Odd Letter from CPS in relation to speeding court appearance
Discussion
A friend of mine has been accused of speeding (54 in a 30) and is due to attend magistrates court. He has plead not guilty. In anticipation he requested disclosure of any evidence including video that the police would use as part of the prosecution.
The letter received from the CPS states that the police have been asked to bring any in-car footage to court on the day. Is this not supposed to be available prior to plea let alone court appearance?
Additionally it is stated that it only needs to be proven the speed limit was exceeded to prove the offence. If so why bother to say 54mph in the offence? If speed is immaterial why would this not be an SP30.
There is proof that the location is incorrect and the method of speed assessment is invalid (by the polices own admission) so this is not a speculative punt at "getting away with it".
The letter received from the CPS states that the police have been asked to bring any in-car footage to court on the day. Is this not supposed to be available prior to plea let alone court appearance?
Additionally it is stated that it only needs to be proven the speed limit was exceeded to prove the offence. If so why bother to say 54mph in the offence? If speed is immaterial why would this not be an SP30.
There is proof that the location is incorrect and the method of speed assessment is invalid (by the polices own admission) so this is not a speculative punt at "getting away with it".
You need to take proper legal advice.
If the video is missing (a big IF) it has potential to be an abuse of process, depending on the circumstances.
It seems like a relatively minor incident in the grand scheme of things unless there's something else involved. Is totting up coming into play?
If the video is missing (a big IF) it has potential to be an abuse of process, depending on the circumstances.
It seems like a relatively minor incident in the grand scheme of things unless there's something else involved. Is totting up coming into play?
Sounds like he could be making a very expensive mistake. I assume he knows that the CPS will ask for £620 costs if he's convicted? For the avoidance of doubt, that's in addition to the fine (week's net wage is usual) and the victim surcharge. On the other hand, he may have a good case.
A wrong location isn't necessarily a defence. It depends.
The other point is worth exploring. What exactly do the police admit is invalid. The CPS don't appear to have an issue with it?
You may have to seek an order for disclosure. Have you filed a CPIA compliant defence statement?
He is charged with exceeding a 30 mph limit. If the prosecution can prove any speed in excess of the limit then he will be found guilty. They absolutely do not have to prove 54 mph.
A wrong location isn't necessarily a defence. It depends.
The other point is worth exploring. What exactly do the police admit is invalid. The CPS don't appear to have an issue with it?
You may have to seek an order for disclosure. Have you filed a CPIA compliant defence statement?
He is charged with exceeding a 30 mph limit. If the prosecution can prove any speed in excess of the limit then he will be found guilty. They absolutely do not have to prove 54 mph.
Edited by agtlaw on Thursday 14th August 21:55
tenpenceshort said:
You need to take proper legal advice.
If the video is missing (a big IF) it has potential to be an abuse of process, depending on the circumstances.
It seems like a relatively minor incident in the grand scheme of things unless there's something else involved. Is totting up coming into play?
I don't think video is missing - i think the question was "are police supposed to provide it before the trial?"If the video is missing (a big IF) it has potential to be an abuse of process, depending on the circumstances.
It seems like a relatively minor incident in the grand scheme of things unless there's something else involved. Is totting up coming into play?
Ps yes I thought it was fairly minor. OP - is your friend contesting it because he wasn't speeding or for some other reason?
Thanks for the replies. The question about the video relates to disclosure. Can the CPS on the day really say and by the way here is a video we have not provided the defendant access to.
I am aware incorrect location can be seen as a correctable error, but the incorrectly stated location is prejudicial.
Pacing was used to define the offence/speed but the distance paced does not meet the force policy minimum distance.
I will suggest meeting with a solicitor prior to the court date to get some firm advice. Any thoughts in the meantime gratefully received.
I am aware incorrect location can be seen as a correctable error, but the incorrectly stated location is prejudicial.
Pacing was used to define the offence/speed but the distance paced does not meet the force policy minimum distance.
I will suggest meeting with a solicitor prior to the court date to get some firm advice. Any thoughts in the meantime gratefully received.
Mags will say, "321 metres (or whatever) is only a guideline", they'll admit the video. If they are sure you exceeded 30mph then that's guilty.
If you want the video then (a) get a solicitor (b) go see it at the cop shop (c) file a CPIA compliant defence statement (d) make an application to the court only after doing (c)
You'll very likely find that the video is quickly dispatched to your solicitor upon him making the usual undertaking
Prejudiced, how?
If you want the video then (a) get a solicitor (b) go see it at the cop shop (c) file a CPIA compliant defence statement (d) make an application to the court only after doing (c)
You'll very likely find that the video is quickly dispatched to your solicitor upon him making the usual undertaking
Prejudiced, how?
Moulder said:
The letter received from the CPS states that the police have been asked to bring any in-car footage to court on the day. Is this not supposed to be available prior to plea let alone court appearance?
No.I'm left thinking that when you say a not guilty plea has been entered, this isn't actually the case and the first hearing is pending? Different considerations apply if so and ignore previous posts!
Moulder said:
A friend of mine has been accused of speeding (54 in a 30) and is due to attend magistrates court. He has plead not guilty. In anticipation he requested disclosure of any evidence including video that the police would use as part of the prosecution.
The letter received from the CPS states that the police have been asked to bring any in-car footage to court on the day. Is this not supposed to be available prior to plea let alone court appearance?
Additionally it is stated that it only needs to be proven the speed limit was exceeded to prove the offence. If so why bother to say 54mph in the offence? If speed is immaterial why would this not be an SP30.
There is proof that the location is incorrect and the method of speed assessment is invalid (by the polices own admission) so this is not a speculative punt at "getting away with it".
Much of this is aimed at being ECHR compliant so probably not to different from here north of the border. Your friend is entitled to fair notice of the case against him. Sounds like he has that by being told what he is accused of, where and how. Get a solicitor and CPS will probably let them view it in advance. Represent himself and he will be given a chance on the day, shortly before his trial starts. There is no right to see it before then. The letter received from the CPS states that the police have been asked to bring any in-car footage to court on the day. Is this not supposed to be available prior to plea let alone court appearance?
Additionally it is stated that it only needs to be proven the speed limit was exceeded to prove the offence. If so why bother to say 54mph in the offence? If speed is immaterial why would this not be an SP30.
There is proof that the location is incorrect and the method of speed assessment is invalid (by the polices own admission) so this is not a speculative punt at "getting away with it".
Why 54 mph ? The higher the speed, the higher the fine. 31 is enough to convict though.
A minor discrepancy in location is unlikely to be fatal, but we need more info.
Finally method of assessment invalid ? Never in 20 years have plod stated this to me. Any doubts, they'd warn your friend. If they issue a ticket or report it, expect method to be valid. Again though, really need more info how speed was allegedly defected and why this is invalid.
agtlaw said:
Mags will say, "321 metres (or whatever) is only a guideline", they'll admit the video. If they are sure you exceeded 30mph then that's guilty.
If you want the video then (a) get a solicitor (b) go see it at the cop shop (c) file a CPIA compliant defence statement (d) make an application to the court only after doing (c)
You'll very likely find that the video is quickly dispatched to your solicitor upon him making the usual undertaking
Prejudiced, how?
Is a compliant defence statement now a requirement at Mags? Or are you saying an order to disclose evidence is less likely without one?If you want the video then (a) get a solicitor (b) go see it at the cop shop (c) file a CPIA compliant defence statement (d) make an application to the court only after doing (c)
You'll very likely find that the video is quickly dispatched to your solicitor upon him making the usual undertaking
Prejudiced, how?
When facing the mags last year one of the advantages we had compared to crown was no need to provide a CPIA defence and forewarn the CPS what we had.
tenpenceshort said:
Is a compliant defence statement now a requirement at Mags? Or are you saying an order to disclose evidence is less likely without one?
When facing the mags last year one of the advantages we had compared to crown was no need to provide a CPIA defence and forewarn the CPS what we had.
It's voluntary in the mags but compulsory if you want to make an application for disclosure (s. 8 CPIA). When facing the mags last year one of the advantages we had compared to crown was no need to provide a CPIA defence and forewarn the CPS what we had.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff