Discussion
A mate of mine was nabbed by Yorkshire scammers a while back. He'd got the NIP off his boss (company car), and had already filled it in to send back. He happened to mention it to me over a pint. Next stop pepipoo, to seek advice.
Went the pace route, doing the usual here are my unsigned details etc, and sat back and waited. Nothing for a while, and then a nice little letter offering him the chance of a driver "improvement"
course. As he's on six points, he thought this a result, and swallowed his medecine.
He tells me that the course he attended was hardly life altering, in fact they would save a lot of time if they just said "give us your money, that's all we want", absolute bollox !
Made me wonder if they are worried about trying out the pace defence and setting a precedent ?
Phil
Went the pace route, doing the usual here are my unsigned details etc, and sat back and waited. Nothing for a while, and then a nice little letter offering him the chance of a driver "improvement"
course. As he's on six points, he thought this a result, and swallowed his medecine. He tells me that the course he attended was hardly life altering, in fact they would save a lot of time if they just said "give us your money, that's all we want", absolute bollox !
Made me wonder if they are worried about trying out the pace defence and setting a precedent ?
Phil
The fact that they offered a speed awareness course suggests they felt they had sufficient proof (via the PACE statement) that your friend was the driver at the time of the offence. Some SCPs offer these routinely as an alternative to a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty if the driver was 'marginally' over the posted limit.
IMHO, the decision to offer the course had nothing to do with driver details being supplied on a PACE witness statement.
IMHO, the decision to offer the course had nothing to do with driver details being supplied on a PACE witness statement.
philthy said:
I think they are hoping everyone will "bottle" it.
I'm wondering if they have ever actually gone as far as getting someone into court and setting a precedent?
There have been lots of cases where driver details have been supplied as a PACE witness statement and have got as far as court. To date, the outcomes have been anything but consistent...
Legal 'precedent' cannot be set by a decision in a Magistrates Court - that's the responsibility of a higher court (ECJ, for instance
) >> Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 4th January 09:56
You may be right SS2. From what I can gather his alleged speed wasn't "marginal", and the form he'd been sent mentioned fixed penalty. I didn't see it myself, but he was under the impression that is was definately the standard speed tax form.
Loads of excuses for them to offer driver "improvement" courses without admitting they don't want to go to the aggro of getting someone in court.
Phil
Loads of excuses for them to offer driver "improvement" courses without admitting they don't want to go to the aggro of getting someone in court.
Phil
I bow to your superior knowledge SS2, I didn't know a magistrates court couldn't set a precedent. Surely though if someone used the defence, and had some sort of outcome, couldn't it be called on by another defendant? If it has to go to something like the ECJ we'll all be dead before we find out what will happen 
I didn't know people had actually been to court with this defence, any interesting inconsistencies?
Phil
I didn't know people had actually been to court with this defence, any interesting inconsistencies?
Phil
philthy said:
If it has to go to something like the ECJ we'll all be dead before we find out what will happen
Watch this space - 2006 could be an 'interesting' year
philthy said:
I didn't know people had actually been to court with this defence, any interesting inconsistencies?
Just varied decisions really which demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the law by some SCPs and Magistrates..
Some cases have been dropped before getting to court - some on the day of the trial itself
Some people have been prosecuted for speeding.
Some people have been summonsed for 'failing to supply driver details' after PACE - a prosecution for this is bound to fail though as the Jones judgment states that the driver information can be supplied in a letter rather than the scammers' convenient little forms.
In some cases (mine included
), the CPS steered well clear of the PACE statement and didn't produce it as evidence in court - no evidence of driver = no case to answer. Some people have been summonsed for both speeding and failure to furnish. IMHO, this is tantamount to a malicious prosecution and should not be allowed. If the scammers say 'no driver details have been supplied', then they have no proof of driver identity and a speeding prosecution cannot succeed.... Conversely, if they do have proof of driver identity for speeding, then why do they summons for S172 ?
The answer is simple - its either a pre-emptive prosecution (by showing in court you supplied the S172 info, you actually supply the proof for the speeding prosecution) or its to give the CPS a 'plea bargaining tool'- 'Fess up to one charge and we'll drop the other...'.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff