Is this speeding defence worthwhile
Discussion
A work colleague was stopped for speeding on the m25 a while ago, his lawyer has suggested this defence. Thought I would get the PH view.
Trial Issues
1) The prosecution have not complied with s.1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. S.1(1)(c) of the act specifically requires a Notice of Intended Prosecution to specify the place at which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The notice served in this case did not sufficiently identify the place at which the alleged offence is said to have been committed, it simply said ‘at M25 Junction 4 to 5, , UNITED KINGDOM’, which is too vague a description to satisfy the requirements of s.1(1)(c) RTOA. Therefore, a valid notice was not served in this case and the failure to serve a valid notice presents an automatic bar to conviction.
The defendant will rely on the following case law - Young v Day (1959) 123 JP 317.
Short answer, No.
Longer answer, this offence may have taken place over a distance, i.e. the accused is alleged to have driven his car over the speed limit for that nominated distance at that nominated location.
Sure, it may be worth a run, depends on how much he is being charged by the solicitor.
Longer answer, this offence may have taken place over a distance, i.e. the accused is alleged to have driven his car over the speed limit for that nominated distance at that nominated location.
Sure, it may be worth a run, depends on how much he is being charged by the solicitor.
ksAt the time of the pull, was he warned that he would be reported for consideration of the question of being prosecuted for the offence of excess speed (or similar) ?
Even if he wasn't, it would be very difficult for him to argue that he wasn't.
And a warning at the time is all that is required to satisfy s.1 RTOA 1988.
Even if he wasn't, it would be very difficult for him to argue that he wasn't.
And a warning at the time is all that is required to satisfy s.1 RTOA 1988.
cashmax said:
The defendant will rely on the following case law - Young v Day (1959) 123 JP 317.
Young vs Day seems to have hung on the defendant not having been stopped at the time.http://www.garysmith.org.uk/speeding/yvd.pdf
cashmax said:
A work colleague was stopped for speeding on the m25 a while ago, his lawyer has suggested this defence. Thought I would get the PH view.
Trial Issues
1) The prosecution have not complied with s.1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. S.1(1)(c) of the act specifically requires a Notice of Intended Prosecution to specify the place at which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The notice served in this case did not sufficiently identify the place at which the alleged offence is said to have been committed, it simply said ‘at M25 Junction 4 to 5, , UNITED KINGDOM’, which is too vague a description to satisfy the requirements of s.1(1)(c) RTOA. Therefore, a valid notice was not served in this case and the failure to serve a valid notice presents an automatic bar to conviction.
The defendant will rely on the following case law - Young v Day (1959) 123 JP 317.
How is that description vague?Trial Issues
1) The prosecution have not complied with s.1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. S.1(1)(c) of the act specifically requires a Notice of Intended Prosecution to specify the place at which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The notice served in this case did not sufficiently identify the place at which the alleged offence is said to have been committed, it simply said ‘at M25 Junction 4 to 5, , UNITED KINGDOM’, which is too vague a description to satisfy the requirements of s.1(1)(c) RTOA. Therefore, a valid notice was not served in this case and the failure to serve a valid notice presents an automatic bar to conviction.
The defendant will rely on the following case law - Young v Day (1959) 123 JP 317.
A driver who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5 cannot drive anywhere else but on the M25 between junction 4 and 5 so the description is not vague even if the distance between J4 and 5 was 20 or more miles.
The case you mention involved a road length that had junctions upon it that could be used to make the description less vague than it was. In the case of the M25 no such description is needed because once you drive on at J4 you have to go at least to J5 to get off so you know exactly where you were driving. Even if for some reason you changed drivers between those points on that occasion it would be memorable for you to do so on a motorway.
So why is it vague? It isn't.
I think your lawyer is stretching Young v Day where it simply doesn't fit.
Magog said:
Sounds like the motoring equivalent of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle!
Indeed it does, the driver is somewhere between two precise locations. Even though he is only somewhere between them the section of road is precisely defined.Young v Day is not similar.
Is the defence valid? I would say not. The case quite often fails in court but that isn't a reason not to give it a run, it just doesn't seem applicable for a motorway between 2 junctions.
Play out the argument:
The case refers to a 4 mile minor road which presumably had landmarks and other roads coming off it. One can see that more detail could/should have been given.
But, between two junctions of a motorway? I guess you could say 'between marker x and y' or 'approximately x miles from J5'. However, does this add anything to the process, and are the interests of justice served by the fact that a marker was not outlined in this instance?
Personally, if that were my only hope, I'd plead guilty. I'd take a reduction in penalty for pleading guilty over the slim chance of acquittal (and still possibly picking up fees).
The case refers to a 4 mile minor road which presumably had landmarks and other roads coming off it. One can see that more detail could/should have been given.
But, between two junctions of a motorway? I guess you could say 'between marker x and y' or 'approximately x miles from J5'. However, does this add anything to the process, and are the interests of justice served by the fact that a marker was not outlined in this instance?
Personally, if that were my only hope, I'd plead guilty. I'd take a reduction in penalty for pleading guilty over the slim chance of acquittal (and still possibly picking up fees).
tapereel said:
How is that description vague?
A driver who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5 cannot drive anywhere else but on the M25 between junction 4 and 5 so the description is not vague even if the distance between J4 and 5 was 20 or more miles.
The case you mention involved a road length that had junctions upon it that could be used to make the description less vague than it was. In the case of the M25 no such description is needed because once you drive on at J4 you have to go at least to J5 to get off so you know exactly where you were driving. Even if for some reason you changed drivers between those points on that occasion it would be memorable for you to do so on a motorway.
So why is it vague? It isn't.
I think your lawyer is stretching Young v Day where it simply doesn't fit.
+1.A driver who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5 cannot drive anywhere else but on the M25 between junction 4 and 5 so the description is not vague even if the distance between J4 and 5 was 20 or more miles.
The case you mention involved a road length that had junctions upon it that could be used to make the description less vague than it was. In the case of the M25 no such description is needed because once you drive on at J4 you have to go at least to J5 to get off so you know exactly where you were driving. Even if for some reason you changed drivers between those points on that occasion it would be memorable for you to do so on a motorway.
So why is it vague? It isn't.
I think your lawyer is stretching Young v Day where it simply doesn't fit.
Zombie said:
tapereel said:
How is that description vague?
A driver who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5 cannot drive anywhere else but on the M25 between junction 4 and 5 so the description is not vague even if the distance between J4 and 5 was 20 or more miles.
The case you mention involved a road length that had junctions upon it that could be used to make the description less vague than it was. In the case of the M25 no such description is needed because once you drive on at J4 you have to go at least to J5 to get off so you know exactly where you were driving. Even if for some reason you changed drivers between those points on that occasion it would be memorable for you to do so on a motorway.
So why is it vague? It isn't.
I think your lawyer is stretching Young v Day where it simply doesn't fit.
+1.A driver who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5 cannot drive anywhere else but on the M25 between junction 4 and 5 so the description is not vague even if the distance between J4 and 5 was 20 or more miles.
The case you mention involved a road length that had junctions upon it that could be used to make the description less vague than it was. In the case of the M25 no such description is needed because once you drive on at J4 you have to go at least to J5 to get off so you know exactly where you were driving. Even if for some reason you changed drivers between those points on that occasion it would be memorable for you to do so on a motorway.
So why is it vague? It isn't.
I think your lawyer is stretching Young v Day where it simply doesn't fit.
- Try reading it again:tapereel said:
How is that description vague?
A driver who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5 cannot drive anywhere else but on the M25 between junction 4 and 5 so the description is not vague even if the distance between J4 and 5 was 20 or more miles.......
For a start off, a driver "who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5" needs some serious help as the M24 does not exist!A driver who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5 cannot drive anywhere else but on the M25 between junction 4 and 5 so the description is not vague even if the distance between J4 and 5 was 20 or more miles.......
If the M24 did exist though, then a driver "who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5" would not be able to drive anywhere close to junctions 4 and 5 of the M25 unless junctions 4 to 5 of the M25 were also classified as being junctions 4 to 5 of the M24! - In the words of Spock: "That would be illogical Captain!"
In the case of the OP's post where the motorway involved actually exists, the description of "between junctions 4 and 5 of the M25 motorway" is perfectly acceptable as a description of where the offence occurred.
Or does the work colleague's Lawyer expect the Police to quote the exact longitude and latitude position of where the offence took place in order to satisfy the court as to the location?
4rephill said:
Zombie said:
tapereel said:
How is that description vague?
A driver who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5 cannot drive anywhere else but on the M25 between junction 4 and 5 so the description is not vague even if the distance between J4 and 5 was 20 or more miles.
The case you mention involved a road length that had junctions upon it that could be used to make the description less vague than it was. In the case of the M25 no such description is needed because once you drive on at J4 you have to go at least to J5 to get off so you know exactly where you were driving. Even if for some reason you changed drivers between those points on that occasion it would be memorable for you to do so on a motorway.
So why is it vague? It isn't.
I think your lawyer is stretching Young v Day where it simply doesn't fit.
+1.A driver who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5 cannot drive anywhere else but on the M25 between junction 4 and 5 so the description is not vague even if the distance between J4 and 5 was 20 or more miles.
The case you mention involved a road length that had junctions upon it that could be used to make the description less vague than it was. In the case of the M25 no such description is needed because once you drive on at J4 you have to go at least to J5 to get off so you know exactly where you were driving. Even if for some reason you changed drivers between those points on that occasion it would be memorable for you to do so on a motorway.
So why is it vague? It isn't.
I think your lawyer is stretching Young v Day where it simply doesn't fit.
- Try reading it again:tapereel said:
How is that description vague?
A driver who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5 cannot drive anywhere else but on the M25 between junction 4 and 5 so the description is not vague even if the distance between J4 and 5 was 20 or more miles.......
For a start off, a driver "who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5" needs some serious help as the M24 does not exist!A driver who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5 cannot drive anywhere else but on the M25 between junction 4 and 5 so the description is not vague even if the distance between J4 and 5 was 20 or more miles.......
If the M24 did exist though, then a driver "who is on the M24 at or father junction 4 and before junction 5" would not be able to drive anywhere close to junctions 4 and 5 of the M25 unless junctions 4 to 5 of the M25 were also classified as being junctions 4 to 5 of the M24! - In the words of Spock: "That would be illogical Captain!"
In the case of the OP's post where the motorway involved actually exists, the description of "between junctions 4 and 5 of the M25 motorway" is perfectly acceptable as a description of where the offence occurred.
Or does the work colleague's Lawyer expect the Police to quote the exact longitude and latitude position of where the offence took place in order to satisfy the court as to the location?
mikeveal said:
TartanPaint said:
Magog said:
Sounds like the motoring equivalent of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle!
"I've stopped you because you were doing 97mph, Sir.""Oh great, now I'm lost!"
"No, I know exactly where I was."
best joke I've heard today.A quick check on Google Maps shows J4-J5 is about 1 mile - how specific a location does he think it needs to be.
I hope he hasn't paid (much) for this advice.
It's all rather academic since he was stopped therefore has (or should have) an acute recollection of exactly where he was stopped, that being - as said already - on a road where you can only proceed between J4 and J5 in one direction, and J5 and J4 in the opposite direction. Seems like pretty useless legal advice to be honest.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff