Let the fun begin.....
Discussion
Further to my previous thread, ( www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=231729 ) I have just returned from 6 days working at Silverstone to find a handwritten addressed envelope from Bedfordshire Constabulary. It contains two summons and the bundle.
The contents are frankly laughable!
I am being summoned with the charges of Sect 172 failing to provide details and speeding. Taking the last one first. There is a statement from a (civilian) camera operator stating that he took a picture of my car with an LTI 20-20 showing it was travelling at 50 mph in a temporary 40 mph limit on the A1. As evidence, there are copies of calibration certificates, pictures of the signage warning of the limit, maps showing the locations of the signage, etc. There is also a very nice picture of my car (with the crosshairs directly on the front number plate) showing a person driving. The quality isn't good enough to be able to identify the driver, but it could be me. It could also be at least 50% of the population of the UK. The one thing missing from this bundle of evidence, is anything to show that it was actually me driving. A pretty vital piece of evidence I would say!
On the Sect 172 charge, the evidence consists of lots of copies of correspondence between them and me and a statement (from another civilian employee) producing this correspondence as exhibits. The statement ends with the following paragraph:
"I confirm that the Notice of Intended Prosecution sent on behalf of the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police has not been completed in accordance with the Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988/Section 112 Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 as requested on the front of the Notice."
So, it appears that although I am being charged with failing to supply the information, they are charging me because I did supply it but not on their form!!! I think they need to read the wording of Section 172.....
The contents are frankly laughable!
I am being summoned with the charges of Sect 172 failing to provide details and speeding. Taking the last one first. There is a statement from a (civilian) camera operator stating that he took a picture of my car with an LTI 20-20 showing it was travelling at 50 mph in a temporary 40 mph limit on the A1. As evidence, there are copies of calibration certificates, pictures of the signage warning of the limit, maps showing the locations of the signage, etc. There is also a very nice picture of my car (with the crosshairs directly on the front number plate) showing a person driving. The quality isn't good enough to be able to identify the driver, but it could be me. It could also be at least 50% of the population of the UK. The one thing missing from this bundle of evidence, is anything to show that it was actually me driving. A pretty vital piece of evidence I would say!
On the Sect 172 charge, the evidence consists of lots of copies of correspondence between them and me and a statement (from another civilian employee) producing this correspondence as exhibits. The statement ends with the following paragraph:
"I confirm that the Notice of Intended Prosecution sent on behalf of the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police has not been completed in accordance with the Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988/Section 112 Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 as requested on the front of the Notice."
So, it appears that although I am being charged with failing to supply the information, they are charging me because I did supply it but not on their form!!! I think they need to read the wording of Section 172.....
gilbertd said:
Further to my previous thread, ( www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=231729 )
cant see the previous, just get a login page?
Davi said:
gilbertd said:
Further to my previous thread, ( www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=231729 )
cant see the previous, just get a login page?
Are you logged in? But you must be as you can't see S,P&L unless you are?? Can anyone else see it?
In a nutshell, I have supplied driver details (me) but in the form of a PACE defence statement and they are producing both copies of this statemernt as exhibits, but then charging me with not supplying driver details as I didn't fill in their form. As Sect 172 merely states that you must supply the information, but does not stipulate in what form, there is no case to answer. Their prosecution evidence is perfect defence as it shows that I clearly did supply the information.
As for a speeding prosecution with no evidence as to who was driving.....
Davi said:
gilbertd said:
Further to my previous thread, ( www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=231729 )
cant see the previous, just get a login page?
Think this is cos this is a link to .co.uk, and I normally use .com.
gilbertd said:
Are you logged in? But you must be as you can't see S,P&L unless you are?? Can anyone else see it?
In a nutshell, I have supplied driver details (me) but in the form of a PACE defence statement and they are producing both copies of this statemernt as exhibits, but then charging me with not supplying driver details as I didn't fill in their form. As Sect 172 merely states that you must supply the information, but does not stipulate in what form, there is no case to answer. Their prosecution evidence is perfect defence as it shows that I clearly did supply the information.
As for a speeding prosecution with no evidence as to who was driving.....
Yep, all logged in, though I have been having numerous probs on here recently.
Thanks for the summary, look forward to hearing the outcome - good luck!
CatherineJ said:
So it has taken them 5.5 months to send you the Summons?
Yup. I've been crossing my fingers for the last few weeks that I would hear nothing within the 6 months and they were going to drop it. If I presented a case with this standard of evidence to my boss, he certainly wouldn't put it through for prosecution.
Then it is a submission of no case to answer by the brief, or yourself at the summons.
I would ask for costs, and a recommendation from the Mags that the Civvie operator be chastised for wasting the time of the courts. I would even suggest a warning that he be held as having brought a vexatious claim (i.e. a few more and he will be prevented from bringing claims).. Don't know how far you would get to that.
I would ask for costs, and a recommendation from the Mags that the Civvie operator be chastised for wasting the time of the courts. I would even suggest a warning that he be held as having brought a vexatious claim (i.e. a few more and he will be prevented from bringing claims).. Don't know how far you would get to that.
OK, so now we have the final verdict. Just got back from spending the morning at Beds Mag Court. It was suggested to the prosecution (CPS) solicitor that there was no evidence as to who was driving in the bundle for the speeding charge so he should offer no evidence on that charge and only proceed on the Sect 172 charge. Unfortunately, he wasn't having it.
It was argued in court that the two charges were mutually exclusive and that if I was to be charged with speeding that implied I had given the identity of the driver and, if that was the case, I couldn't be charged with failing to give it.
They accepted completely that Section 172(2) of the RTA 1988 does not specify in what format the information must be given, merely that it must be given. Consequently they then accepted that I had identified the driver, I simply hadn't done so on the form on the reverse of the NOIP. I was therefore found not guilty of the Sect 172 charge. However, in defending this, it was necessary to admit that I had identified myself as being the driver so they found me guilty of 50mph in a 40mph temporary speed limit. Result? 3 points, £100 fine plus £100 prosecution costs. Not too bad and a lot less than it could have been. It also goes to the court and not the scamera partnership too.
With hindsight, it would have been far better if it had been requested at an earlier hearing that the two charges be heard separately. As it was, effectively both charges were being heard simultaneously so any evidence on one charge then became evidence on the other. Oh well, it was worth a try.......
It was argued in court that the two charges were mutually exclusive and that if I was to be charged with speeding that implied I had given the identity of the driver and, if that was the case, I couldn't be charged with failing to give it.
They accepted completely that Section 172(2) of the RTA 1988 does not specify in what format the information must be given, merely that it must be given. Consequently they then accepted that I had identified the driver, I simply hadn't done so on the form on the reverse of the NOIP. I was therefore found not guilty of the Sect 172 charge. However, in defending this, it was necessary to admit that I had identified myself as being the driver so they found me guilty of 50mph in a 40mph temporary speed limit. Result? 3 points, £100 fine plus £100 prosecution costs. Not too bad and a lot less than it could have been. It also goes to the court and not the scamera partnership too.
With hindsight, it would have been far better if it had been requested at an earlier hearing that the two charges be heard separately. As it was, effectively both charges were being heard simultaneously so any evidence on one charge then became evidence on the other. Oh well, it was worth a try.......
gilbertd said:
OK, so now we have the final verdict. Just got back from spending the morning at Beds Mag Court. It was suggested to the prosecution (CPS) solicitor that there was no evidence as to who was driving in the bundle for the speeding charge so he should offer no evidence on that charge and only proceed on the Sect 172 charge. Unfortunately, he wasn't having it.
It was argued in court that the two charges were mutually exclusive and that if I was to be charged with speeding that implied I had given the identity of the driver and, if that was the case, I couldn't be charged with failing to give it.
They accepted completely that Section 172(2) of the RTA 1988 does not specify in what format the information must be given, merely that it must be given. Consequently they then accepted that I had identified the driver, I simply hadn't done so on the form on the reverse of the NOIP. I was therefore found not guilty of the Sect 172 charge. However, in defending this, it was necessary to admit that I had identified myself as being the driver so they found me guilty of 50mph in a 40mph temporary speed limit. Result? 3 points, £100 fine plus £100 prosecution costs. Not too bad and a lot less than it could have been. It also goes to the court and not the scamera partnership too.
With hindsight, it would have been far better if it had been requested at an earlier hearing that the two charges be heard separately. As it was, effectively both charges were being heard simultaneously so any evidence on one charge then became evidence on the other. Oh well, it was worth a try.......
It was argued in court that the two charges were mutually exclusive and that if I was to be charged with speeding that implied I had given the identity of the driver and, if that was the case, I couldn't be charged with failing to give it.
They accepted completely that Section 172(2) of the RTA 1988 does not specify in what format the information must be given, merely that it must be given. Consequently they then accepted that I had identified the driver, I simply hadn't done so on the form on the reverse of the NOIP. I was therefore found not guilty of the Sect 172 charge. However, in defending this, it was necessary to admit that I had identified myself as being the driver so they found me guilty of 50mph in a 40mph temporary speed limit. Result? 3 points, £100 fine plus £100 prosecution costs. Not too bad and a lot less than it could have been. It also goes to the court and not the scamera partnership too.
With hindsight, it would have been far better if it had been requested at an earlier hearing that the two charges be heard separately. As it was, effectively both charges were being heard simultaneously so any evidence on one charge then became evidence on the other. Oh well, it was worth a try.......
A good try, and well done for being someone who will actually stand up and follow through their case to court. I have done so on two occasions, one of which I knew I was innocent, one of which I though I was inocent and despite having a 50/50 record on both occasions very glad that I stood up for myself. With a little help from PH I believe that most confident and reasonably intelligent people can defend themselves to a decent degree of success, it just depend on how long you want to devote to researching your case.
Well done again though!
Interesting G.
Did you have a Solicitor to defend?
Bearing in mind all the requirement of Section 12 Road Traffic Offenders Act, 1988 (proof in summary proceedings of identity of driver) is that must be proved to Court that 172 request made lawfully has been served by post and
a statement in writing is produced to the Court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of the vehicle on that occasion
the court may accept the statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.
You provided your details and signed, so whether you mentioned PACE or not they accepted and used. They were wrong in my opinion to lumnp both charges together as they only had evidence to prove one.
What comments were made regarding your PACE application.
dvd
Did you have a Solicitor to defend?
Bearing in mind all the requirement of Section 12 Road Traffic Offenders Act, 1988 (proof in summary proceedings of identity of driver) is that must be proved to Court that 172 request made lawfully has been served by post and
a statement in writing is produced to the Court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of the vehicle on that occasion
the court may accept the statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.
You provided your details and signed, so whether you mentioned PACE or not they accepted and used. They were wrong in my opinion to lumnp both charges together as they only had evidence to prove one.
What comments were made regarding your PACE application.
dvd
Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Friday 8th September 15:31
Did you apply for a defendant's costs order to be awarded for the successfully defended failure to furnish charge ? You could easily have amassed costs in excess of the combined total of the fine and costs awarded against..
With regard to the guilty verdict, keep one eye on Strasbourg after 27.09.2006 and possible grounds to appeal the decision..
With regard to the guilty verdict, keep one eye on Strasbourg after 27.09.2006 and possible grounds to appeal the decision..
gilbertd said:
OK, so now we have the final verdict. Result? 3 points, £100 fine plus £100 prosecution costs. Not too bad and a lot less than it could have been.
It's also a lot more than it could of been, i.e £60 insteaed of £200 to accept a conditional offer.
It was worth a try though if you already have points on licence, and can afford to lose.
Dwight VanDriver said:
You provided your details and signed, so whether you mentioned PACE or not they accepted and used. They were wrong in my opinion to lumnp both charges together as they only had evidence to prove one.
What comments were made regarding your PACE application.
dvd
What comments were made regarding your PACE application.
dvd
I wasn't represented in court but had previously taken advice from the solicitor we normally use for prosecutions (I'm normally on the other side in court). Despite that well known phrase that the man who reprsents himself has a fool as a client, we both felt I was perfectly capable of deaing with it myself. The magistrates quite rightly accepted that my PACE statement constituted supplying driver details and was fully in accordance with the requirements of Sect 172. Case law regarding the PACE defence concentrates on whether or not a PACE statement is admissable as evidence. I was in the slightly awkward position that PACE states that I am obliged to give information required by statute (ie driver details) but am not obliged to answer any questions that may incriminate me without having been cautioned first. As I was the driver, as soon as I do the former, I have also done the latter. The prosecution had, quite rightly, not included my statement in the bundle for the speeding charge.
As you rightly say, they had no evidence whatsoever on who was driving my car at the time of the offence. I had considered suggesting that this was a malicious prosecution but bottled it! This didn't come out until it came up during the trial when I was contesting the Sect 172 offence.
I must admit, I actually felt sorry for the girl from the partnership. It was obvious when she went into the witness box that she wasn't used to it. Once it came to me cross examining her, I handed her a copy of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and asked her to read out Section 172(2). For those that aren't aware, this simply states that the registered keeper must give details of the driver but does not state in what form. I then asked her if she was aware of any legislation that states in what form it must be given and, once she confirmed that she did not know of any, I asked her to read my statement where I gave my details as the driver. A sly wink from the chairman of the bench confirmed I had made my point.....
So, the moral of this story is, get the two charges heard separately, I only fell down because they were lumped in together, each on it's own would have failed completely.
If you had not defended yourself, would the solicitor acting for you be able to win the s.172 point without bringing in the PACE letter as evidence? ie was it the fact that you had to admit to the court that you had identified yourself that brought the identity evidence into the speeding charge?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff