front to get their attention too. But if blue lights suddenly appear behind me I would not accelerate over the speed limit to get out of the way. There's a fine line between helping the police out, and breaking the law in order to help them and hoping they will turn a blind eye.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff