Opinions please. 3 points, but plod put wrong time on ticket
Discussion
Got tugged on way home from work. The mirrors on my bike are useless, I came on A14 had to go up one junction then off again, didn't notice Traffic Plod Volvo behind me until I signal to get off, about 1.5 miles from junction to junction, no idea how long he'd been there. Looked down and the bike speedo said 97mph, so i knew I might be in trouble
Take a seat in my police car he said. After a nice chat about the weather and how nice bike looked + if I should buy a T5 as my next car we got down to the nitty gritty. (94.2mph) He said do I want to go to court or take the fixed penalty, so I said £60 + 3 points please and off I went with my tail between my legs. He did mention I could change my mind later and not be dealt with fixed penalty if I wished I would be summonsed to go to court.
When I got home and look closely at the ticket, which I was about to pay it, I noticed he put the time down wrong. He said 11:49 (HE HADN'T PUT HIS CLOCK FORWARD LAST WEEK) I didn't leave work until 12:45, I would have been clocked on a job and would have a number of witnesses that could prove I was at work at 11:49 the time the alleged offence was committed and there should be CCTV of me leaving around 12:45.
Any idea if this is a good enough to get the thing thrown out????????
Also there is no video evidence and he was single crewed so no-one else apart from him witnessed the offence. I was not given the usual verbal caution either ( "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say will be given in evidence" ) The speed (94.2) was an average over .042 miles, which I completed in 16 seconds.
I am prepared to pay the fixed penalty as the last 3 points have just expired so I'm clean with space for a few, but if his cock up can let me off with nothing then Why not try?
Take a seat in my police car he said. After a nice chat about the weather and how nice bike looked + if I should buy a T5 as my next car we got down to the nitty gritty. (94.2mph) He said do I want to go to court or take the fixed penalty, so I said £60 + 3 points please and off I went with my tail between my legs. He did mention I could change my mind later and not be dealt with fixed penalty if I wished I would be summonsed to go to court.
When I got home and look closely at the ticket, which I was about to pay it, I noticed he put the time down wrong. He said 11:49 (HE HADN'T PUT HIS CLOCK FORWARD LAST WEEK) I didn't leave work until 12:45, I would have been clocked on a job and would have a number of witnesses that could prove I was at work at 11:49 the time the alleged offence was committed and there should be CCTV of me leaving around 12:45.
Any idea if this is a good enough to get the thing thrown out????????
Also there is no video evidence and he was single crewed so no-one else apart from him witnessed the offence. I was not given the usual verbal caution either ( "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say will be given in evidence" ) The speed (94.2) was an average over .042 miles, which I completed in 16 seconds.
I am prepared to pay the fixed penalty as the last 3 points have just expired so I'm clean with space for a few, but if his cock up can let me off with nothing then Why not try?
Edited by Tame Technician on Monday 2nd April 23:07
Quinny said:
7db said:
Sorry, no.
But if he went to court and they say were you or were you not, travelling down the A.... at 11.49 on whatever day. He says no, I was at work. Here's my clocking card to prove it...
What then?????
CPS solicitor asks:
"So you say you were not driving that day!?"
"You were not driving vehicle XXX XXXX and pulled over by officer X!?"
OP replies with "Yes but, no but, the paperworks wrong and I thought that would get me off!?"
Magistrates reply with "No sir, and for you trouble lets have another couple of points extra and about another hundred quid for our time..."
justinp1 said:
Quinny said:
7db said:
Sorry, no.
But if he went to court and they say were you or were you not, travelling down the A.... at 11.49 on whatever day. He says no, I was at work. Here's my clocking card to prove it...
What then?????
CPS solicitor asks:
"So you say you were not driving that day!?"
"You were not driving vehicle XXX XXXX and pulled over by officer X!?"
OP replies with "Yes but, no but, the paperworks wrong and I thought that would get me off!?"
Magistrates reply with "No sir, and for you trouble lets have another couple of points extra and about another hundred quid for our time..."
Doesn't one reply to the CPS solicitor
"I was not driving that day ay xx:xx as I was at work"
"I was not pulled over by officer xxx when driving vehicle xxxxxxx at xx:xx as I was at work"
Mind you stuffed when the Officer is there and identifies you!
chrisgr31 said:
justinp1 said:
Quinny said:
7db said:
Sorry, no.
But if he went to court and they say were you or were you not, travelling down the A.... at 11.49 on whatever day. He says no, I was at work. Here's my clocking card to prove it...
What then?????
CPS solicitor asks:
"So you say you were not driving that day!?"
"You were not driving vehicle XXX XXXX and pulled over by officer X!?"
OP replies with "Yes but, no but, the paperworks wrong and I thought that would get me off!?"
Magistrates reply with "No sir, and for you trouble lets have another couple of points extra and about another hundred quid for our time..."
Doesn't one reply to the CPS solicitor
"I was not driving that day ay xx:xx as I was at work"
"I was not pulled over by officer xxx when driving vehicle xxxxxxx at xx:xx as I was at work"
Mind you stuffed when the Officer is there and identifies you!
Nice idea, but one does not have the right to remain silent in the witness box!
The deliberate derivation of the simple question only infers more doubt onto what exactly the witness is trying to get at or cover up.
When you are cross-examining and the witness tries to divert from the question, they look silly when you make the question more and more simple, and their answer gets more and more complicated to 'cover up' the truth. At the end of that the magistrates/judge can be asked to force the witness to answer the question.
To cut a long story short though, even the worst CPS solicitor wont fall for that one!
OK TT, the first thing you have to do is buy new mirrors for your bike.
Then you have to look subjectively at what has transpired.
You didn't see him, so you don't know how far he followed you for, you only have his word for it.
What did he show you in the car; well it was the result of a VASCAR calculation that could have been for anyone; he doesn't have a video, he doesn't therefore have ANY material evidence.
It is not up to you, nor is there any obligation on you to prove your innocence, in law it is always assumed until proven otherwise.
The onus of proof is ALWAYS on the crown; let them prove it.
I get so tired of going over this with these single copper, no evidence cases, and this is yet another example of why it is not acceptable.
What should also be considered is what the point is of this whole useless exercise.
The police have been doing this for over thirty years; just stopping and booking for speeding, and it hasn't made a blind bit of difference to road safety.
It just ups the conviction rate and brings in a few bob, but is useless in terms of driver education and road safety improvement.
The threat of what a magistrate might do is not a justifiable or acceptable reason for not defending yourself: it is the main reason the system sustains itself.
Don't let them threaten you, fight it if you feel strongly about the injustice.
Then you have to look subjectively at what has transpired.
You didn't see him, so you don't know how far he followed you for, you only have his word for it.
What did he show you in the car; well it was the result of a VASCAR calculation that could have been for anyone; he doesn't have a video, he doesn't therefore have ANY material evidence.
It is not up to you, nor is there any obligation on you to prove your innocence, in law it is always assumed until proven otherwise.
The onus of proof is ALWAYS on the crown; let them prove it.
I get so tired of going over this with these single copper, no evidence cases, and this is yet another example of why it is not acceptable.
What should also be considered is what the point is of this whole useless exercise.
The police have been doing this for over thirty years; just stopping and booking for speeding, and it hasn't made a blind bit of difference to road safety.
It just ups the conviction rate and brings in a few bob, but is useless in terms of driver education and road safety improvement.
The threat of what a magistrate might do is not a justifiable or acceptable reason for not defending yourself: it is the main reason the system sustains itself.
Don't let them threaten you, fight it if you feel strongly about the injustice.
Whilst I take on board what you are outling Jith from the perspective of what has been posted above and with out recourse to the facts that the single officer will outline on oath backed up with corroboration from whatever and NO I do not accept the concept of him being corrupt and a liar.
It is perhaps due to the driver being unaware what was happening to his rear that has led him into a false sense of security and perhaps that pressing down of the wrist on the throttle without consideration of the applicable limit?
dvd
It is perhaps due to the driver being unaware what was happening to his rear that has led him into a false sense of security and perhaps that pressing down of the wrist on the throttle without consideration of the applicable limit?
dvd
however this was pre-Blair and back then they had to prove guilt not the other way around
jith said:
OK TT, the first thing you have to do is buy new mirrors for your bike.
Then you have to look subjectively at what has transpired.
You didn't see him, so you don't know how far he followed you for, you only have his word for it.
What did he show you in the car; well it was the result of a VASCAR calculation that could have been for anyone; he doesn't have a video, he doesn't therefore have ANY material evidence.
It is not up to you, nor is there any obligation on you to prove your innocence, in law it is always assumed until proven otherwise.
The onus of proof is ALWAYS on the crown; let them prove it.
I get so tired of going over this with these single copper, no evidence cases, and this is yet another example of why it is not acceptable.
What should also be considered is what the point is of this whole useless exercise.
The police have been doing this for over thirty years; just stopping and booking for speeding, and it hasn't made a blind bit of difference to road safety.
It just ups the conviction rate and brings in a few bob, but is useless in terms of driver education and road safety improvement.
The threat of what a magistrate might do is not a justifiable or acceptable reason for not defending yourself: it is the main reason the system sustains itself.
Don't let them threaten you, fight it if you feel strongly about the injustice.
Then you have to look subjectively at what has transpired.
You didn't see him, so you don't know how far he followed you for, you only have his word for it.
What did he show you in the car; well it was the result of a VASCAR calculation that could have been for anyone; he doesn't have a video, he doesn't therefore have ANY material evidence.
It is not up to you, nor is there any obligation on you to prove your innocence, in law it is always assumed until proven otherwise.
The onus of proof is ALWAYS on the crown; let them prove it.
I get so tired of going over this with these single copper, no evidence cases, and this is yet another example of why it is not acceptable.
What should also be considered is what the point is of this whole useless exercise.
The police have been doing this for over thirty years; just stopping and booking for speeding, and it hasn't made a blind bit of difference to road safety.
It just ups the conviction rate and brings in a few bob, but is useless in terms of driver education and road safety improvement.
The threat of what a magistrate might do is not a justifiable or acceptable reason for not defending yourself: it is the main reason the system sustains itself.
Don't let them threaten you, fight it if you feel strongly about the injustice.
Jith old chap the poster admits he was speeding. He just hoped that the time error would get him off. Which it won't. In this case as you point out he also was unable to see out of his rear view mirrors which is in itself a worry and would make me ask the question what else apart from the marked volvo did he not see. When I stop people for speeding (I'm talking 95+ on a motorway) I rarely ever issue a ticket but I do very often point out that they say they are driving safely but in many cases have passed me in a marked car or not noticed me behind them. So you have to ask how much attention they are paying.
Well, thanks very much all for joining in the debate. My mates Mrs works at a Law firm, one of there lawyers is a bit of a road traffic guru and he said, take the points and think yourself lucky. Time on ticket makes no odds and you never win the, he is the only witness I wasn't doing what he said argument. So its 3 points to me and £60 to them.
To be fair it could have been a lot worse, that bike will do 100mph in 2nd gear and had there been less traffic I might well have spent a few seconds that wrong side of that figure as I hopped up one junction. Bib was unusually nice as well and neglected to mention my illegal exhaust and dark visor, so I'm gonna call it a fair cop.
Regarding what I can and cant see out of my Mirrors, The 2004 GSXR 750 has a particularly harsh revvy engine and the mirrors vibrate, you can see weather there is or isnt a vehicle there and at what sort of distance, but details other than colour and approx size are lost, the white blob wobbling about in my rear views I assumed was the same car I saw as I joined the duel carriage way, sadly in wasn't. I would not want to be included in the group of people capable of overtaking a marked police car, I have on numerous occasions rumbled unmarked cars following me at a good distance when I drive cars.
To be fair it could have been a lot worse, that bike will do 100mph in 2nd gear and had there been less traffic I might well have spent a few seconds that wrong side of that figure as I hopped up one junction. Bib was unusually nice as well and neglected to mention my illegal exhaust and dark visor, so I'm gonna call it a fair cop.
Regarding what I can and cant see out of my Mirrors, The 2004 GSXR 750 has a particularly harsh revvy engine and the mirrors vibrate, you can see weather there is or isnt a vehicle there and at what sort of distance, but details other than colour and approx size are lost, the white blob wobbling about in my rear views I assumed was the same car I saw as I joined the duel carriage way, sadly in wasn't. I would not want to be included in the group of people capable of overtaking a marked police car, I have on numerous occasions rumbled unmarked cars following me at a good distance when I drive cars.
Edited by Tame Technician on Monday 2nd April 23:09
Dwight VanDriver said:
Whilst I take on board what you are outling Jith from the perspective of what has been posted above and with out recourse to the facts that the single officer will outline on oath backed up with corroboration from whatever and NO I do not accept the concept of him being corrupt and a liar.
It is perhaps due to the driver being unaware what was happening to his rear that has led him into a false sense of security and perhaps that pressing down of the wrist on the throttle without consideration of the applicable limit?
dvd
It is perhaps due to the driver being unaware what was happening to his rear that has led him into a false sense of security and perhaps that pressing down of the wrist on the throttle without consideration of the applicable limit?
dvd
DVD, at no time did I state that the officer was corrupt, lying or doing anything OTHER than once again wasting his own and the OPs time.
Let me once again make myself clear on this, and please when you read this, consider carefully the principles behind what I'm saying, NOT just the legal aspect.
Regardless of guilt or innocence, the concept of a single officer with NO material evidence standing up and being the ONLY source of evidence in what could be a criminal trial is wholly and utterly unacceptable, because he CAN say whatever he wants, he CAN make up a lie, he CAN testify against someone and have them prosecuted.
That is why in Scotland it is forbidden, not allowed under any circumstances because of the obvious risk involved.
It is completely beyond me why English courts and the prosecution services think that this practice is acceptable, and I have never met anyone either capable or willing to explain why they think it is. It becomes particularly offensive in the cases where there ARE two officers and full kit, i.e. PROVIDA, and they have switched it all off including the video because one of them is "training", and the court actually accepts this.
The video in a case like this is vital evidence: the evidence in a criminal trial is not exclusive for the convenience of the Crown. It is there for ALL to see, and when it is deliberately supressed, left out, destroyed, erased for ANY reason, I HAVE to take the view that the police are hiding something, you cannot risk any other conclusion for the sake of the defence.
The second aspect to this, and god knows it's been covered on here often enough, is that this business of booking "speeders" randomly just for being over an arbitrary limit does NOT work.
If it did nobody would be breaking the limit. The limits themselves have been constantly lowered all over the country as the revenue benefits of the partnerships become clear.
In this day and age 70 MPH is ludicrously slow in the kind of modern vehicles we have.
Almost every traffic cop I have ever worked with has admitted that the driving standards are abominable in this country and none of it has to do with speeding, it is bad, bad driving.
My personal slant on it DVD, is that I will NOT have some twenty year old, fresh out of Hendon, snotty nosed youth in a T5 or similar tell me I am being prosecuted for driving probably better than he is, only I am above the arbitrary limit.
I will defend this to the death and will help others to do so also.
If every single person given a ticket did the same we could change the system overnight.
But ask Paul Smith how difficult it is to get people to stand on their principles and you will get a predictable response.
Or read the Peter Ward post and it starts to give you a crystal clear picture of the ludicrously incompetent "professionals" running the criminal justice system.
I of course have been experiencing this for years and have found the only effective way to fight it is in the courts, right up to the Appeal Court if required.
I cannot understand why people do not put more effort into, for example, lodging a complaint with the police and demanding to know why they are being prosecuted for minor technicalities when there are much graver problems being totally ignored on a daily basis.
It is not about personal guilt or innocence; it's about the total lack of natural justice in the system that constantly prosecutes the wrong people, the good drivers.
It's about magistrates sitting in local courts with no concept whatever of justice or driving principles and passing judgement with the harshest penalties on their fellow citizens just because they can, and on the uncorroborated word of one officer.
Not on DVD! Has to stop!
jith said:
Regardless of guilt or innocence, the concept of a single officer with NO material evidence standing up and being the ONLY source of evidence in what could be a criminal trial is wholly and utterly unacceptable, because he CAN say whatever he wants, he CAN make up a lie, he CAN testify against someone and have them prosecuted.
I agree completely. Can you imagine them trying to bring a case of rape to the courts like this? If all you have is one person saying "I reckon he did it guv", does anybody think that would be a fair conviction? This system is just completely crazy and I've got no respect for it and the people that create, run it and help to maintain it.
But it is no different to the hundred and one witnesses that have stood up in Court today and told what they have heard, seen. Many without any corroboration at all.
Entering the Box, bible in right hand and stating "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" 99.9% of Plods will do just that and as a single witness backed up by his bit or corroboration be it speedo, vascar, Hand held, what more is required?. Even the High Court is satisfied with that.
Holy moly what more do you want...
Now I will give you a bit of good advice and to the rest with heavy feet:
" Always ensure that you do not travel faster than your guardian angel can fly"
dvd
Entering the Box, bible in right hand and stating "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" 99.9% of Plods will do just that and as a single witness backed up by his bit or corroboration be it speedo, vascar, Hand held, what more is required?. Even the High Court is satisfied with that.
Holy moly what more do you want...
Now I will give you a bit of good advice and to the rest with heavy feet:
" Always ensure that you do not travel faster than your guardian angel can fly"
dvd
Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 3rd April 14:27
Dwight VanDriver said:
But it is no different to the hundred and one witnesses that have stood up in Court today and told what they have heard, seen. Many without any corroboration at all.
Entering the Box, bible in right hand and stating "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" 99.9% of Plods will do just that and as a single witness backed up by his bit or corroboration be it speedo, vascar, Hand held, what more is required?. Even the High Court is satisfied with that.
Holy moly what more do you want...
Now I will give you a bit of good advice and to the rest with heavy feet:
" Always ensure that you do not travel faster than your guardian angel can fly"
dvd
Entering the Box, bible in right hand and stating "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" 99.9% of Plods will do just that and as a single witness backed up by his bit or corroboration be it speedo, vascar, Hand held, what more is required?. Even the High Court is satisfied with that.
Holy moly what more do you want...
Now I will give you a bit of good advice and to the rest with heavy feet:
" Always ensure that you do not travel faster than your guardian angel can fly"
dvd
Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 3rd April 14:27
Let me just get this clear DVD.
Firstly, are you saying that you both have knowledge of a case(s) other than traffic cases where an accused has been convicted SOLELY on the testimony of a single witness, and that you consider this practice acceptable?
Secondly, you do not recognise or subscribe to the clear and present danger of wrongful prosecution in such a practice?
Thirdly, what is it that prevents England from adopting the Scottish system in this regard?
I am really interested to know your view on the above because of your obvious extensive experience. And by the way, the High Court in Scotland is most definitely NOT satisfied with this practice.
Jith
Offences OTTOMH:
Drunk and incapable.
Stop search drugs/offensive weapons found
Depositing litter
Illegal parking
all can be convicted from the evidence of a single Plod.
And why not. Providing the witness gives a truthful account of what he saw/found.
We do not live in a perfect world, far from it and wrongful prosecutions will continue ad infinitum despite the best practices of others to right when truth is bent/distorted on both sides. Funny isn't it that the majority of the high profile cases on this occur after some considerable years have elapsed when accounts can be blurred. Old addage in my book - you can hide the flames but not the smoke.
Having received returned RT/2's from Scotland with non production offences and accompanied by a sheave of statements and papers, talking to some Scotplod on a course years ago on the very matter of corroboration required by Scotlaw they were not endeared with this and at times found it a pain in the 'Rs'
I have said I can appreciate and understand your thoughts but I am now at an age where 'teed apah' applies I ain't going to rock the world so what. I try and live a law abiding life and on the odd occasion when I may go over the limit on speed then I accept that I shall get my fingers (wallet/Driving Licence)burnt and deservedly so.
Must go as halo need polishing.
dvd
Offences OTTOMH:
Drunk and incapable.
Stop search drugs/offensive weapons found
Depositing litter
Illegal parking
all can be convicted from the evidence of a single Plod.
And why not. Providing the witness gives a truthful account of what he saw/found.
We do not live in a perfect world, far from it and wrongful prosecutions will continue ad infinitum despite the best practices of others to right when truth is bent/distorted on both sides. Funny isn't it that the majority of the high profile cases on this occur after some considerable years have elapsed when accounts can be blurred. Old addage in my book - you can hide the flames but not the smoke.
Having received returned RT/2's from Scotland with non production offences and accompanied by a sheave of statements and papers, talking to some Scotplod on a course years ago on the very matter of corroboration required by Scotlaw they were not endeared with this and at times found it a pain in the 'Rs'
I have said I can appreciate and understand your thoughts but I am now at an age where 'teed apah' applies I ain't going to rock the world so what. I try and live a law abiding life and on the odd occasion when I may go over the limit on speed then I accept that I shall get my fingers (wallet/Driving Licence)burnt and deservedly so.
Must go as halo need polishing.
dvd
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff