Another speeding question. Please help.

[slim_boy_fat]

A friend recently got zapped by a camera, operated by Cumbrian safety camera partnership.

On the notice they stated that he was travelling in the wrong direction.

My friend pointed this out to them in a letter, and they re issued a notice and said it was an administrate error. The direction on the new notice is still not quite correct.

Can they re issue a notice, does he have any options?

Informed opinion would be welcome

Thanks

[justinp1]

I have a feeling that this one would have been best left past the 14 day cut off point, and even later to inform them of their mistake!

It depends if the correct NIP was sent within 14 days. There is also a rule allowing them to alter minor mistakes. Im sure DvD or SS or someone else knowledgable will inform us of the exact wording, but I think they can change spellings of names and stuff, as long as the mistake did not fundamentally alter the charge?

In this case, it may do!

[slim_boy_fat]

justinp1 said:

I have a feeling that this one would have been best left past the 14 day cut off point, and even later to inform them of their mistake! It depends if the correct NIP was sent within 14 days. There is also a rule allowing them to alter minor mistakes. Im sure DvD or SS or someone else knowledgable will inform us of the exact wording, but I think they can change spellings of names and stuff, as long as the mistake did not fundamentally alter the charge? In this case, it may do!

To complicate it further, its a hire car (long term) so i blieve they are allowed more time, 21 or 28 days.

But yes i agree, i think he should have waited to ask the question.

I would say that the direction of travel is pretty fundimental to the charge, and not a minor mistake (spelling or grammer)!!

Cheers

[justinp1]

slim_boy_fat said:

justinp1 said: I have a feeling that this one would have been best left past the 14 day cut off point, and even later to inform them of their mistake! It depends if the correct NIP was sent within 14 days. There is also a rule allowing them to alter minor mistakes. Im sure DvD or SS or someone else knowledgable will inform us of the exact wording, but I think they can change spellings of names and stuff, as long as the mistake did not fundamentally alter the charge? In this case, it may do! To complicate it further, its a hire car (long term) so i blieve they are allowed more time, 21 or 28 days. But yes i agree, i think he should have waited to ask the question. I would say that the direction of travel is pretty fundimental to the charge, and not a minor mistake (spelling or grammer)!! Cheers

I agree. The direction of travel would be classed as a fundamental error in court, as my wily barrister 'double checked' that the laser operator knew the right direction!

You are right about the complicated factor with the hire car. I believe that the NIP has to be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle within 14 days. As long as this is completed I *think* this is their obligation completed.

[NugentS]

But that NIP would have been incorrect.

Does the first NIP being invalid invalidate any further NIP that are sent to different people?

Sean

One for pepipoo I think.

>> Edited by NugentS on Thursday 26th January 13:08

[victormeldrew]

If they have still got it wrong, keep schtum until just before the 28 days, then tell them. They may just drop it.

I got one which stated the wrong road name. I hadn't noticed, but they spotted it themselves, presumebly when they came to issue a summons and looked at it more closely, and sent me a letter saying they were dropping the matter due to the administrative error.

[SS2.]

victormeldrew said:

If they have still got it wrong, keep schtum until just before the 28 days, then tell them. They may just drop it. I got one which stated the wrong road name. I hadn't noticed, but they spotted it themselves, presumebly when they came to issue a summons and looked at it more closely, and sent me a letter saying they were dropping the matter due to the administrative error.

The minimum information required to be given on a NIP is time, date and location of the alleged offence. Speed and direction of travel do not have to be stated. The fact that have stated incorrect direction of travel would not, IMO, prove fatal to a speeding prosecution.

VM's NIP with incorrect road name is an example of a faulty NIP. The scammers evidently realised the original NIP contained an incorrect locus which would have been fatal to their case..

Also, if upon receipt of a 'faulty' NIP you chose not to supply the driver information as required under S172, you would leave yourself open to a Failure to Supply prosecution. Errors on the NIP do not negate your legal obligations under S172..

[MartinD]

SS2 said:

.......The minimum information required to be given on a NIP is time, date and location of the alleged offence. Speed and direction of travel do not have to be stated. The fact that have stated incorrect direction of travel would not, IMO, prove fatal to a speeding prosecution. ................

Would the charge in court not be the same as the incorrect info given ?, in which case a plea of not guilty would be correct & any evidence given by the prosecution would corroberate your plea ?

[justinp1]

MartinD said:

SS2 said: .......The minimum information required to be given on a NIP is time, date and location of the alleged offence. Speed and direction of travel do not have to be stated. The fact that have stated incorrect direction of travel would not, IMO, prove fatal to a speeding prosecution. ................ Would the charge in court not be the same as the incorrect info given ?, in which case a plea of not guilty would be correct & any evidence given by the prosecution would corroberate your plea ?

Yeah, that was what I was trying to get at in my first post. It would all come down to what any incident report or notes made on the case was.

I would be tempted (if I hadnt already told them) to claim not guilty and get all the evidence sent to me. As SS said though, in court the charge that would be put to the court will be the date, time, place and speed. Despite the NIP saying otherwise, they may put the correct evidence in when putting it to the court, and after the witness has been briefed.

[SS2.]

MartinD said:

Would the charge in court not be the same as the incorrect info given ?, in which case a plea of not guilty would be correct & any evidence given by the prosecution would corroberate your plea ?

But if the date, time and location are correct then the NIP is valid.

The fact that the direction of travel is incorrect on the NIP is, IMO, irrelevant and could / would be corrected in the summons bundle (assuming the defendant exercised their right to a court hearing). Goes under the title of 'slip rule'..

For a prosecution to fail because of a defective NIP, the defendant must demonstrate that he was misled by the information on the NIP ie. the date of the offence and the date stated on the NIP were different..

An example - Pope v Clarke dealt with an incorrect time stated on a NIP (time being one of the 'key' NIP criteria). The accused was involved in an incident at 1145AM but the notice stated 1315PM. It was held at appeal that the accused was neither misled nor prejudiced sufficiently.

Pope v Clarke said:

Pope v Clarke, (DC) Divisional Court, c.1953 Abstract: There is a distinction between the construction to be placed on a statute where the provisions are mandatory and where they are merely directory; thus, the object of the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 which requires a notice of intended prosecution to be served on the defendant, is to bring to the defendant's mind while events are still fresh in his memory the fact that he is going to be prosecuted, so that inaccuracies in the notice served are immaterial if they are not such as to mislead the defendant. A notice of intended prosecution was sent to the defendant under the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 in which the time of the alleged offence with which the defendant was going to be charged was incorrectly stated. The justices considered that this mistake invalidated the notice and dismissed the charge. Summary: Held, there was no evidence that the defendant was misled; accordingly, the justices must proceed to hear the case. (Venn v Morgan [1949] 2 All E.R. 562 applied; and dicta of Lord Coleridge C.J. in Woodward v Sarsons (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 733, 746 applied).

Personally, I don't think I'd fancy fighting a court case having only incorrect direction of travel up my sleeve..

[kevinday]

As it is Cumbria it may be worth going down the route of requesting the police service number of the policeman who formed the prior opinion of speed before the speed measuring equipment was used. AFAIK Cumbria uses civvies in the vans. I, and others, are still waiting for a test case using this defence, I do not know of any successful conviction where this has been used as a defence, cases are quietly dropped.

Anybody able to update me at all?

>> Edited by kevinday on Thursday 26th January 21:31

[slim_boy_fat]

kevinday said:

As it is Cumbria it may be worth going down the route of requesting the police service number of the policeman who formed the prior opinion of speed before the speed measuring equipment was used. AFAIK Cumbria uses civvies in the vans. I, and others, are still waiting for a test case using this defence, I do not know of any successful conviction where this has been used as a defence, cases are quietly dropped. Anybody able to update me at all? >> Edited by kevinday on Thursday 26th January 21:31

Are you suggesting that there should be a PC who decides what cars to point the gun at, and if its a civi then its not legall???

Not quite sure what you mean by this

Thanks

[bluepolarbear]

slim_boy_fat said:

Are you suggesting that there should be a PC who decides what cars to point the gun at, and if its a civi then its not legall??? Not quite sure what you mean by this Thanks

Basically yes. I think the logic is that speed guns are can only be used verfy an initial assesment of speed. Not sure where this comes from but all speeding offences will have a statement which basically reads "I formed the opinion that the car was speeding and confirmed it with my trusty dodgyscope 20-20". The only people that can form a prior opinion are BiB as they experts, blessed with excellent eyesight and able to measure speed up to 1000m just by the sound the engine makes.

If you allow a "civie" to do the job, you might as well allow any old joe public do the job. Some SCP do this by giving laser guns to "local people" who laser cars going through the village and then send them nasty letters. Crucially, they do not send an NIP as it would not stick. It is the same argument as to why every senior officer caught speeding by a newspaper is not nicked (the person is not a BiB and therefore skilled in speeding matters) or why efforts to demostrate that the dodgy scope is dodgy are always denied (it is not the same excellent device used by the BiB)

[SS2.]

slim_boy_fat said:

kevinday said: As it is Cumbria it may be worth going down the route of requesting the police service number of the policeman who formed the prior opinion of speed before the speed measuring equipment was used. AFAIK Cumbria uses civvies in the vans. I, and others, are still waiting for a test case using this defence, I do not know of any successful conviction where this has been used as a defence, cases are quietly dropped. Anybody able to update me at all? Are you suggesting that there should be a PC who decides what cars to point the gun at, and if its a civi then its not legall??? Not quite sure what you mean by this Thanks

There is nothing in law which prevents a civilian using a speed detection device. The issue is whether a civvy is empowered or authorised to offer the primary evidence in a speeding prosecution (primary evidence being prior opinion of excess speed, secondary being a record from a Home Office approved speed detection device). Established case law would suggest not..

As I understand it, the 'issue' has been a bit of a hot potato and looks like it will need a High Court or European Court judgment before it is resolved one way or the other..

[slim_boy_fat]

SS2. said:

slim_boy_fat said: kevinday said: As it is Cumbria it may be worth going down the route of requesting the police service number of the policeman who formed the prior opinion of speed before the speed measuring equipment was used. AFAIK Cumbria uses civvies in the vans. I, and others, are still waiting for a test case using this defence, I do not know of any successful conviction where this has been used as a defence, cases are quietly dropped. Anybody able to update me at all? Are you suggesting that there should be a PC who decides what cars to point the gun at, and if its a civi then its not legall??? Not quite sure what you mean by this Thanks

Thanks for all that, sounds like something that will be resolved in due course.

I will pass this over to my friend and leave the ball in his court as to what way he goes.

The only reason he is upset is because the bit of road he was on has recently been upgraded prior to some accidents on one of the bendy parts, the bit he was one was almost dead straight and has a 40mph limit, no houses about and he was doing 48... Just seems silly given the location and conditions.

There is nothing in law which prevents a civilian using a speed detection device. The issue is whether a civvy is empowered or authorised to offer the primary evidence in a speeding prosecution (primary evidence being prior opinion of excess speed, secondary being a record from a Home Office approved speed detection device). Established case law would suggest not..

As I understand it, the 'issue' has been a bit of a hot potato and looks like it will need a High Court or European Court judgment before it is resolved one way or the other..



>> Edited by slim_boy_fat on Monday 30th January 08:20