Thursday 2nd March 2006

Are most speeding fines illegal?

Motor Cycle News finds most cases based on inadmissible evidence

---

You're nicked. Maybe not...

A huge number of prosecutions for speeding may well have been determined illegally, according to Motor Cycle News.

The magazine reports that most speed camera partnerships fail to meet the legal requirement that that photo or film evidence is required to be submitted to defendants at least seven days before a trial. This means that nearly all speeding prosecutions are based on inadmissible evidence.

MCN asked three large partnerships who admitted that evidence is not automatically submitted to defendants before a trial and lawyer Nick Freeman supported MCN's case.

However, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said: "It is unfortunate that this article may well mislead the public in believing that police forces are not complying with the advanced disclosure of evidence as laid down in the Act.” An ACPO spokesman denied though that MCN's article was incorrect.

There's more on the MCN Web site (see link below).

• Motor Cycle News story

[CHEVY-STU]

I've had two camera speeding prosecutions. Should I have been sent a copy of the photo evidence then ???

[timecrisis]

Yes you should of? however if you pleaded guilty then you have no case to answer, if you didnt plea guilty and the court found you guilty and you didnt rec the evidence than you can appeal both convictions and have then squashed. I certainly would get legal advice, its free for 1 hour anyway, what have you to lose!!!

[Chas-Chiro]

Yes, But only if you had requested all the prsecution evidence.
They have to give disclosure of evidence and you can halt the case should they bring up something which has not been disclosed to you.

This only applies if you have ASKED for ALL the evidence. Keep a copy of your letter.

You should also say in your letter that should any further evidence come to light at court you will request a new court date to continue proceedings after time to assess undisclosed evidence.

If you know you are guilty and they have offered you fixed penalty then .......

It could be in your favour.

[alaws]

So assuming you requested the photographic evidence, and you didn't receive it, you can go to court and get off on a technicality, coz the law says the evidence must be submitted to the defendant?

[john_r]

Without prejudice.

I received a court summons for an alleged 90MPH+ offence for which I allegedly hadn't returned the 'driver identification' paperwork. This was some 6 months after the alleged offence took place.

I wrote to the court pleading not guilty, however I did admit the original offence of speeding and detailed why I could clearly remember seeing the 'mobile safety camera' van , hence the guilty plea to the original offence.

I then advised that I couldn't recall receiving the paperwork some 6 months previously asking me to identify the driver and please could the court provide proof of postage if it was available. Hence my 'not guilty' plea to the alleged charge of not supplying the drivers name.

A week later I received a court notification that the case had been withdrawn and no further action would be taken.

Basically - they have to notify you within 28 days of being caught speeding. I didn't receive the notification, and the first I was aware of the alleged offence was the summons 6 months later. Therefore, although I admitted speeding the case was dropped because they didn't have proof that I had been informed within 28 days. And I didn't receive the original driver i.d. paperwork. Honest...

Alternatively the judge was probably in a good/jolly/happy/'just been laid' sort of mood and instructed the Police to drop the charges?!

I have been told (non legally) that not identifying the driver carries a mandatory 3 points and court costs, typically of £30-£60.

I do not condone this as a course of action, nor would I suggest it as a defense. Just thought it would be nice to share my unique experience...


>> Edited by john_r on Thursday 2nd March 12:43

[mybrainhurts]

john_r said:

defense

You might have befuddled the Traffic Police, but there's no hiding from the Spelling Police...

[SS2.]

john_r said:

I then advised that I couldn't recall receiving the paperwork some 6 months previously asking me to identify the driver and please could the court provide proof of postage if it was available.

Happens quite a lot, it seems, and could be avoided if the scammers used Recorded or Special Delivery..

Interesting debate on the subject here - www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?t=222479&f=10&h=0&hw=Observer2

john_r said:

A week later I received a court notification that the case had been withdrawn and no further action would be taken.

john_r said:

Basically - they have to notify you within 28 days of being caught speeding.

They have to serve a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) on the Registered Keeper of the vehicle within 14 days of the commission of the offence (Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988).

Annexed to the NIP is the S172 RTA1988 'driver request' form. These usually carry a 28 day response time limit.

john_r said:

Alternatively the judge was probably in a good/jolly/happy/'just been laid' sort of mood and instructed the Police to drop the charges?!

More likely somebody sensible within the CPS realised the case had a fair chance of dismissal if you were prepared to state under oath that you had not received the NIP. They probably withdrew the case before wasting court time and money. Either way, a nice result..

john_r said:

I have been told (non legally) that not identifying the driver carries a mandatory 3 points and court costs, typically of £30-£60.

3 points currently, a maximum of fine of £1000 (although typically £250-£300) and an MS90 endorsement code on your licence. MS90 can bring about higher insurance premiums as it can mask some quite nasty driving offences..

When the Road Safety Bill kicks in, the points are to be increased from 3 to 6 for failure to furnish..

john_r said:

I do not condone this as a course of action, nor would I suggest it as a defense.

Indeed not if anything other than genuine - on the grounds that convictions for attempting to pervert the course of justice or perjury carry far stiffer penalties than failure to supply...

But if you genuinely did not receive the NIP, then you cannot have committed the crime of failing to respond therefore why should you be convicted ?? Hmmm...If only it were that easy...

>> Edited by SS2. on Thursday 2nd March 13:20

[stenniso]

I think that photographic evidence should be sent out as a matter of course with the NIP. How many people receive a NIP and just cough to the offence because they assume the camera is correct? You may not remember your exact speed at the time and place of the "alleged" offence.

Far better in my opinion to get the evidence, and then decide your response to the NIP, than to have to plead innocent first, set up a court appearance, then look at the evidence. However, sending out photos with every NIP would probably put a dent in their profits.

[antispeed]

Personally I would (have)contest(ed)all tickets, what have you to loose if you do not at least try to get the message across to the justice system that just sending a ticket out and expect to be paid is not legal or just!
it might cost you more cash in the short term, but you only have 3 chances before ending up in crown court, and that is where the real money drains from your pocket.

(just think, if my simple case took 10 months and 4 attendances to win 1 and lose 1, a total of 8 hours of my time , how much of thier time do you think you could waste?
THEN MULTIPLY THAT BY HUNDREDS A WEEK DOING THE SAME!)

afterthought :- it will gain you experience in the way they operate, use the system.

[james_j]

"...The magazine reports that most speed camera partnerships fail to meet the legal requirement that that photo or film evidence is required to be submitted to defendants at least seven days before a trial...partnerships...admitted that evidence is not automatically submitted to defendants before a trial...ACPO said: "It is unfortunate that this article may well mislead the public in believing that police forces are not complying with the advanced disclosure of evidence as laid down in the Act.” An ACPO spokesman denied though that MCN's article was incorrect..."

It seems to me that the revenue camera industry isn't singing from the same hymnsheet or, to put it more clearly, doesn't know its arse from its elbow.

They're just blubbing out any old cr$p to safeguard their industry.

[Nostrils]

I have only been caught the once, in 2003 and this year my points will not be valid, although still shown on the licence for another year. I did what most people do, cough up!

Since that time, I have read so many forums/post/websites about speeding etc, and will definitely contest EVERY ticket should I get caught! I recently (about 21days ago) was driving on the A312 from home at about 40 (in a 50) and was dazzled by a Gatso flash 4 times!!! - On the other carriageway were 2 7.5tonners racing each other - If I receive an NIP for this, I will be asking for ALL the photos in a time period!

If the other ticket was anything to go by, I should receive such a notice by the middle of the month.

[sgt^roc]

This comment "However, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said: "It is unfortunate that this article may well mislead the public in believing that police forces are not complying with the advanced disclosure of evidence as laid down in the Act.” An ACPO spokesman denied though that MCN's article was incorrect." worries me; there are a large number of groups that have been highlighting deficiencies in speed camera policies for a good many years. None of which have anything to gain from misleading anybody and yet the ACPO still insist on neither reacting with their typically inane responses that neither answer nor are a benefit toward the argument. This really shows that they are not listening and by tomorrow morning they will most likely have forgot all about it. To be honest there is most likely alot more illegallities deing hidden...

>> Edited by sgt^roc on Thursday 2nd March 18:43

[xxplod]

My advice would be for every single motorist to fill in the form asking for a court hearing. The system would come to it's knees as the Courts simply could not cope. Knowing what I know now, I'd use every delaying tactic in the book and go not guilty. OK, I'm lucky I have access to some wise brains on this matter. If the prosecution was watertight, plead guilty on the day. Sure, a few ££ more in costs but worth doing.

[Boosted Ls1]

I think my matter had some 8 hearings before I was convicted but I didn't have to pay all the court costs just a hundred quid or so. I was quite chuffed with the outcome, must have cost them thousands

Boosted.

[SS2.]

xxplod said:

My advice would be for every single motorist to fill in the form asking for a court hearing. The system would come to it's knees as the Courts simply could not cope. Knowing what I know now, I'd use every delaying tactic in the book and go not guilty. OK, I'm lucky I have access to some wise brains on this matter. If the prosecution was watertight, plead guilty on the day. Sure, a few ££ more in costs but worth doing.

Absolutely..

Nothing wrong with exercising one's right to fair trial...

[7db]

xxplod said:

My advice would be for every single motorist to fill in the form asking for a court hearing. The system would come to it's knees as the Courts simply could not cope.

Probably not. During the PollTax revolt there were Saturday and Sunday sitting in the mags court to cope with the backlog, but they did get through it. I can't imagine the speed-camera revolt could gather that many hearings.

[mondeoman]

I pleaded not guilty to mine, they didn't send me any evidence pack, case dismissed.

They weren't happy!

14 days after offence to notify you, 7 days before trial to provide you with the evidence against you.

ALWAYS plead not guilty, they might not have anything, and if they do, you can always change yur plea!

[TOOFM]

I was caught by a camera in Warwickshire and was surprised because I was doing what I thought was the legal limit (60mph) for that road, It turns out on the NIP that the limit was 50mph. I saw no signs indicating the 10mph reduction. To add to the complcation I was driving a hire car. Although the hire company have passed on my details as the hirer of the car on the day in question I've not had anything through the post.
Does anybody now what is the time limit for receiving NIPS on a hire car where they have more to trace the driver?

[SS2.]

TOOFM said:

Does anybody now what is the time limit for receiving NIPS on a hire car where they have more to trace the driver?

The NIP - no time limit other than the requirement to serve the NIP on the RK within 14 days of the commission of the offence. If you were not the RK, the NIP can follow on to you months later and still be lawful. However, they must lay any informations (for summons) with the Mags Court within 6 months of the offence. For instance, if the NIP is suitably delayed such that the alleged offender does not receive it until 5 months after the offence, the standard 28 day response time for the NIP would take the matter beyond the 6 month period and the offender would be immune from prosecution.

For speeding, 'timeout' occurs 6 months from date of alleged offence.
For failure to supply driver details, its 28 days plus 6 months from date of service of NIP on alleged offender.

[TOOFM]

SS2 Thanks for the info!!