Successfully challenged speeding (ahem, I mean safety)camera
Discussion
Today I went to court to defend myself against the charge of exceeding 30 mph. I was accused of doing 40mph in a 30 mph zone. I knew fine well I was nowhere near 40 mph and chose to go to trial instead of taking a fixed penalty and a £100 fine.
The Procurator Fiscal here in Edinburgh chose not to proceed any further with the case, and I was told I was free to go and no further action would be taken.
Now about 18 months ago I was flashed by the same camera and admittedly I wasn't paying as close attention as one might to the speedo in the car, so when the NIP arrived I duly accepted the fixed penalty without question, however when I got flashed this year I thought bloody hell, there's no way I was speeding, which is why I opted to go to trial this time round.
Last year it was the same charge of doing 40mph in a 30mph zone and if anything I was driving at the same speed or slower than this year.
How would I go about challenging the evidence from last year? Can anyone advise me of the best course of action to take please? many thanks in advance.
PCVD.
The Procurator Fiscal here in Edinburgh chose not to proceed any further with the case, and I was told I was free to go and no further action would be taken.
Now about 18 months ago I was flashed by the same camera and admittedly I wasn't paying as close attention as one might to the speedo in the car, so when the NIP arrived I duly accepted the fixed penalty without question, however when I got flashed this year I thought bloody hell, there's no way I was speeding, which is why I opted to go to trial this time round.
Last year it was the same charge of doing 40mph in a 30mph zone and if anything I was driving at the same speed or slower than this year.
How would I go about challenging the evidence from last year? Can anyone advise me of the best course of action to take please? many thanks in advance.
PCVD.
KungFuPanda said:
How did you successfully challenge this year's charge? the story is all well and good but there's no information there.
I wrote to the PF when I received my summons to say that I would be defending myself in court and asked for copies of the evidence, namely the images taken from the gatso, as I was 100% certain I was not doing 40 mph and that the images would clearly show this. I arrived in court his morning and I had not at this point received copies of the evidence which the PF would be using to prosecute me. As I sat waiting in the court, the court usher came over to me and explained that the PF would not be continuing with the prosecution and that I was free to go and had no case to answer to.
Edited by pcvdriver on Tuesday 8th November 16:09
thats poor show for them not turning up and effectivly withrawing the case on the hearing day. If they had no evidence then they should not have wasted your time.
Send them a bill for your time and distress and see how they like being taken to court. After all you could just withdraw it on the day if you felt so inclined.
Send them a bill for your time and distress and see how they like being taken to court. After all you could just withdraw it on the day if you felt so inclined.
superlightr said:
thats poor show for them not turning up and effectivly withrawing the case on the hearing day. If they had no evidence then they should not have wasted your time.
Send them a bill for your time and distress and see how they like being taken to court. After all you could just withdraw it on the day if you felt so inclined.
I get the feeling that they just expect everyone to cop for the fixed penalty instead of going to court and challenging the ticket.....which is what I did last year. I thought if I had contested it it I'd get an even bigger fine if found guilty, because I'd not been watching my speedo as carefully as I should have I wasn't certain how much over 30 mph I'd been, but didn't think I was anywhere near 40 mph, I braked as soon as I saw the first flash, but was looking in my mirrors to watch out for someone else running into the back of me, rather than looking at my speedo.Send them a bill for your time and distress and see how they like being taken to court. After all you could just withdraw it on the day if you felt so inclined.
pcvdriver said:
I get the feeling that they just expect everyone to cop for the fixed penalty instead of going to court and challenging the ticket.....which is what I did last year. I thought if I had contested it it I'd get an even bigger fine if found guilty, because I'd not been watching my speedo as carefully as I should have I wasn't certain how much over 30 mph I'd been, but didn't think I was anywhere near 40 mph, I braked as soon as I saw the first flash, but was looking in my mirrors to watch out for someone else running into the back of me, rather than looking at my speedo.
Sounds like your defence was an elaborate bluff? You don't know what speed you were doing, other than that you believe it was less than 40mph. Than again, in Scotland, so you obviously deserve hanging (in the eyes of the law there, not me!) for doing anything over the limit.
There are two possibilities: they either forgot the evidence or it didn't show OP doing 40 which is why they dropped it.
I would say you'd need to badger them for the evidence although I have no idea if they're obliged to provide it, especially as the case is closed.
If you can get hold of the pics and they clearly show you not exceeding the limit then I would say you have grounds to contest your previous conviction. Whether any of that's possible or not is a different matter.
I would say you'd need to badger them for the evidence although I have no idea if they're obliged to provide it, especially as the case is closed.
If you can get hold of the pics and they clearly show you not exceeding the limit then I would say you have grounds to contest your previous conviction. Whether any of that's possible or not is a different matter.
pcvdriver said:
I get the feeling that they just expect everyone to cop for the fixed penalty instead of going to court and challenging the ticket...
This is how things seem to be done these days. I've had a few issues with unfair resident's parking fines when parked outside my house (warden says permit not visible when it is, etc etc). The first appeal against the ticket is almost always knocked back, it's only when you fight hard and go a few stages into the legal process that they suddenly change their mind and decide you were right all along. I've also heard that the same technique is used in ATOS hearings where people that are ill and should receive benefit are told they are not ill and they only get their payments reinstated when they go to tribunal. It's a pretty s
tty way of doing thigs, and basically means that people who are meek and respect authority get run over. You have to fight everything these days it seems. Centurion07 said:
There are two possibilities: they either forgot the evidence or it didn't show OP doing 40 which is why they dropped it.
I would say you'd need to badger them for the evidence although I have no idea if they're obliged to provide it, especially as the case is closed.
If you can get hold of the pics and they clearly show you not exceeding the limit then I would say you have grounds to contest your previous conviction. Whether any of that's possible or not is a different matter.
I was wondering if anyone knew of any test cases in law, setting a precedent for similar future cases.I would say you'd need to badger them for the evidence although I have no idea if they're obliged to provide it, especially as the case is closed.
If you can get hold of the pics and they clearly show you not exceeding the limit then I would say you have grounds to contest your previous conviction. Whether any of that's possible or not is a different matter.
tigger1 said:
pcvdriver said:
I get the feeling that they just expect everyone to cop for the fixed penalty instead of going to court and challenging the ticket.....which is what I did last year. I thought if I had contested it it I'd get an even bigger fine if found guilty, because I'd not been watching my speedo as carefully as I should have I wasn't certain how much over 30 mph I'd been, but didn't think I was anywhere near 40 mph, I braked as soon as I saw the first flash, but was looking in my mirrors to watch out for someone else running into the back of me, rather than looking at my speedo.
Sounds like your defence was an elaborate bluff? You don't know what speed you were doing, other than that you believe it was less than 40mph.Come on now, everybody has heard of Leith.
The subject of a very well known tongue twister.
Although it may soon be the other way round
It also gets an honourable mention in this classic.
Newhaven not so much.
The cross Channel ferry port will be better known.
The subject of a very well known tongue twister.
Although it may soon be the other way round
It also gets an honourable mention in this classic.
Newhaven not so much.
The cross Channel ferry port will be better known.
pcvdriver said:
But most folk on here won't know either Leith or Newhaven..... so Edinburgh is the most recognisable place name....
It would seem that the prosecutor failed to get the evidence to court for your recent case. That is simple to understand and doesn't necessarily indicate there was anything wrong with the evidence. While you May Day you were not doing the alleged speed that is a moot point.What was your issue with the first case?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff