Discussion
I've just received a speeding ticket for 49/30. As I approached I saw a policeman talking with another motorist. He smartly stooped down to pick up a Prolaser III (in calibration) and waved it at me. He then asked me to stop and he'd deal with me after the other chap.
The figure is wrong and I explained to the officer why:
1. He'd hurriedly waved it at me when he heard me approach (apparently I sounded like I was going fast -- wide tyres and big engine sound fast at walking pace). He didn't looked "braced" if you see what I mean. It was hurriedly done.
2. From where he was standing the road curved around to the right and there were two roadsigns on the right verge -- one at 117 feet and the other at 250. I was measured at 284 feet. He showed me other cars at that distance and they were perilously close to the furthest sign.
3. He said he had my numberplate in view. There is quite a high verge and the grass would have almost certainly been higher than my plate meaning he must have measured my bonnet or windscreen -- both very slopey leading to slip error. I'll get pictures of this when I can.
So what are my chances? I told him immediately it was wrong and he said he'll have to take me to court then rather than issue a ticket. I didn't say anything but he went on to say it's fairer to me that I get a ticket instead because I'll have the option of 60 quid/3 points rather than more in court. But I could go to court if I wanted to.
That's it really. So what's the chances of succeeding in court or am I simply another statistic snared by the dodgeyscope random number generator?
SM
The figure is wrong and I explained to the officer why:
1. He'd hurriedly waved it at me when he heard me approach (apparently I sounded like I was going fast -- wide tyres and big engine sound fast at walking pace). He didn't looked "braced" if you see what I mean. It was hurriedly done.
2. From where he was standing the road curved around to the right and there were two roadsigns on the right verge -- one at 117 feet and the other at 250. I was measured at 284 feet. He showed me other cars at that distance and they were perilously close to the furthest sign.
3. He said he had my numberplate in view. There is quite a high verge and the grass would have almost certainly been higher than my plate meaning he must have measured my bonnet or windscreen -- both very slopey leading to slip error. I'll get pictures of this when I can.
So what are my chances? I told him immediately it was wrong and he said he'll have to take me to court then rather than issue a ticket. I didn't say anything but he went on to say it's fairer to me that I get a ticket instead because I'll have the option of 60 quid/3 points rather than more in court. But I could go to court if I wanted to.
That's it really. So what's the chances of succeeding in court or am I simply another statistic snared by the dodgeyscope random number generator?
SM
supermono said:
I've just received a speeding ticket for 49/30. As I approached I saw a policeman talking with another motorist. He smartly stooped down to pick up a Prolaser III (in calibration) and waved it at me. He then asked me to stop and he'd deal with me after the other chap.
The figure is wrong and I explained to the officer why:
1. He'd hurriedly waved it at me when he heard me approach (apparently I sounded like I was going fast -- wide tyres and big engine sound fast at walking pace). He didn't looked "braced" if you see what I mean. It was hurriedly done.
2. From where he was standing the road curved around to the right and there were two roadsigns on the right verge -- one at 117 feet and the other at 250. I was measured at 284 feet. He showed me other cars at that distance and they were perilously close to the furthest sign.
3. He said he had my numberplate in view. There is quite a high verge and the grass would have almost certainly been higher than my plate meaning he must have measured my bonnet or windscreen -- both very slopey leading to slip error. I'll get pictures of this when I can.
So what are my chances? I told him immediately it was wrong and he said he'll have to take me to court then rather than issue a ticket. I didn't say anything but he went on to say it's fairer to me that I get a ticket instead because I'll have the option of 60 quid/3 points rather than more in court. But I could go to court if I wanted to.
That's it really. So what's the chances of succeeding in court or am I simply another statistic snared by the dodgeyscope random number generator?
SM
I doubt he'll pursue it - shove 2 fingers up at him, and they'll drop it.The figure is wrong and I explained to the officer why:
1. He'd hurriedly waved it at me when he heard me approach (apparently I sounded like I was going fast -- wide tyres and big engine sound fast at walking pace). He didn't looked "braced" if you see what I mean. It was hurriedly done.
2. From where he was standing the road curved around to the right and there were two roadsigns on the right verge -- one at 117 feet and the other at 250. I was measured at 284 feet. He showed me other cars at that distance and they were perilously close to the furthest sign.
3. He said he had my numberplate in view. There is quite a high verge and the grass would have almost certainly been higher than my plate meaning he must have measured my bonnet or windscreen -- both very slopey leading to slip error. I'll get pictures of this when I can.
So what are my chances? I told him immediately it was wrong and he said he'll have to take me to court then rather than issue a ticket. I didn't say anything but he went on to say it's fairer to me that I get a ticket instead because I'll have the option of 60 quid/3 points rather than more in court. But I could go to court if I wanted to.
That's it really. So what's the chances of succeeding in court or am I simply another statistic snared by the dodgeyscope random number generator?
SM
has he considered the slip angle?
Look on youtube for the videos explaining hoe a stationary car can give a speed reading if you move the gun while taking a reading.
proving it in court is another thing altogether though!
Who is a magistrate going to believe?
A fine upstanding Police officer
Or
One of those nasty motorists that drive fast cars and speed everywhere?
Good luck all the same!
Look on youtube for the videos explaining hoe a stationary car can give a speed reading if you move the gun while taking a reading.
proving it in court is another thing altogether though!
Who is a magistrate going to believe?
A fine upstanding Police officer
Or
One of those nasty motorists that drive fast cars and speed everywhere?
Good luck all the same!
without asking you to disrupt your defense, what should your speed have been? Was it <35mph, in which case, out of principle, I'd go to court and argue the tits off it, marking out the road, proving you were occluded by the bank and he must have pinged your windscreen, even asking if you could get the previous motorist to act as a witness backing up your hurried point-and-shoot assesment.
If know you were >35mph in a 30, and you have an offer of a 3pt FPN, then you may as well take it I think, even if the number he has is a little higher than the one you have in your mind.
Stu
If know you were >35mph in a 30, and you have an offer of a 3pt FPN, then you may as well take it I think, even if the number he has is a little higher than the one you have in your mind.
Stu
Edited by stuthemong on Monday 31st December 13:36
The ProLaser III is a completely different cup of tea to an LTi 20/20. It doesn't suffer the same potential issues as the LTi and is much easier to use.
It is very light and doesn't need 'bracing'. If the unit isn't happy it's caught something moving it simply doesn't give a reading. It is very quick to use and very accurate.
It is very light and doesn't need 'bracing'. If the unit isn't happy it's caught something moving it simply doesn't give a reading. It is very quick to use and very accurate.
Its a risk.
3 points and £60 in hindsight for me who was given 6 points and £250 fine a good deal. There is a guy called Peter Ward who was considerably worse off...
These cases can go either way. There is no video. That was the thing which would have made my case easier, the video can support what you say.
My non-video case was touch and go in that the operator admitted failing to follow the procedure yet the case was found against me. On another day it could have gone the other way.
I helped a PHer a couple of years back get a defence together for over a ton on a motorway - he was found not-guilty after defending himself. If will come down to how 'honest' the operator is. In that case the defendant asked the direct question whether there was a slight chance that it was another car which was targeted and not him and the operator admitted there was a slight chance - case over.
In my case though the operator was trying to pre-empt all of my questions and tried everything in order not to answer the direct questions and 'win' the case for 'his team'.
My guesstimate is a 50/50 chance. The good thing is that you can recall the gun being aimed hastily and you can also confirm that you discussed this with the operator at the time. This combined with your testimony that you were not speeding and you looked at your speedo at the time would make you the favourite.
That said, the current climate may mean that the CPS want to use the ACPO Dream Team in order to close down the case and ensure they don't lose.
On principle, if I knew I wasnt speeding I would go for it. If I knew I was I would take the hit as secondly without the defendants own testimony chances of wing the case are very slim.
3 points and £60 in hindsight for me who was given 6 points and £250 fine a good deal. There is a guy called Peter Ward who was considerably worse off...
These cases can go either way. There is no video. That was the thing which would have made my case easier, the video can support what you say.
My non-video case was touch and go in that the operator admitted failing to follow the procedure yet the case was found against me. On another day it could have gone the other way.
I helped a PHer a couple of years back get a defence together for over a ton on a motorway - he was found not-guilty after defending himself. If will come down to how 'honest' the operator is. In that case the defendant asked the direct question whether there was a slight chance that it was another car which was targeted and not him and the operator admitted there was a slight chance - case over.
In my case though the operator was trying to pre-empt all of my questions and tried everything in order not to answer the direct questions and 'win' the case for 'his team'.
My guesstimate is a 50/50 chance. The good thing is that you can recall the gun being aimed hastily and you can also confirm that you discussed this with the operator at the time. This combined with your testimony that you were not speeding and you looked at your speedo at the time would make you the favourite.
That said, the current climate may mean that the CPS want to use the ACPO Dream Team in order to close down the case and ensure they don't lose.
On principle, if I knew I wasnt speeding I would go for it. If I knew I was I would take the hit as secondly without the defendants own testimony chances of wing the case are very slim.
Your word against his, and he has a machine to prove he's right.
You will have to prove to the court that the speed gun was faulty or used badly. I hope the operator will recall your discussion and agree with what you said, but even then he can simply say that your conclusions are wrong. Even the reg plate/bonnet slippage argument is likely to result in the magistrate accepting that the operator may have been mistaken but if the gun gave a reading then it's ok. You're then left with the option of taking it before a judge if you can afford it. Budget on £2k for the lawyer, £1k for the independent report and £1k for the fine/costs if you lose at magistrate level. I don't know how much more it costs to get further.
If you're certain you were below the limit and can prove it in some way then by all means fight it. If there's any possibility that you were over the limit then take the £60/3pts. It's painful but a lot less so than 18 months of fighting the slippery people who inhabit the CPS.
You will have to prove to the court that the speed gun was faulty or used badly. I hope the operator will recall your discussion and agree with what you said, but even then he can simply say that your conclusions are wrong. Even the reg plate/bonnet slippage argument is likely to result in the magistrate accepting that the operator may have been mistaken but if the gun gave a reading then it's ok. You're then left with the option of taking it before a judge if you can afford it. Budget on £2k for the lawyer, £1k for the independent report and £1k for the fine/costs if you lose at magistrate level. I don't know how much more it costs to get further.
If you're certain you were below the limit and can prove it in some way then by all means fight it. If there's any possibility that you were over the limit then take the £60/3pts. It's painful but a lot less so than 18 months of fighting the slippery people who inhabit the CPS.
One small slip in handling or processing evidence in any other form of offence is likely to result in the case never coming to court, being thrown out, or providing grounds for appeal. When other forms of evidence-gathering or processing are called into question, cases that have relied or are intending to reply on them are reviewed and might well be dropped.
Except, of course, when it comes to the evidence from scameras. Poor practice, failing to observe the "guidelines" [and let's not start that again], improper operation, etc. ... none of these count in the never-ending drive [no pun intended] to bloster the bureaurocrats' pension funds.
Streaky
Except, of course, when it comes to the evidence from scameras. Poor practice, failing to observe the "guidelines" [and let's not start that again], improper operation, etc. ... none of these count in the never-ending drive [no pun intended] to bloster the bureaurocrats' pension funds.
Streaky
Peter Ward said:
Your word against his, and he has a machine to prove he's right.
You will have to prove to the court that the speed gun was faulty or used badly. I hope the operator will recall your discussion and agree with what you said, but even then he can simply say that your conclusions are wrong. Even the reg plate/bonnet slippage argument is likely to result in the magistrate accepting that the operator may have been mistaken but if the gun gave a reading then it's ok. You're then left with the option of taking it before a judge if you can afford it. Budget on £2k for the lawyer, £1k for the independent report and £1k for the fine/costs if you lose at magistrate level. I don't know how much more it costs to get further.
If you're certain you were below the limit and can prove it in some way then by all means fight it. If there's any possibility that you were over the limit then take the £60/3pts. It's painful but a lot less so than 18 months of fighting the slippery people who inhabit the CPS.
I agree with this.You will have to prove to the court that the speed gun was faulty or used badly. I hope the operator will recall your discussion and agree with what you said, but even then he can simply say that your conclusions are wrong. Even the reg plate/bonnet slippage argument is likely to result in the magistrate accepting that the operator may have been mistaken but if the gun gave a reading then it's ok. You're then left with the option of taking it before a judge if you can afford it. Budget on £2k for the lawyer, £1k for the independent report and £1k for the fine/costs if you lose at magistrate level. I don't know how much more it costs to get further.
If you're certain you were below the limit and can prove it in some way then by all means fight it. If there's any possibility that you were over the limit then take the £60/3pts. It's painful but a lot less so than 18 months of fighting the slippery people who inhabit the CPS.
I think unless you are happy to budget *at least* the amount that Peter has said then there is not much point going down the solicitor route. Indeed, as you up the stakes so do the CPS with your costs. Unless you have the budget to take the case to appeal too, and up the stakes again then this would be a poor economy.
The only other option is to try a 'smash and grab' type job and defend yourself. When I defended myself I did a lot of research and as the CPS knew I was defending myself they had no case prepared at all and I caught them offguard and had a 'rookie' solicitor trying to win the case for the CPS - he even had to ask for a copy of my ACPO Code as he didnt know the document existed!
In that tactic you would need a few 'opening' questions confirming how the operator used the device, and then go systematically through the ACPO Code ripping it apart, focussing on one or two main points. I would recommend these are the fundamental ones which are easiest to prove. That is that the device was not aimed at the number plate and the device was not held still. You then in a roundabout way get the operator to admit there is a slight chance that these would have affect the reading.
On a good day that will work.
Your risk factor would be how much the points will affect your insurance and your principles if you are innocent. In court, you would likely get 4 to 5 points for that speed and maybe a £100-£250 fine and costs. This is compared to the 3 points and £60.
In conclusion, if your anger subsides take the points. If not, try a 'smash and grab' and hope you get lucky. From Peter's experience I would say that to take it all the way you need to be prepared to risk a lot of money with no guarantee of a win.
herewego said:
Do you also think he needs to be sure he wasn't speeding? I mean if the prosecution or mags or whatever ask him in court under oath "were you exceeding the speed limit"?
He doesnt have to appear as a witness himself, that would be his choice as he would be running his own defence.He could win the case solely by discounting the evidence against him. However, in this situation I would recommend that without a personal testimony that he knows he wasnt speeding at the time this would tip the scales towards the case not being worth fighting IMHO.
Of course, in theory the case could be won without giving evidence yourself. Indeed solicitors with the calibre of Nick Freeman do this all the time, however the magistrates can and often do take it as a minus point if for whatever reason you do not want to give evidence.
John57 said:
The ProLaser III is a completely different cup of tea to an LTi 20/20. It doesn't suffer the same potential issues as the LTi and is much easier to use.
It is very light and doesn't need 'bracing'. If the unit isn't happy it's caught something moving it simply doesn't give a reading. It is very quick to use and very accurate.
Any laser measuring device has an ability to create a slip reading if forced to do so/ or used wrongly, the LTI reputation has in part come about as it’s the weapon of mass prosecution of choice, and the numbers of prosecution dwaf almost all other laser type device by a factor of several 1000 and there for become the brand name in laser speed cameras.It is very light and doesn't need 'bracing'. If the unit isn't happy it's caught something moving it simply doesn't give a reading. It is very quick to use and very accurate.
Just_a_guide said:
John57 said:
The ProLaser III is a completely different cup of tea to an LTi 20/20. It doesn't suffer the same potential issues as the LTi and is much easier to use.
It is very light and doesn't need 'bracing'. If the unit isn't happy it's caught something moving it simply doesn't give a reading. It is very quick to use and very accurate.
Any laser measuring device has an ability to create a slip reading if forced to do so/ or used wrongly, the LTI reputation has in part come about as it’s the weapon of mass prosecution of choice, and the numbers of prosecution dwaf almost all other laser type device by a factor of several 1000 and there for become the brand name in laser speed cameras.It is very light and doesn't need 'bracing'. If the unit isn't happy it's caught something moving it simply doesn't give a reading. It is very quick to use and very accurate.
Very interesting replies thanks all. The "smash and grab" option sounds like the way ahead if I decide to fight this:
1. He said he focused on the numberplate. Supposing I ask him to explain to the court the slip error then ask him how that's mitigated (by aiming at the numberplate because it's vertical) then after he's said he did that, show the court a photograph with the numberplate either below the verge or at least partially obscured by tufts of grass meaning he must have hit a sloping part of the car. Will that be very convincing?
2. Slip error is more likely if the hand is unsteady. If I go on to ask about a steady hand and then have him describe his actions as I approached (stooped down from talking to other motorist, then snatched it up to his eye) will that be very convincing?
3. Roadsigns. Guidelines say they shouldn't be in shot. I can ask him to confirm that first he knows this, and then ask him if there were any (yes -- 30 feet nearer than my car). Will this be very convincing?
4. Actual speed I was doing. My position is that the speed he read was wrong for the reasons given. If this was a murder case it'd stop there on no evidence. I don't know what speed I was actually doing, buy why's this relevant? He's charging me with 49mph and there are sufficient areas of doubt in the evidence gathering to make that unsafe, so it's not guilty right? Or am I really in a position of having to convict myself if they only have crappy evidence? Do they ask bank robbers "We don't actually have the CCTV tapes or any evidence really that stacks up, but this policeman here reckons you did it. So. Did you? Remember you're under oath..."
To my mind it seems to me that I could take the guy apart on the stand -- as I did by the side of the road. He just maintained that yeah, yeah, yeah but I think the figure's right. I'm no solicitor though so I'm probably living in a dream land.
I'll have to take time to prepare my defence and take billable time out of my schedule to appear -- what can I claim back in costs if I'm found not guilty?
SM
1. He said he focused on the numberplate. Supposing I ask him to explain to the court the slip error then ask him how that's mitigated (by aiming at the numberplate because it's vertical) then after he's said he did that, show the court a photograph with the numberplate either below the verge or at least partially obscured by tufts of grass meaning he must have hit a sloping part of the car. Will that be very convincing?
2. Slip error is more likely if the hand is unsteady. If I go on to ask about a steady hand and then have him describe his actions as I approached (stooped down from talking to other motorist, then snatched it up to his eye) will that be very convincing?
3. Roadsigns. Guidelines say they shouldn't be in shot. I can ask him to confirm that first he knows this, and then ask him if there were any (yes -- 30 feet nearer than my car). Will this be very convincing?
4. Actual speed I was doing. My position is that the speed he read was wrong for the reasons given. If this was a murder case it'd stop there on no evidence. I don't know what speed I was actually doing, buy why's this relevant? He's charging me with 49mph and there are sufficient areas of doubt in the evidence gathering to make that unsafe, so it's not guilty right? Or am I really in a position of having to convict myself if they only have crappy evidence? Do they ask bank robbers "We don't actually have the CCTV tapes or any evidence really that stacks up, but this policeman here reckons you did it. So. Did you? Remember you're under oath..."
To my mind it seems to me that I could take the guy apart on the stand -- as I did by the side of the road. He just maintained that yeah, yeah, yeah but I think the figure's right. I'm no solicitor though so I'm probably living in a dream land.
I'll have to take time to prepare my defence and take billable time out of my schedule to appear -- what can I claim back in costs if I'm found not guilty?
SM
supermono said:
Very interesting replies thanks all. The "smash and grab" option sounds like the way ahead if I decide to fight this:
1. He said he focused on the numberplate. Supposing I ask him to explain to the court the slip error then ask him how that's mitigated (by aiming at the numberplate because it's vertical) then after he's said he did that, show the court a photograph with the numberplate either below the verge or at least partially obscured by tufts of grass meaning he must have hit a sloping part of the car. Will that be very convincing?
If the operator is asked about slip error, they may say they are not an expert and then this opens the factor of whether the court needs a real expert for these type of questions. On the other hand, the operator may tell the court that he knows exactly what slip error is and the steps he took to avoid it. You are then stuffed.1. He said he focused on the numberplate. Supposing I ask him to explain to the court the slip error then ask him how that's mitigated (by aiming at the numberplate because it's vertical) then after he's said he did that, show the court a photograph with the numberplate either below the verge or at least partially obscured by tufts of grass meaning he must have hit a sloping part of the car. Will that be very convincing?
You need to keep things always in the form of a question and always factual - also so the question can only be answered in the way you expect, or a way which will make the witness seem bad. Ill go on about how to do this...
supermono said:
2. Slip error is more likely if the hand is unsteady. If I go on to ask about a steady hand and then have him describe his actions as I approached (stooped down from talking to other motorist, then snatched it up to his eye) will that be very convincing?
Yep. This is a key piece of evidence if presented properly.supermono said:
3. Roadsigns. Guidelines say they shouldn't be in shot. I can ask him to confirm that first he knows this, and then ask him if there were any (yes -- 30 feet nearer than my car). Will this be very convincing?
- Never* refer to the Code of Practice as Guidelines. Your case will be shot. Always correct the witness when they refer to the Code as Guidelines and if necessary challenge them to refer to where in the Code the word guidelines is stated or implied. This is also a good time to read the very exacting foreword about how important they are...
supermono said:
4. Actual speed I was doing. My position is that the speed he read was wrong for the reasons given. If this was a murder case it'd stop there on no evidence. I don't know what speed I was actually doing, buy why's this relevant? He's charging me with 49mph and there are sufficient areas of doubt in the evidence gathering to make that unsafe, so it's not guilty right? Or am I really in a position of having to convict myself if they only have crappy evidence? Do they ask bank robbers "We don't actually have the CCTV tapes or any evidence really that stacks up, but this policeman here reckons you did it. So. Did you? Remember you're under oath..."
As I mentioned before it may be possible in this case to not give evidence yourself. You will be warned by the clerk in front of the court that the magistrates can infer against you if you decide not to give evidence. If you do give evidence you will be able to say a statement of what you know. You will then be cross-examined. In cross-examination you will have to answer potentially incriminating question, such like:
"What car were you driving?"
"Thats a sports car isnt it?"
"What is the top speed of that car?"
"It is quite possible that that car could have come around at that bend at 49mph or faster isnt it?"
"How fast *were* you going?"
"How do you know you werent doing 49mph if you didn't look at your speedometer?"
And so on and so forth. Be prepared for that, and of course if you have to admit that you don't know how fast you were driving then this can count against you.
supermono said:
To my mind it seems to me that I could take the guy apart on the stand -- as I did by the side of the road. He just maintained that yeah, yeah, yeah but I think the figure's right. I'm no solicitor though so I'm probably living in a dream land.
I think you have a good case, and you certainly seem that you would have the eloquence and confidence to cross-examine. The factor is that you don't know how well the witness will respond and at the end of the day the magistrates can decide what they want.The factor you can control is the questions you are asking. You aks questions to which you know how the witness will answer and you use these to coherently tell the story in such a way the witness can only agree with what you are saying and cannot 'back out' unless of course you are tricking them into a corner.
Firstly you should go over the facts of how he used the device. Do this by recalling your conversation by the side of the road, for example:
"Do you remember our conversation by the side of the road?"
"Would you say that we agreed that you aimed the device quickly?"
"Well we talked about the fact that you were talking to another motorist, you heard the sound of my car and you aimed your device, is that right?"
"How do you know how fast my car was going from the sound?"
"Are you aware that at 30mph my car needs to be in 2nd gear which would make is sound louder than the average car?"
"So after hearing my car, I remember seeing you pick up the device, but how quickly would you say you pulled the trigger after hearing my car?"
"I see... it seems like within this process you didn't mention that you made a visual assessment of the speed of my car?"
"But surely you cannot state to the court that the primary evidence in this case - YOUR prior assessment of speed, is based on a sound and a glance by your own admission was no more than two seconds!?"
"Yes... I am aware that the device also gives evidence, but the device is ONLY to be used after bone-fide primary evidence has been obtained, is this correct?"
"Now this document I have in my hand, the ACPO Code of Practice, are you aware of the content of this document?"...
And so on...
supermono said:
I'll have to take time to prepare my defence and take billable time out of my schedule to appear -- what can I claim back in costs if I'm found not guilty?
SM
£50 a day maximum.SM
Question for a policeman: The officer started by saying he'd give me a ticket but when I explained the unsafe way he'd collected the evidence, he asked well perhaps I'd prefer to go to court? But he then talked himself into offering the ticket as the fairest way ahead for me because I'd still have the option of court or to pay up the 3 point/60 quid route which would be cheaper.
Now to my mind when a salesman makes me an offer for my benefit, I know it's exactly the opposite.
I'm wondering if I've made a mistake and should instead have insisted on the court appearance. Presumably he'd have taken a statement and the whole bag of worms would have gone before the CPS to see if it was worth taking further.
Read in the cold light of day the CPS might well have thrown it out.
But instead I have a ticket and a decision.
Can you tell me your view? (DVD or von?)
SM
Now to my mind when a salesman makes me an offer for my benefit, I know it's exactly the opposite.
I'm wondering if I've made a mistake and should instead have insisted on the court appearance. Presumably he'd have taken a statement and the whole bag of worms would have gone before the CPS to see if it was worth taking further.
Read in the cold light of day the CPS might well have thrown it out.
But instead I have a ticket and a decision.
Can you tell me your view? (DVD or von?)
SM
supermono said:
...To my mind it seems to me that I could take the guy apart on the stand -- as I did by the side of the road. He just maintained that yeah, yeah, yeah but I think the figure's right. I'm no solicitor though so I'm probably living in a dream land...
From what you have said so far - No Chance.A magistrate would probably consider why the Police Officer took the actions you mention here...
supermono said:
2. Slip error is more likely if the hand is unsteady. If I go on to ask about a steady hand and then have him describe his actions as I approached (stooped down from talking to other motorist, then snatched it up to his eye) will that be very convincing?
Why did the experienced traffic officer stop what he was doing and make the measurement of your vehicle? Was it because it was, in his opinion, exceding the speed limit or was it because he wanted to catch a boy-racer in a loud and fast looking car?Can you really explain why the laser would or would not display a speed affected by slip error and give calculations why in this case it did?
supermono said:
Question for a policeman: The officer started by saying he'd give me a ticket but when I explained the unsafe way he'd collected the evidence, he asked well perhaps I'd prefer to go to court? But he then talked himself into offering the ticket as the fairest way ahead for me because I'd still have the option of court or to pay up the 3 point/60 quid route which would be cheaper.
Now to my mind when a salesman makes me an offer for my benefit, I know it's exactly the opposite.
I'm wondering if I've made a mistake and should instead have insisted on the court appearance. Presumably he'd have taken a statement and the whole bag of worms would have gone before the CPS to see if it was worth taking further.
Read in the cold light of day the CPS might well have thrown it out.
But instead I have a ticket and a decision.
Can you tell me your view? (DVD or von?)
SM
I'll often deal with motorists who, at the time, do not know whether to accept the ticket or consider challenging it at court. If you were speeding, a ticket is the simplest option by far. I've used prolaser for years and have never managed to achieve slip, and I've experimented plenty of times.Now to my mind when a salesman makes me an offer for my benefit, I know it's exactly the opposite.
I'm wondering if I've made a mistake and should instead have insisted on the court appearance. Presumably he'd have taken a statement and the whole bag of worms would have gone before the CPS to see if it was worth taking further.
Read in the cold light of day the CPS might well have thrown it out.
But instead I have a ticket and a decision.
Can you tell me your view? (DVD or von?)
SM
The only agenda the officer might have is that a ticket is less work for him. Once the ticket is written out and pocket book completed, that's it. Usually the motorist will go home, consider his options, (usually) accept that he was speeding and the ticket is the simplest way out. If you don't or can't accept the ticket the officer has a file to complete which may take another 15 minutes. If you eventually elect trial, the file upgrade will take another 20-30 minutes. If the case eventually goes to court the officer could spend half a day at court for 10 minutes of evidence and cross examination.
Other than that, any advice is usually fair, but reflects the fact that the officer is a are absolutely certain you were speeding and they know the path of least resistance for you and them.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff