S172 for excess speed - wrong location cited for camera
Discussion
Exactly what it says on the tin - bang to rights apart from the fact the camera location advised on the website set up to support/administer the NIP states the camera was on the north side of the road tracking east- images clearly show it was on the south tracking east. Worth challenging whist still in the reply window (now outside the 14 but the details of the offence are technically correct although the evidence relied on is incorrectly described)?
No biggie but happy to invite them to drop it if worth a punt...
No biggie but happy to invite them to drop it if worth a punt...
Got to be worth a polite letter saying you weren't travelling that direction on that day - no need to elaborate further i.e. Saying you were travelling the opposite direction. Hopefully they will realise their error and you might just get lucky and they might drop it. Be very polite but without being an arselicker. Let us know.
OP's being accused of doing something he didn't do. He wasn't travelling in that direction - this is sloppy work on an official document - not just an admin error. If you bought a Sony telly from Currys and the invoice read Samsung telly would you accept it..no you wouldn't. The OP should get the papers amended before accepting them.
Should clarify - was travelling in the direction claimed but the location of the camera van was not as is being asserted; the image was captured from the opposite side of the road to what has been stated. Seems like more than an admin error to me but not sure that can overcome what is a strict liability offence.
Bigends said:
OP's being accused of doing something he didn't do. He wasn't travelling in that direction - this is sloppy work on an official document - not just an admin error. If you bought a Sony telly from Currys and the invoice read Samsung telly would you accept it..no you wouldn't. The OP should get the papers amended before accepting them.
Would you deny you bought a TV?98elise said:
Bigends said:
OP's being accused of doing something he didn't do. He wasn't travelling in that direction - this is sloppy work on an official document - not just an admin error. If you bought a Sony telly from Currys and the invoice read Samsung telly would you accept it..no you wouldn't. The OP should get the papers amended before accepting them.
Would you deny you bought a TV?Edited by Bigends on Thursday 13th July 09:17
agtlaw said:
A notice of intended prosecution must specify:
• the nature of the alleged offence
• the time it is alleged to have been committed
• the place where it is alleged to have been committed
Are any of those details incorrect?
Well surely based on the OP description the 3rd part is incorrect.• the nature of the alleged offence
• the time it is alleged to have been committed
• the place where it is alleged to have been committed
Are any of those details incorrect?
xjay1337 said:
agtlaw said:
A notice of intended prosecution must specify:
• the nature of the alleged offence
• the time it is alleged to have been committed
• the place where it is alleged to have been committed
Are any of those details incorrect?
Well surely based on the OP description the 3rd part is incorrect.• the nature of the alleged offence
• the time it is alleged to have been committed
• the place where it is alleged to have been committed
Are any of those details incorrect?
Waste of time. If they decide you have broken the speed limit, then you have, and the law has been repeatedly changed to shore up this position.
In effect, what you now have is this:
"You must confess to this offence. If you do not do so, we will prosecute you for failing to confess"
They can now make any error they like, doesn't even matter if the entire street is wrong, the law allows them such enormous leeway for errror so it doesn't matter.
In effect, what you now have is this:
"You must confess to this offence. If you do not do so, we will prosecute you for failing to confess"
They can now make any error they like, doesn't even matter if the entire street is wrong, the law allows them such enormous leeway for errror so it doesn't matter.
zarjaz1991 said:
If they decide you have broken the speed limit, then you have, and the law has been repeatedly changed to shore up this position.
No, it hasn't.zarjaz1991 said:
"You must confess to this offence. If you do not do so, we will prosecute you for failing to confess"
By completing the s.172 notice, you are simply confirming you (or A N Other) was driving a particular vehicle at a particular time and place. You are not 'confessing to the offence'.zarjaz1991 said:
They can now make any error they like, doesn't even matter if the entire street is wrong, the law allows them such enormous leeway for error so it doesn't matter.
They can't, and it does.SS2. said:
By completing the s.172 notice, you are simply confirming you (or A N Other) was driving a particular vehicle at a particular time and place. You are not 'confessing to the offence'.
To all in intents and purposes, yes you are. Once you have named yourself as the driver, the points are going on your licence, whether you like it or not. The only evidence required from the prosecution is proof the equipment used to catch you was 'calibrated' some years ago.SS2. said:
zarjaz1991 said:
They can now make any error they like, doesn't even matter if the entire street is wrong, the law allows them such enormous leeway for error so it doesn't matter.
They can't, and it doesThe police have absolute protection when it comes to minor motoring offences. If they say you did it, then you did it, and there's not a damn thing anybody without access to top lawyers can do about it.
zarjaz1991 said:
SS2. said:
By completing the s.172 notice, you are simply confirming you (or A N Other) was driving a particular vehicle at a particular time and place. You are not 'confessing to the offence'.
To all in intents and purposes, yes you are. zarjaz1991 said:
Once you have named yourself as the driver, the points are going on your licence, whether you like it or not.
Not true.zarjaz1991 said:
The only evidence required from the prosecution is proof the equipment used to catch you was 'calibrated' some years ago.
Not true.zarjaz1991 said:
The police have absolute protection when it comes to minor motoring offences. If they say you did it, then you did it, and there's not a damn thing anybody without access to top lawyers can do about it.
Not true.SS2. said:
zarjaz1991 said:
SS2. said:
By completing the s.172 notice, you are simply confirming you (or A N Other) was driving a particular vehicle at a particular time and place. You are not 'confessing to the offence'.
To all in intents and purposes, yes you are. zarjaz1991 said:
Once you have named yourself as the driver, the points are going on your licence, whether you like it or not.
Not true.zarjaz1991 said:
The only evidence required from the prosecution is proof the equipment used to catch you was 'calibrated' some years ago.
Not true.zarjaz1991 said:
The police have absolute protection when it comes to minor motoring offences. If they say you did it, then you did it, and there's not a damn thing anybody without access to top lawyers can do about it.
Not true.As I stated, it is now in effect compulsory to confess to the offence once a NIP is sent.
You only have two options:
1. Admit you were the driver...thus confessing to the offence
2. Refuse to name the driver, in which case you will be prosecuted for failing to confess as instructed.
You can name another driver, in which case the above applies to them instead.
The onus should be on the prosecution to prove you were the driver. That's how it is for other offences. But that would interfere in the smooth and simple allocation of mass convictions and fine collection, so the law was changed to effectively force you to confess. A very dangerous precedent which everyone seems to have simply accepted. So we now have a situation whereby the authorities decide you have committed an offence, and so you have, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, and refuse to confess, you'll be prosecuted for that instead.
You only have two options:
1. Admit you were the driver...thus confessing to the offence
2. Refuse to name the driver, in which case you will be prosecuted for failing to confess as instructed.
You can name another driver, in which case the above applies to them instead.
The onus should be on the prosecution to prove you were the driver. That's how it is for other offences. But that would interfere in the smooth and simple allocation of mass convictions and fine collection, so the law was changed to effectively force you to confess. A very dangerous precedent which everyone seems to have simply accepted. So we now have a situation whereby the authorities decide you have committed an offence, and so you have, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, and refuse to confess, you'll be prosecuted for that instead.
zarjaz1991 said:
As I stated, it is now in effect compulsory to confess to the offence once a NIP is sent.
You only have two options:
1. Admit you were the driver...thus confessing to the offence
2. Refuse to name the driver, in which case you will be prosecuted for failing to confess as instructed.
You can name another driver, in which case the above applies to them instead.
The onus should be on the prosecution to prove you were the driver. That's how it is for other offences. But that would interfere in the smooth and simple allocation of mass convictions and fine collection, so the law was changed to effectively force you to confess. A very dangerous precedent which everyone seems to have simply accepted. So we now have a situation whereby the authorities decide you have committed an offence, and so you have, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, and refuse to confess, you'll be prosecuted for that instead.
The trouble is when you have issues with the law it tends to cloud your judgement. You only have two options:
1. Admit you were the driver...thus confessing to the offence
2. Refuse to name the driver, in which case you will be prosecuted for failing to confess as instructed.
You can name another driver, in which case the above applies to them instead.
The onus should be on the prosecution to prove you were the driver. That's how it is for other offences. But that would interfere in the smooth and simple allocation of mass convictions and fine collection, so the law was changed to effectively force you to confess. A very dangerous precedent which everyone seems to have simply accepted. So we now have a situation whereby the authorities decide you have committed an offence, and so you have, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, and refuse to confess, you'll be prosecuted for that instead.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff