Thoughts on seeing the photos
Discussion
This recent case with the photo being incorrect has made me think of something ..
Surely the Safety Camera partnerships will now have to provide the photo on demand, rather than say it will only be presented in court?
I find it astonishing that the motorist will be punished more severely if the case goes to court (wasting the court's time etc) yet if the "reflections from the camera set off the radar"
then surely the Safety Camera partnerships are equally as guilty of wasting the court's time if one of these "incorrect" photos are used to prosecute someone.
Sure, it might be a rare occurence - but we are now in the stage when someone could be convicted of an offence, without EVER seeing the evidence, and not even being allowed to see it without risking a much higher penalty!
Can the Safety Partnerships really refuse to give out a photo? Why not just include it with the NIP, as they do in Australia for example?
Surely the Safety Camera partnerships will now have to provide the photo on demand, rather than say it will only be presented in court?
I find it astonishing that the motorist will be punished more severely if the case goes to court (wasting the court's time etc) yet if the "reflections from the camera set off the radar"
then surely the Safety Camera partnerships are equally as guilty of wasting the court's time if one of these "incorrect" photos are used to prosecute someone. Sure, it might be a rare occurence - but we are now in the stage when someone could be convicted of an offence, without EVER seeing the evidence, and not even being allowed to see it without risking a much higher penalty!
Can the Safety Partnerships really refuse to give out a photo? Why not just include it with the NIP, as they do in Australia for example?
I got a NIP though the post this morning with an FAQ attached. One of them was :-
Q.Can I have a copy of the photograph?
A.No. The photographic/videographic evidence is to support a Police prosecution case. Video graphic evidence is only made available at a court hearing in support of a prosecution case.
>> Edited by ship on Thursday 8th January 11:50
Q.Can I have a copy of the photograph?
A.No. The photographic/videographic evidence is to support a Police prosecution case. Video graphic evidence is only made available at a court hearing in support of a prosecution case.
>> Edited by ship on Thursday 8th January 11:50
I'm no legal egale by any stretch, and the same question and answer form gets shipped in with most NIP's now, but perhaps a letter to the scamera partnership in question stating the case in which the evidence used to try to secure the prosecution (namely the photo) had been incorrectly interpreted, and that you want the photo for independant verification (ie go back to the spot check out how far along the stripped section you'd progressed and work it out) and that should see you right. Also they cannot deny you access to the evidence if you intend to go to court otherwise how do you construct a case against the evidence against you if you don't know what it is?! Lastly I believe if they don't show you the evidence within 7 days of the court case you can use this in court against them. I'm sure somebody will now blow this rambling theory apart.
The problem as I understand it, is that they refuse to give you the photos unless you need them as evidence for a court case.
Once you end up in court, you will probably be punished more severely than if you had simply rolled over and collected 3 points + £60 (wasting the court's time etc). Complete no-win situation.
So the NIP factories use this to their benefit and probably get some dubious convictions as a result. Justice?
Once you end up in court, you will probably be punished more severely than if you had simply rolled over and collected 3 points + £60 (wasting the court's time etc). Complete no-win situation.
So the NIP factories use this to their benefit and probably get some dubious convictions as a result. Justice?
I suspect that most people know whether they were in a particular location at a particular time, and will know if they were exceeding the speed limit.
The only genuinue reasons for needing the photo are if one is genuinuely unsure of who was driving, or definitely wasn't there at the time, or to contest the speed reading.
In the first case you might as well write and ask for it, or of course return the NIP stating that x and y had access to the vehicle at the time and I as registered keeper don't know who was driving. It will be up to the Scamera Partnership to take it further either by asking x and y who was driving or taking action against the Registered keeper for failure to supply info. The defence to the latter being I have done by best to supply.
The other two cases who will presumably be contesting anyway so no need to worry about a higher punishment.
The only genuinue reasons for needing the photo are if one is genuinuely unsure of who was driving, or definitely wasn't there at the time, or to contest the speed reading.
In the first case you might as well write and ask for it, or of course return the NIP stating that x and y had access to the vehicle at the time and I as registered keeper don't know who was driving. It will be up to the Scamera Partnership to take it further either by asking x and y who was driving or taking action against the Registered keeper for failure to supply info. The defence to the latter being I have done by best to supply.
The other two cases who will presumably be contesting anyway so no need to worry about a higher punishment.
As tvrslag says, they (the safety camera partnerships) cannot prevent you from having the evidence. It is your right to see the evidence that you are accused of and they MUST supply it in a timely and reasonable manner for your defence - failure to do so will render your defence incomplete due to them and hence it will get thrown out....
I am sure that there is something under the DPA that you can use also - so I think that this is just another case of the SCP getting carried away and thinking that they can write their own rules and laws.... and more importantly that they operate above the law.... they dont and its disgusting to see that they think this....
I am sure that there is something under the DPA that you can use also - so I think that this is just another case of the SCP getting carried away and thinking that they can write their own rules and laws.... and more importantly that they operate above the law.... they dont and its disgusting to see that they think this....
Not too sure about the Data Protection Act angle. The reason being is that companies (ie the Camera Partnerships) are required to disclose any "personal data" that they hold on you if you make a Subject Access Request, but, unless you identify that it is you driving the car, I'm not sure whether the photo could be classed as "personal data", as it's not directly linked to you.
NB - I'm not a lawyer though.... :-)
NB - I'm not a lawyer though.... :-)
The photograph would be Personal Data (as defined in the DPA1998) because of "other information in the possession" of the Data Controller - in this case the registration number of the vehicle linked to the name of the Registered Keeper.
It is not Personal Data per se as related to the driver at the time - as the driver is unknown (although initially presumed to be the RK).
By saying that you need the photograph to identify the driver, it rather puts the boot on the other foot, and the 'Scamera Partnership' could (IMHO & I am not a lawyer, but know something about the applicaton of the DPA) refuse to disclose. However, if you are the RK, then the Personal Data they hold relates to you and there is no reason not to disclose (citing the DPA).
Further, they could refuse to disclose (under the DPA) citing their exemption "for the detection and prosecution of crime".
Thus, it's probably not worth trying to cite the DPA as a reason to disclose.
Streaky
It is not Personal Data per se as related to the driver at the time - as the driver is unknown (although initially presumed to be the RK).
By saying that you need the photograph to identify the driver, it rather puts the boot on the other foot, and the 'Scamera Partnership' could (IMHO & I am not a lawyer, but know something about the applicaton of the DPA) refuse to disclose. However, if you are the RK, then the Personal Data they hold relates to you and there is no reason not to disclose (citing the DPA).
Further, they could refuse to disclose (under the DPA) citing their exemption "for the detection and prosecution of crime".
Thus, it's probably not worth trying to cite the DPA as a reason to disclose.
Streaky
Saw this on www.speedaware.org.uk/faq.asp you can tell some of the questions on there are to try and wind them up - funny though
· Can I have a copy of the photograph?
Yes, but the purpose of the photograph is to record the registration plate, not the driver so recognition may not be possible. You can request to view the video by making an appointment.
You can tell some of the questions on there are to try and wind them up - I mean.....
· Can I pay by instalments?
No. There is no facility for this.
· Can I have a copy of the photograph?
Yes, but the purpose of the photograph is to record the registration plate, not the driver so recognition may not be possible. You can request to view the video by making an appointment.
You can tell some of the questions on there are to try and wind them up - I mean.....
· Can I pay by instalments?
No. There is no facility for this.
Last time I got one I asked for the photo saying it could have been either myself or Mrs Mel driving but I didn't know, they replied saying yes but you have to come here to view it on "special" machine. I promptly gave that a good ignoring after considering the facts, Griffith roof off, Mrs Mel 5'6" very female, long blonde hair, Mel 6'3" fat bastard with cropped hair. The evidence would have been dammimg so I didn't view it and they dropped the case anyway.
mel said:
Last time I got one I asked for the photo saying it could have been either myself or Mrs Mel driving but I didn't know, they replied saying yes but you have to come here to view it on "special" machine. I promptly gave that a good ignoring after considering the facts, Griffith roof off, Mrs Mel 5'6" very female, long blonde hair, Mel 6'3" fat bastard with cropped hair. The evidence would have been dammimg so I didn't view it and they dropped the case anyway.
tryed that with me
I then asked if they dident mind me tapeing the phone
conversation.
and to explaine why they was obstructing me in helping them afind out who the driver was at the time.
photos by return post
never payed it of course
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff