feeling helpless ....LTI20-20

[imccar]

Got the summons, got the "evidence".... just know in my own mind that I wasn't doing 87 in a 60 ..... Feel helpless because I'm not in a position financially or otherwise to plead not guilty (and I may have been going a little faster than the speed limit..... definately not that quick though!!!!) The pragmatic approach stinks! Plead guilty and throw myself at the mercy of the courts. Apologies for the seemingly pointless post.... just needed to vent my spleen

[Sheriff JWPepper]

How fast do you think you were going?

[imccar]

Wouldn't like to admit to anything on an open forum, suffice to say I have a very nervous passenger (who's feelings I always consider) who gets twitchy on anything but the safest of overtaking manouvres (which was the only part of this particular journey that I may have had a lapse of judgement and exceeded the 60 limit). The defence of "I may have been breaking the law, but not by that much" doesn't really hold much water - hence the pragmatic approach. The galling thing is that it is the difference between a fixed penalty 3 points etc, and an appearance in court for the first time in my life on the basis of what I KNOW to be inaccurate evidence. Plus the option of pleading not guilty, and challenging this evidence (from what I've read on this and other forums) is tantamount to

[JustinP1]

Sorry to hear this, and also sorry to hear that the course of recent threads has forced you to admit to something you are innocent of.

All I can say is from a similar situation, you *know* if you are 20mph or more over the limit!

The thing is will suggest is that especially if you are in North Wales then I would seriously consider going dow the line of a "Newton Hearing'.

For 27mph over the limit at court, you wont get 3 points, its 4 or 5 points.

What you woudl do is plead not guilty as charged, but make contact with the CPS brief before court to inform them that you will plead guilty to whatever the speed you think you were doing.

Most likely they will be quite happy to give them an easy life!

[Peter Ward]

My experience is that solid evidence is still not good enough to achieve justice. OTOH, justamin is doing well with his case in front of a proper judge. Take your pick but accept that at the very least you'll be found guilty at a magistrates court and will have to appeal.

[imccar]

Thanks Justin that's an interesting thought.... have had a free telephone consult with spec lawyer yesterday and he mentioned a "Newton Hearing", just wasn't sure how it might work in this situation having never had anything like this before!

[Mrs Fish]

Irrespective of the speed you were doing in my mind if you were not doing 87 then you are not guilty... have that day in court.

[ratcatcher]

the police say you were doing 87 based on evidence, you say you were not based on your opinion..... i know which one i'd believe, and it's not you

[vonhosen]

Mrs Fish said:

Irrespective of the speed you were doing in my mind if you were not doing 87 then you are not guilty... have that day in court.

The offence is exceeding the limit. The margin only affects the sentence.

[JustinP1]

vonhosen said:

Mrs Fish said:

Irrespective of the speed you were doing in my mind if you were not doing 87 then you are not guilty... have that day in court.

The offence is exceeding the limit. The margin only affects the sentence.

I agree.

IMHO even if you have Nick Freeman representing you then the court can (and will) infer from the fact that you would not be able to give evidence yourself.

There is no point in even hypothesising lying in court...

If you cannot say on oath that you were under the limit then you seriously dent your chances of getting any further IMO.

I think there are 4 ways forward:

1) The OP fights the case without giving evidence, employs expensive representation and hopes the CPS capitulate. Expensive and risky.

2) The OP pleads guilty and gets a punishment for 87 in a 60 - maybe 5 points and £200.

3) The OP pleads not guilty and looks for a 'Newton Hearing' with the CPS. This is where it gets complex as the CPS are gambling an almost certain conviction at 87 against one at say 65. Unless they are being hugely kind, they will not back down unless the OP puts up some kind of case that he *can* prove himself not guilty.

There is option 4) but this is preparing nothing, trying the Newton Hearing route with the CPS and if that doesnt work, just explain in the courtroom what you are, and are not prepared to plead guilty to. My expreience is that most courts are prepared to sometimes bend the rules for someone defending themsleves who is not supposed to know all the rules, and sometimes they accept a common sense way forward!

[NobleGuy]

I was done at 106 a couple of years back - bit unlikely considering I had the cruise control set at 90 and speedos very rarely under-read. They reckon they zapped me from 609m away (legal limit at that time for the make of camera was about 611m!!). At 609m my car would have been like a spec in the distance. They witheld the video evidence saying I had to plead guilty/not guilty first (which it turns out is an utter lie) and basically arse-raped me into pleading guilty. Nothing made any difference to the s - it's not accuracy they're looking for. Targets targets targets and no care for how they get the convictions. Scum the lot of them. Can't imagine the current cow dung of a system is any better/fairer.

[Peter Ward]

vonhosen said:

Mrs Fish said:

Irrespective of the speed you were doing in my mind if you were not doing 87 then you are not guilty... have that day in court.

The offence is exceeding the limit. The margin only affects the sentence.

And what the camera says is ignored by the CPS and court if you're prepared to plead guilty to a lower figure. Somehow the always-accurate camera figure doesn't matter any more as long as you confess to something.

[Bing o]

NobleGuy said:

They witheld the video evidence saying I had to plead guilty/not guilty first (which it turns out is an utter lie)

I thought that you had to plead not guilty before you are entitled to any evidence? This is based on a couple of years on PePiPoo.

It does seem ridiculous that you have to plead NG first before you can see any proper evidence other than a signed bit of paper, but what about the current scheme isn't ridiculous...?

[tigger1]

Peter Ward said:

vonhosen said:

Mrs Fish said:

Irrespective of the speed you were doing in my mind if you were not doing 87 then you are not guilty... have that day in court.

The offence is exceeding the limit. The margin only affects the sentence.

And what the camera says is ignored by the CPS and court if you're prepared to plead guilty to a lower figure. Somehow the always-accurate camera figure doesn't matter any more as long as you confess to something.

One for the lawyers...

If you plead guilty to limit+10, is there any mileage in a claim for defamation (whatever the correct term is) against the scamerati who claimed you were doing limit +27? Afterall, in the second situation you are no better than child murdering scum in their eyes. Could you then ask them to defend themselves by backing up their evidence with something reliable?

(Sorry, slow day)

[NobleGuy]

Bing o said:

NobleGuy said:

They witheld the video evidence saying I had to plead guilty/not guilty first (which it turns out is an utter lie)

I thought that you had to plead not guilty before you are entitled to any evidence? This is based on a couple of years on PePiPoo.

It does seem ridiculous that you have to plead NG first before you can see any proper evidence other than a signed bit of paper, but what about the current scheme isn't ridiculous...?

It's an interesting one isn't it? I went to Citizens Advice and they photocopied a sheet from a police manual (can't remember the name of it but it's well known apparently). In there it stated that a defendant is entitled to see any video or photographic evidence of their crime (if it is asked for) prior to plea. I found this out after I had sent back my response so was a bit stuffed by then.

I'd be interested to see what the consequences were if it were found out that people were being denied evidence illegally. Probably not a lot since it's all the name of road safety.

In fact, here it is:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section13/chapter_r.ht...

Edited by NobleGuy on Friday 17th August 12:32

[JustinP1]

NobleGuy said:

Bing o said:

NobleGuy said:

They witheld the video evidence saying I had to plead guilty/not guilty first (which it turns out is an utter lie)

I thought that you had to plead not guilty before you are entitled to any evidence? This is based on a couple of years on PePiPoo.

It does seem ridiculous that you have to plead NG first before you can see any proper evidence other than a signed bit of paper, but what about the current scheme isn't ridiculous...?

It's an interesting one isn't it? I went to Citizens Advice and they photocopied a sheet from a police manual (can't remember the name of it but it's well known apparently). In there it stated that a defendant is entitled to see any video or photographic evidence of their crime (if it is asked for) prior to plea. I found this out after I had sent back my response so was a bit stuffed by then.

I'd be interested to see what the consequences were if it were found out that people were being denied evidence illegally. Probably not a lot since it's all the name of road safety.

In fact, here it is:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section13/chapter_r.ht...

Edited by NobleGuy on Friday 17th August 12:32

You are quite correct about the situation with regard to disclosure. In this situation it is systematically ignored. It also happened in Peter Ward's case. There are a few areas around the fact that they try to get around it by stating that the photos are the evidence which they argue *has* been supplied, yet they fail to comprehend (or back down on) that of course these photos were taken from the original video which is the ACTUAL evidence.

[Bing o]

JustinP1 said:

There are a few areas around the fact that they try to get around it by stating that the photos are the evidence which they argue *has* been supplied

But they don't refer to it as evidence do they - they say that it is to identify the driver.

The whole system stinks to high heaven.

[Mr2Mike]

ratcatcher said:

the police say you were doing 87 based on evidence, you say you were not based on your opinion..... i know which one i'd believe, and it's not you

Do you have some inside information on this case as you you are saying that the evidence is beyond question? It's been proved numerous times that laser speed measurement via the LTI20-20 can be woefully inaccurate, what makes you so sure it's 100% correct in this case?

[Piglet]

If I read the OP's posts correctly, I think he is saying that he doesn't recall going that quickly on that journey because he knows he had a nervous pasenger. Rather than "I saw the bloke with the gun and I know I wasn't doing 87".

Is that correct? You don't think you went that fast on that journey but you weren't aware of getting scammed?

[mko9]

And you have an eye-witness. What does your "nervous passenger" recall?