should i have hired a solicitor?
Discussion
One dry sunny August evening, driving down to Cornwall with my partner, I was caught doing 107.2mph on the A30 dual-carriageway near Exeter. The police officer was parked half-visible on one of the crossing bridges and clocked me using his VASCAR 5000 covering two white marks on the road 0.4 miles apart in 13.42 seconds i.e. 107.2 mph!
Court case is on Monday but I decided not to hire a solicitor in the view that I have no claims for a reduction in the length of any ban they're intending to impose. Also I couldn't afford one!
I know they don't have any video evidence because the patrol car was not equipped with any video recording equipment.
Could I be wrong in not hiring a solicitor? If so, is it too late to get an adjournment at this eleventh hour?
>>> Edited by shoodie on Tuesday 7th December 17:49
Court case is on Monday but I decided not to hire a solicitor in the view that I have no claims for a reduction in the length of any ban they're intending to impose. Also I couldn't afford one!
I know they don't have any video evidence because the patrol car was not equipped with any video recording equipment.
Could I be wrong in not hiring a solicitor? If so, is it too late to get an adjournment at this eleventh hour?
>>> Edited by shoodie on Tuesday 7th December 17:49
Just got back from court.
I took IOLAIRE's advice, well at the moment just some of it...
Got to court and asked for the Crown Prosecution Service. Was told they were too busy to come out before the court hearing.
In court, turns out CPS was not there but instead there was a clerk and three magistrates. The clerk already had all the details to present to the court because I already had pleaded guilty in writing.
So, as IOLAIRE suggested, I pleaded not guilty there and then. Not to the offence of speeding but to doing a speed of 107mph on the basis there was no photographic evidence.
The clerk suggested 'it seems you are contesting the accuracy of the vascar'.
I responded 'I'm simply questioning the accuracy of the whole clocking process including the scope for human error'.
The magistrates decided to adjourn the case to a later date for me to seek legal advice. (Hey at least I can now drive down to my parents' for Christmas!!)
I'm next gonna take IOLAIRE's next piece of advice: to contact the CPS and try and entertain a lesser penalty outside the court.
Problem is I did plead guilty to speeding so I don't see why CPS will see any benefit settling outside court??
Thanks to everyone for the valuable feedback.
BUT SPECIAL THANKS TO IOLAIRE FOR THE SUPERB TECHNICAL ADVICE!!!
Court retrial date set to 19th January so I'll keep you all posted...
I took IOLAIRE's advice, well at the moment just some of it...
Got to court and asked for the Crown Prosecution Service. Was told they were too busy to come out before the court hearing.
In court, turns out CPS was not there but instead there was a clerk and three magistrates. The clerk already had all the details to present to the court because I already had pleaded guilty in writing.
So, as IOLAIRE suggested, I pleaded not guilty there and then. Not to the offence of speeding but to doing a speed of 107mph on the basis there was no photographic evidence.
The clerk suggested 'it seems you are contesting the accuracy of the vascar'.
I responded 'I'm simply questioning the accuracy of the whole clocking process including the scope for human error'.
The magistrates decided to adjourn the case to a later date for me to seek legal advice. (Hey at least I can now drive down to my parents' for Christmas!!)
I'm next gonna take IOLAIRE's next piece of advice: to contact the CPS and try and entertain a lesser penalty outside the court.
Problem is I did plead guilty to speeding so I don't see why CPS will see any benefit settling outside court??
Thanks to everyone for the valuable feedback.
BUT SPECIAL THANKS TO IOLAIRE FOR THE SUPERB TECHNICAL ADVICE!!!
Court retrial date set to 19th January so I'll keep you all posted...
Thanks DVD for your regular input.
Now I actually believe I was doing no more than 95mph. My partner was with me and she, in her experience, judges the car to be travelling around 90mph.
So now what? The police officer alleges me to be doing 107mph based on the reading of his VASCAR.
So how did that come about?
Is he right or are we?
If he is wrong and his VASCAR was indeed calibrated then why would he get my speed wrong? Was there any other genuine human error, or could it have been deliberate?
What I'm actually asking is was what in it for the lone police officer to book me that day, apart from the genuine concern for the safety of other road users?
I'm trying to get into the mind of the police officer here...
Now I actually believe I was doing no more than 95mph. My partner was with me and she, in her experience, judges the car to be travelling around 90mph.
So now what? The police officer alleges me to be doing 107mph based on the reading of his VASCAR.
So how did that come about?
Is he right or are we?
If he is wrong and his VASCAR was indeed calibrated then why would he get my speed wrong? Was there any other genuine human error, or could it have been deliberate?
What I'm actually asking is was what in it for the lone police officer to book me that day, apart from the genuine concern for the safety of other road users?
I'm trying to get into the mind of the police officer here...
A few days have passed since the court trial was adjourned due to my change of plea to not guilty and I have now received the court's Notice of Adjournment through the post. It reads:
OFFENCE: EXCEED SPEED LIMIT OF 70 MPH
THE CASE HAS BEEN ADJOURNED FOR A PRE-TRIAL REVIEW. THE CASE WILL BE FURTHER ADJOURNED TO A DATE FOR TRIAL. YOU MUST ATTEND THE REVIEW BRINGING WITH YOU DETAILS OF ANY WITNESSES TO BE CALLED AND DETAILS OF WHEN THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO ATTEND COURT. SHOULD YOU NOW WISH TO PLEAD GUILTY TO THE MATTER YOU MUST ATTEND ON THIS DATE AND THE CASE WILL BE DEALT WITH.
YOU SHOULD BRING YOUR DRIVING LICENCE WITH YOU IF YOU INTEND TO PLEAD GUILTY.
THE CASE WILL BE HEARD ON THE 19.01.05 AT 10.00AM.
Question to IOLAIRE... I've been following your plan of action on this. And so far it's worked. Next you advised I contact the CPS for an out-of-court settlement.
So...
How do I contact them?
Who do I address it to?
What do I write?
Any help would be greatly appreciated, as always!!
>> Edited by shoodie on Wednesday 15th December 21:33
OFFENCE: EXCEED SPEED LIMIT OF 70 MPH
THE CASE HAS BEEN ADJOURNED FOR A PRE-TRIAL REVIEW. THE CASE WILL BE FURTHER ADJOURNED TO A DATE FOR TRIAL. YOU MUST ATTEND THE REVIEW BRINGING WITH YOU DETAILS OF ANY WITNESSES TO BE CALLED AND DETAILS OF WHEN THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO ATTEND COURT. SHOULD YOU NOW WISH TO PLEAD GUILTY TO THE MATTER YOU MUST ATTEND ON THIS DATE AND THE CASE WILL BE DEALT WITH.
YOU SHOULD BRING YOUR DRIVING LICENCE WITH YOU IF YOU INTEND TO PLEAD GUILTY.
THE CASE WILL BE HEARD ON THE 19.01.05 AT 10.00AM.
Question to IOLAIRE... I've been following your plan of action on this. And so far it's worked. Next you advised I contact the CPS for an out-of-court settlement.
So...
How do I contact them?
Who do I address it to?
What do I write?
Any help would be greatly appreciated, as always!!
>> Edited by shoodie on Wednesday 15th December 21:33
So which way did I jump? Here we go...
I take on board a friend, IOLAIRE, who masterminded this whole plan to success. What I'm about to describe are his moves which I simply enacted:
I didn't hire a solicitor although on the date of my first hearing last year, when I arrived at court, I changed my plea from 'guilty to as charged' to 'guilty, but NOT as charged' i.e. i was speeding but not at the alledged speed of 107mph.
This resulted in an adjournment and induced a 'Newton' hearing which happens when both parties agree that speeding did take place but disagree at what the speed was. It simply deals with the facts and evidence to determine the actual speed being done.
This hearing took place in January this year, but I did not have to attend.
The outcome of this resulted in a new trial hearing for March 29th. I had to prepare my case for defence. I wrote to CPS (the prosecution) and told them that I and my partner had returned to the scene and I couldn't accept their calculated reading of 107mph from the viewpoint at which it was taken. I asked for their evidence against me (to which I have a right), all kinds of evidence, such as the VASCAR calibration certificate, a certificate from the Highways Authority to verify the distance between the two datum points, photographic or video evidence.
In that same letter I also added that, for the sake of expediency, I would be happy to entertain a lesser speed of 90mph and would accept penalty points and fine accordingly.
I heard no response.
I wrote again this time using recorded delivery. The next day I could 'see' (Royal Mail's website) they had received the letter. But still no reply.
A week before the final hearing I wrote to the court and told them my situation, that I had been denied the evidence and therefore I could not stand trial. I also said if I had to turn up I would demand expenses from CPS.
I found out who the Chief Prosecutor of the CPS was for my case and wrote to her as well informing her of this 'problem'.
Both letters were sent recorded.
Court replied to turn up anyway, and said they would consider getting costs from CPS.
I turned up.
Moments before the arrival of the magistrates the clerk made a revelation that seemed to have come down from God: that the court had had a word with CPS and CPS had agreed to accept 'my version of events'.
What this meant is that they accepted my speed of 90mph and I would stand the trial according to that.
Relieved, I had nothing to worry about anymore since I now just had to slip back into a no-brainer 'guilty as charged' mode.
Made a big hearty apology.
£100 fine, £35 costs, 4 points!!
I HEREBY PROVE IOLAIRE IS A GENIUS !!!
He is lightyears ahead in his professionalism and understanding of the justice system than many of his opposing counterparts. Take a leaf.
I rest my case.
I take on board a friend, IOLAIRE, who masterminded this whole plan to success. What I'm about to describe are his moves which I simply enacted:
I didn't hire a solicitor although on the date of my first hearing last year, when I arrived at court, I changed my plea from 'guilty to as charged' to 'guilty, but NOT as charged' i.e. i was speeding but not at the alledged speed of 107mph.
This resulted in an adjournment and induced a 'Newton' hearing which happens when both parties agree that speeding did take place but disagree at what the speed was. It simply deals with the facts and evidence to determine the actual speed being done.
This hearing took place in January this year, but I did not have to attend.
The outcome of this resulted in a new trial hearing for March 29th. I had to prepare my case for defence. I wrote to CPS (the prosecution) and told them that I and my partner had returned to the scene and I couldn't accept their calculated reading of 107mph from the viewpoint at which it was taken. I asked for their evidence against me (to which I have a right), all kinds of evidence, such as the VASCAR calibration certificate, a certificate from the Highways Authority to verify the distance between the two datum points, photographic or video evidence.
In that same letter I also added that, for the sake of expediency, I would be happy to entertain a lesser speed of 90mph and would accept penalty points and fine accordingly.
I heard no response.
I wrote again this time using recorded delivery. The next day I could 'see' (Royal Mail's website) they had received the letter. But still no reply.
A week before the final hearing I wrote to the court and told them my situation, that I had been denied the evidence and therefore I could not stand trial. I also said if I had to turn up I would demand expenses from CPS.
I found out who the Chief Prosecutor of the CPS was for my case and wrote to her as well informing her of this 'problem'.
Both letters were sent recorded.
Court replied to turn up anyway, and said they would consider getting costs from CPS.
I turned up.
Moments before the arrival of the magistrates the clerk made a revelation that seemed to have come down from God: that the court had had a word with CPS and CPS had agreed to accept 'my version of events'.
What this meant is that they accepted my speed of 90mph and I would stand the trial according to that.
Relieved, I had nothing to worry about anymore since I now just had to slip back into a no-brainer 'guilty as charged' mode.
Made a big hearty apology.
£100 fine, £35 costs, 4 points!!
I HEREBY PROVE IOLAIRE IS A GENIUS !!!
He is lightyears ahead in his professionalism and understanding of the justice system than many of his opposing counterparts. Take a leaf.
I rest my case.
No, Fif, absolutely not! Ever since that sunny August evening that turned into a disturbing nightmare, I have changed my whole mindset on driving.
The ordeal of living through this, even though the worst outcome wasn't a big deal, had become a cloud over the past 6 months.
Nobody who leads a normal simple life likes to live under a cloud of glooming uncertainty. It is human nature to fear the worst.
The point I'm making is that this is a form of punishment. A mentally antagonising form.
I thought about how I got caught. I also thought about reading this in an article: 'Consider yourself lucky each time you speed and don't get caught. The police only have to get lucky once to catch you.'
I had to get the lead out of my right foot. The car I drive is a 2.5ltr BMW. What I had been doing was driving it how it was 'meant' to be driven. Not recklessly though I might add.
The idea of 'breezing' down to Cornwall should NOT have been in my mind when planning my weekend break.
I now drive in a more 'chilled out' way. It is now ok to be cruising at 80mph. I allow myself more time on my journeys, stock a careful selection of cd's, and simply 'enjoy' the ride.
I no longer need to worry about BiBs and their various tricks and camouflages.
My fuel consumption is down, the service lights on the dash take their time to increment, and my tyres last longer.
I consider myself very lucky to have gotten away without a disqualification, with due credit to Iolaire, but I have to live up to the privilege, which I hope I'm now doing.
The ordeal of living through this, even though the worst outcome wasn't a big deal, had become a cloud over the past 6 months.
Nobody who leads a normal simple life likes to live under a cloud of glooming uncertainty. It is human nature to fear the worst.
The point I'm making is that this is a form of punishment. A mentally antagonising form.
I thought about how I got caught. I also thought about reading this in an article: 'Consider yourself lucky each time you speed and don't get caught. The police only have to get lucky once to catch you.'
I had to get the lead out of my right foot. The car I drive is a 2.5ltr BMW. What I had been doing was driving it how it was 'meant' to be driven. Not recklessly though I might add.
The idea of 'breezing' down to Cornwall should NOT have been in my mind when planning my weekend break.
I now drive in a more 'chilled out' way. It is now ok to be cruising at 80mph. I allow myself more time on my journeys, stock a careful selection of cd's, and simply 'enjoy' the ride.
I no longer need to worry about BiBs and their various tricks and camouflages.
My fuel consumption is down, the service lights on the dash take their time to increment, and my tyres last longer.
I consider myself very lucky to have gotten away without a disqualification, with due credit to Iolaire, but I have to live up to the privilege, which I hope I'm now doing.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff