When a traffic Officer..........
Discussion
does you a favour by reducing your actual speed (registered) to lets say for arguments sake 42 in a 30 so you have a chance of a speed awareness course, is he potentially perverting the course of Justice ?
I appreciate that he is playing the game, and for that I am recently very grateful, but are Officers doing this leaving themselves open to criticism and or a bad time if a transgressor takes it to court ?
For arguments sake, my current pending NIP was rounded down (significantly ) to 42 in a 30, but if I plead not guilty and perhaps foolishly argue that the evidence is in fact incorrect, where would this go ?
One I was mulling over under the duvet this morning.
I appreciate that he is playing the game, and for that I am recently very grateful, but are Officers doing this leaving themselves open to criticism and or a bad time if a transgressor takes it to court ?
For arguments sake, my current pending NIP was rounded down (significantly ) to 42 in a 30, but if I plead not guilty and perhaps foolishly argue that the evidence is in fact incorrect, where would this go ?
One I was mulling over under the duvet this morning.
Suspect he isn't 'doing you a favour', more that he KNOWS you were going faster but the figure he's doing you for is the highest one he can prove.
By all means take it to court and tell them that actually you were going even faster. Magistrates have to sit through some long and boring cases so it'll give them a bit of a chuckle.
By all means take it to court and tell them that actually you were going even faster. Magistrates have to sit through some long and boring cases so it'll give them a bit of a chuckle.
Hypothetically I got pulled recently on a single carriageway with 3 lanes by an unmarked cop. I knew I was doing circa 110 by my speedo, he said he "knew I was doing over a ton", but wrote me up as "not less than 85mph" (exact wording on NIP). All of this was said before he read me my rights.
He was single crewed so I suppose I could've pushed for it to go to court, but it's a hell of a gamble when you know you were doing a hell of a lot more. Plus it was a fair cop.
He was single crewed so I suppose I could've pushed for it to go to court, but it's a hell of a gamble when you know you were doing a hell of a lot more. Plus it was a fair cop.
You wouldve been doing 42 at some point though, even if it was when you slowed down to stop for him. Ive recieved this treatment a few times, once when stopped for a 90 average, I said I dont disbelieve you but I didnt think it was quite that quick, his colleague said deadpan as you could ever be 'listen son, we were doing 120 and you were pulling away'. That shut me up straight away!
Think you got a decent copper and passed the all important attitude test, just because you were doing a higher headline speed doesnt mean they have to do you for that speed. In court they like to show average speed over a distance, especially if a following check, also reduces the chance of a erroneous speed being given aswell.
Think you got a decent copper and passed the all important attitude test, just because you were doing a higher headline speed doesnt mean they have to do you for that speed. In court they like to show average speed over a distance, especially if a following check, also reduces the chance of a erroneous speed being given aswell.
I cannot believe that no one has suggested the obvious....that he only reduced the speed so that you could take a SAC. As we all know, Police actually get money from SAC's where's they don't from court fines. We also all know that the money the Police get from SAC's goes straight to the end of year party, or "shagfest" as it was recently referred to on here.
Also suggest lawyering up, and going no comment. Also something about #donutlivesmatter
Also suggest lawyering up, and going no comment. Also something about #donutlivesmatter
tezzer said:
Oh, I don't intend to, I was in the wrong, we had a civilized discussion about it and parted friends, albeit I was £100 poorer, it's more from a legal standpoint that an Officer knowingly submits a false report.
zarjaz1991's post seems most likely to me thus not a 'false report'.If a known false statement is made and it is material to a prosecution and is given in evidence then it is probable that an offence has been committed. This applies if the evidence is given by way of statement under what was in my day Section 9, CJA 1967. This might have changed Act and Section but there is still the provision.
The question is whether dropping the speed in a report is material to the prosecution. It might not be as the only evidence required is that the speed limit but, on the other hand, the speed goes some way to determining the punishment.
In the second incident quoted, 'I know you were going over the ton', then knowing and being able to enter in evidence are two different things.
To move it away from speeding: the requirement for the number of common points in comparing fingerprints is set so high that no logical challenge can be made. However, there is what is known as a 'partial' where there were sufficient common points to show that except for a statistical anomaly that would confound logic, it is the same person. In that case, the officer can say, with some justification that he knows that this person touched the door. However, it is not evidence.
I remember reading a case where the partials were given in evidence but the jury were excluded. I have no recollection as to specifics but it was something to do with challenging the actions of the police, a sure sign that the evidence was sufficient for a conviction.
The question is whether dropping the speed in a report is material to the prosecution. It might not be as the only evidence required is that the speed limit but, on the other hand, the speed goes some way to determining the punishment.
In the second incident quoted, 'I know you were going over the ton', then knowing and being able to enter in evidence are two different things.
To move it away from speeding: the requirement for the number of common points in comparing fingerprints is set so high that no logical challenge can be made. However, there is what is known as a 'partial' where there were sufficient common points to show that except for a statistical anomaly that would confound logic, it is the same person. In that case, the officer can say, with some justification that he knows that this person touched the door. However, it is not evidence.
I remember reading a case where the partials were given in evidence but the jury were excluded. I have no recollection as to specifics but it was something to do with challenging the actions of the police, a sure sign that the evidence was sufficient for a conviction.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff