If you want to play, you have to play by the rules...
Discussion
Long story, and won't bore you with too many of the details, but summary is
Dec 2005. NIP received. 82 in a 70. "Hidden" laser camera van. Marginal over the ACPO guidelines.
Ask for all evidence to be supplied.
Lots of correspondence.
Not sure who driver is on evidence. Picture of rear of car, no possible way of identifying driver.
Much more correspondence.
Named two drivers as the possible drivers given the timescales and evidence.
5 months, three weeks pass...
Summons with much more "evidence" sent. Summons for "failing to supply details" AND "exceeding speed limit"
More investigations on this significant new evidence which they failed to disclosed when asked the first time around (location of van, statement from the camera operator and camera partnership administrator), and spent five months and three weeks to supply.
Driver finally identified and much exhaustive investigative work on this "new" evidence (evidence they clearly hid/failed to supply on the original request).
Correct driver named, 6 months one week after alleged offence.
Summons for speeding dropped.
"Pleading" letter from police to named driver asking driver to accept 3 points and 60 quid. Similar letter sent to car owner stating if the named driver doesn't accept 3 points and £60 fine then summons will continue. Classic quote at the bottom of both letters that "due to the timescale, if the named driver doesn't accept the fine and points, then the alleged offence may remain outstanding indefinitely"
Named driver replies stating was driver at time of alleged offence. Nothing else stated.
Court date extended three times by CPS.
Finally a pre court hearing is set. Simple letter sent stating "not sure how you can prosecute me for failing to provide the driver details when the police have written to the named driver, and myself, accepting that the driver has been named. What exactly is the charge".
Pre court hearing occurs, CPS withdraw the case due to "insufficient chance of the prosecution succeeding".
Court writes notifying this, and says costs are claimable.
Claim for costs.
End result. No fine. No points, and our good friends now owe us £136 in costs. I look forward to the cheque arriving.
The police force? Wiltshire constabulary. So much for their 'zero tolerance' and 'efficiencies'.
If you can't follow you own rules, don't play in the game
J
Dec 2005. NIP received. 82 in a 70. "Hidden" laser camera van. Marginal over the ACPO guidelines.
Ask for all evidence to be supplied.
Lots of correspondence.
Not sure who driver is on evidence. Picture of rear of car, no possible way of identifying driver.
Much more correspondence.
Named two drivers as the possible drivers given the timescales and evidence.
5 months, three weeks pass...
Summons with much more "evidence" sent. Summons for "failing to supply details" AND "exceeding speed limit"
More investigations on this significant new evidence which they failed to disclosed when asked the first time around (location of van, statement from the camera operator and camera partnership administrator), and spent five months and three weeks to supply.
Driver finally identified and much exhaustive investigative work on this "new" evidence (evidence they clearly hid/failed to supply on the original request).
Correct driver named, 6 months one week after alleged offence.
Summons for speeding dropped.
"Pleading" letter from police to named driver asking driver to accept 3 points and 60 quid. Similar letter sent to car owner stating if the named driver doesn't accept 3 points and £60 fine then summons will continue. Classic quote at the bottom of both letters that "due to the timescale, if the named driver doesn't accept the fine and points, then the alleged offence may remain outstanding indefinitely"
Named driver replies stating was driver at time of alleged offence. Nothing else stated.
Court date extended three times by CPS.
Finally a pre court hearing is set. Simple letter sent stating "not sure how you can prosecute me for failing to provide the driver details when the police have written to the named driver, and myself, accepting that the driver has been named. What exactly is the charge".
Pre court hearing occurs, CPS withdraw the case due to "insufficient chance of the prosecution succeeding".
Court writes notifying this, and says costs are claimable.
Claim for costs.
End result. No fine. No points, and our good friends now owe us £136 in costs. I look forward to the cheque arriving.
The police force? Wiltshire constabulary. So much for their 'zero tolerance' and 'efficiencies'.
If you can't follow you own rules, don't play in the game
J
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I wonder if there is a database showing who has beaten the system yet?
It might be a future idea to enable these system buckers to be traced and watched even more closely.........
Am I cynical or is there mileage in this?
Has anyone felt they are being singled out for beating the system?
Revenge of the redfaced plods?
sospan
I wonder if there is a database showing who has beaten the system yet?
It might be a future idea to enable these system buckers to be traced and watched even more closely.........
Am I cynical or is there mileage in this?
Has anyone felt they are being singled out for beating the system?
Revenge of the redfaced plods?
sospan
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff