Speeding summons

[Bristol Shot]

I've just received a 'Notice of intended prosecution' for an alleged speeding offence.

The summons states that I was travelling WESTBOUND when I was actually travelling EASTBOUND.

Is it possible for this notice to be overturned as the facts are incorrect or does it not matter if the direction on the summons is incorrect?
If it is possible to overturn this, what do I need to do. Should I write a letter when I return the summons and if so what should I include i.e. are there any legal terms that I need to include?

[gently bentley]

This came up recently about the very same subject. Basically if its an honest mistake by the Bib or admin error then it stands as a valid notice.

Not the answer you probably wanted to hear.

VanHosen did a good reply on this. Its quite recent so have a look back and you will see alot written about this.

[Boosted LS1]

I'd wait at least a fortnight before you realise this error by the scamerati. You'll get a better reply in a while.

Boosted.

[justinp1]

gently bentley said:

This came up recently about the very same subject. Basically if its an honest mistake by the Bib or admin error then it stands as a valid notice.

Not the answer you probably wanted to hear.

VanHosen did a good reply on this. Its quite recent so have a look back and you will see alot written about this.

I am not so sure that the 'slip rule' applies to material facts.

I have a feeling that especially where an NIP has been received in the post that the direction of travel may be seen as a material fact especially when speed measuring devices can measure speed in both directions!

I would check Pepipoo, or alternatively a 2 minute call to a specialist solicitor will give you an answer whether you have a case.

[gently bentley]

justinp1 said:

gently bentley said:

This came up recently about the very same subject. Basically if its an honest mistake by the Bib or admin error then it stands as a valid notice.

Not the answer you probably wanted to hear.

VanHosen did a good reply on this. Its quite recent so have a look back and you will see alot written about this.

I am not so sure that the 'slip rule' applies to material facts.

I have a feeling that especially where an NIP has been received in the post that the direction of travel may be seen as a material fact especially when speed measuring devices can measure speed in both directions!

I would check Pepipoo, or alternatively a 2 minute call to a specialist solicitor will give you an answer whether you have a case.

Car VRM noted wrongly. Notice stood. I would say that was a material fact.

It all seems to depend on the beak but a mistake does not mean its automatically chucked out.

[justinp1]

gently bentley said:

justinp1 said:

gently bentley said:

This came up recently about the very same subject. Basically if its an honest mistake by the Bib or admin error then it stands as a valid notice.

Not the answer you probably wanted to hear.

VanHosen did a good reply on this. Its quite recent so have a look back and you will see alot written about this.

I am not so sure that the 'slip rule' applies to material facts.

I have a feeling that especially where an NIP has been received in the post that the direction of travel may be seen as a material fact especially when speed measuring devices can measure speed in both directions!

I would check Pepipoo, or alternatively a 2 minute call to a specialist solicitor will give you an answer whether you have a case.

Car VRM noted wrongly. Notice stood. I would say that was a material fact.

It all seems to depend on the beak but a mistake does not mean its automatically chucked out.

It does depend on the mistake. Whether the VRM started with an X or a Y does not change the fact that the driver was pulled over for speeding in his car and was given a NIP. The letter of his number plate does not affect the speed of is car, or his guilt.

However, the direction of travel may do. A good solicitor needs to look through case law, and or may be able to use this slip in cross examination. For example:

As per your statement you were facing eastbound down the carriageway looking for those exceeding the speed limit? - Yes.

And you saw my clients vehicle and aimed the device at him? - Yes.

What was the exact reading the device reported? - 78mph.

My client has shown through a number of pieces of evidence that he was not travelling in that direction that day, and in fact in the opposite direction - are you sure of this reading? - Errr, yes?

Would it be correct that if you had aimed the device at a car travelling in the opposite direction then the device would show a minus sign before the reading? -Yes

And there was no minus sign on your reading? - No

I put it to you then that the car you actually hit with the laser beam could not have been my clients car as if this were the case there would have been a minus sign shown as we have discussed - whilst you may have seen his car it seems obvious that the laser hit a car in the opposite direction?


Or something on those lines.

[NugentS]

I would simply reply (near the 28 days) that I was not the driver of the vehicle and have no knowledge as to who was. Its then too late for them to correct the NIP.

Sean

[ChrisJG]

NugentS said:

I would simply reply (near the 28 days) that I was not the driver of the vehicle and have no knowledge as to who was. Its then too late for them to correct the NIP.

But, as the registered keeper you would be responsible for the vehicle and would be expected to know who was driving it (or at least be able to show that you have made diligent efforts to find out) at the time of the alleged offence.

Just replying to them saying "dunno who was driving guv" would be insufficient to make it go away.

[^Slider^]

They may not be able to vary the NOIP but they will just issue procedings and vary the details on the summons.

[gently bentley]

justinp1 said:

gently bentley said:

justinp1 said:

gently bentley said:

This came up recently about the very same subject. Basically if its an honest mistake by the Bib or admin error then it stands as a valid notice.

Not the answer you probably wanted to hear.

VanHosen did a good reply on this. Its quite recent so have a look back and you will see alot written about this.

I am not so sure that the 'slip rule' applies to material facts.

I have a feeling that especially where an NIP has been received in the post that the direction of travel may be seen as a material fact especially when speed measuring devices can measure speed in both directions!

I would check Pepipoo, or alternatively a 2 minute call to a specialist solicitor will give you an answer whether you have a case.

Car VRM noted wrongly. Notice stood. I would say that was a material fact.

It all seems to depend on the beak but a mistake does not mean its automatically chucked out.

It does depend on the mistake. Whether the VRM started with an X or a Y does not change the fact that the driver was pulled over for speeding in his car and was given a NIP. The letter of his number plate does not affect the speed of is car, or his guilt.

However, the direction of travel may do. A good solicitor needs to look through case law, and or may be able to use this slip in cross examination. For example:

As per your statement you were facing eastbound down the carriageway looking for those exceeding the speed limit? - Yes.

And you saw my clients vehicle and aimed the device at him? - Yes.

What was the exact reading the device reported? - 78mph.

My client has shown through a number of pieces of evidence that he was not travelling in that direction that day, and in fact in the opposite direction - are you sure of this reading? - Errr, yes?

Would it be correct that if you had aimed the device at a car travelling in the opposite direction then the device would show a minus sign before the reading? -Yes

And there was no minus sign on your reading? - No

I put it to you then that the car you actually hit with the laser beam could not have been my clients car as if this were the case there would have been a minus sign shown as we have discussed - whilst you may have seen his car it seems obvious that the laser hit a car in the opposite direction?


Or something on those lines.

There you are then. Thanks for confirming I was correct.

[justinp1]

gently bentley said:

justinp1 said:

gently bentley said:

justinp1 said:

gently bentley said:

This came up recently about the very same subject. Basically if its an honest mistake by the Bib or admin error then it stands as a valid notice.

Not the answer you probably wanted to hear.

VanHosen did a good reply on this. Its quite recent so have a look back and you will see alot written about this.

I am not so sure that the 'slip rule' applies to material facts.

I have a feeling that especially where an NIP has been received in the post that the direction of travel may be seen as a material fact especially when speed measuring devices can measure speed in both directions!

I would check Pepipoo, or alternatively a 2 minute call to a specialist solicitor will give you an answer whether you have a case.

Car VRM noted wrongly. Notice stood. I would say that was a material fact.

It all seems to depend on the beak but a mistake does not mean its automatically chucked out.

It does depend on the mistake. Whether the VRM started with an X or a Y does not change the fact that the driver was pulled over for speeding in his car and was given a NIP. The letter of his number plate does not affect the speed of is car, or his guilt.

However, the direction of travel may do. A good solicitor needs to look through case law, and or may be able to use this slip in cross examination. For example:

As per your statement you were facing eastbound down the carriageway looking for those exceeding the speed limit? - Yes.

And you saw my clients vehicle and aimed the device at him? - Yes.

What was the exact reading the device reported? - 78mph.

My client has shown through a number of pieces of evidence that he was not travelling in that direction that day, and in fact in the opposite direction - are you sure of this reading? - Errr, yes?

Would it be correct that if you had aimed the device at a car travelling in the opposite direction then the device would show a minus sign before the reading? -Yes

And there was no minus sign on your reading? - No

I put it to you then that the car you actually hit with the laser beam could not have been my clients car as if this were the case there would have been a minus sign shown as we have discussed - whilst you may have seen his car it seems obvious that the laser hit a car in the opposite direction?


Or something on those lines.

There you are then. Thanks for confirming I was correct.

Errr, I am not sure I did!

If the VRM is wrong this does not disprove the evidence that Joe Bloggs was driving his blue Modeo at 78mph.

As laser devices also produce evidence which includes the direction of travel, then this *is* the evidence that Joe Bloggs was driving his blue Mondeo at 78mph, or not as the case may be. If this evidence is anaccurate then there is no more evidence left to convict with.

Although a wrong VRM or even numerous slip errors doesnt look good, the 'evidence' is still applicable.

[eliminator]

The 172 requires you to identify a driver. Which driver? The one travelling eastbound on road X at time Y. The correct answer to the s.172 notice must be "I do not know who was travelling East on road X at time Y, my vehicle was not making the journey described in this notice".

Is that not a true and complete statement?

[NugentS]

eliminator said:

The 172 requires you to identify a driver. Which driver? The one travelling eastbound on road X at time Y. The correct answer to the s.172 notice must be "I do not know who was travelling East on road X at time Y, my vehicle was not making the journey described in this notice".

Is that not a true and complete statement?

Thats what I am saying - you were not driving in that direction. The NIP is inaccurate and faulty. No action possible.

Sean

[Dwight VanDriver]

CPS will argue that the object of the Notice is to draw the attention of the driver to the offence committed, i.e. that of speeding, and that will allow him to marshall his defence. How does quoting the wrong compass point affect this?

Of note:

In Walton v Hawkins [1973] Divisional Court approved the abandonment of a contention that a notice was bad in that the occurrence took place SOUTH of a junction when in fact the road ran east and west.

dvd