S172 for excess speed - wrong location cited for camera
Discussion
Boosted LS1 said:
It gives the prosecution a name to pursue. This is perhaps a better understanding. It's like dobbing yourself in at the custody sergeant's desk but without making a confession.
Except that the default position is then "you did it, here's the fine and points". Making it effectively a confession.zarjaz1991 said:
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.
The law hasn't been changed to facilitate "smooth and simple allocation of mass convictions and fine collection". The legislation requiring the driver of a vehicle to be named when an offence is suspected pre dates widespread automated speed enforcement by decades.Cat
zarjaz1991 said:
Except that the default position is then "you did it, here's the fine and points". Making it effectively a confession.
I understand that you think it is stacked against you, but...It is actually "You admit to being the driver, do you want to take the fine and points OR would you like to challege it in court if you disagree"
In my case, I accepted being the driver, didn't agree with the speed, took it to court - and they found in my favour.
Replying saying you are the driver is definately not the same as accepting the offence.
Boosted LS1 said:
Maybe the big difference is that with other suspected offences you wouldn't be prosecuted for witholding information. You have a right to silence and are under no obligation to assist with a possible prosecution.
Drink driving legislation compels you to provide a specimen which may be used to assist in your prosecution, if you withold the specimen it's an offence. There are other examples. Cat
HantsRat said:
zarjaz1991 said:
1. Admit you were the driver...thus confessing to the offence
Utter tosh. This has nothing to do with admitting to the offence. Cat said:
zarjaz1991 said:
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.
The law hasn't been changed to facilitate "smooth and simple allocation of mass convictions and fine collection". The legislation requiring the driver of a vehicle to be named when an offence is suspected pre dates widespread automated speed enforcement by decades.Cat
Bigends said:
Is it any different to being shown a bloke wearing a red jumper shoplifting, then admitting to being that bloke in the red jumper? What would the likely outcome be? Arent you pretty much admitting to being the thief?
No. It is like being shown a bloke wearing a red jumper who they think is shoplifting, then admitting to be the bloke in the red jumper.They *think* he has been shoplifting. He may be able to prove otherwise.
Of course, the bloke then has to prove a negative, which can be tricky.
Cat said:
Drink driving legislation compels you to provide a specimen which may be used to assist in your prosecution, if you withold the specimen it's an offence. There are other examples.
Cat
But in that case, the police are required to have actually caught you at the wheel of the car. That you are the suspect is not in question, and the specimen is merely to provide the evidence now that the suspect is known.Cat
In NIP speeding cases, the police have no idea who the suspect is, and the law REQUIRES the suspect to effectively incriminate themselves by turning themselves in, to the extent that NOT doing so renders them liable to prosecution in its own right.
No ideas for a name said:
Bigends said:
Is it any different to being shown a bloke wearing a red jumper shoplifting, then admitting to being that bloke in the red jumper? What would the likely outcome be? Arent you pretty much admitting to being the thief?
No. It is like being shown a bloke wearing a red jumper who they think is shoplifting, then admitting to be the bloke in the red jumper.They *think* he has been shoplifting. He may be able to prove otherwise.
Of course, the bloke then has to prove a negative, which can be tricky.
No ideas for a name said:
I understand that you think it is stacked against you, but...
It is actually "You admit to being the driver, do you want to take the fine and points"
What fine and points? Supposedly, innocent until proven guilty, so there are no fine and points to accept, at that point.It is actually "You admit to being the driver, do you want to take the fine and points"
Except, as I say, the rules have been changed, guilt is assumed, and the registered keeper of the vehicle is COMPELLED BY LAW to admit the offence, or else be prosecuted for failing to admit it.
The alternative is a court case where firstly the only evidence needed is "we calibrated the equipment" and secondly, once that's out of the way and you are convicted, the penalty is many multiples greater than if you'd just done as you were told in the first place.
This isn't justice or a legal system, it's bulk administrative processing without scrutiny of or regard to the legitimacy of the charge.
Bigends said:
Ok - hes clearly seen to take the goods and walk out without paying - no suspicion - the offence is made out.
But he is not compelled to admit the offence and if he refuses, he will have his day in court where the prosecution MUST prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.Not the case with speeding offences - if you refuse to confess, you are simply prosecuted for failing to confess.
zarjaz1991 said:
But in that case, the police are required to have actually caught you at the wheel of the car. That you are the suspect is not in question, and the specimen is merely to provide the evidence now that the suspect is known.
Boosted's point was that with other offences you are not prosecuted for witholding information. That is clearly not the case.There is no requirement for the police to catch someone behind the wheel of a car - reasonable cause to suspect that someone has been driving with alcohol in their system and that they still have alcohol in their system is sufficient to compel them.
If the person refuses to provide and it can be shown that the reasonable grounds existed when the requirement was made then the person commits an offence even if they later show they hadn't in fact been driving.
As an other example, lorry drivers are required to keep records of their driving hours. They can be complled to provide these records even though they may incriminate themselves by doing so. There is no requirement for them to be suspected of an offence when they are required to produce the incriminating evidence. Failing to provide the required records is an offence.
Cat
zarjaz1991 said:
Bigends said:
Ok - hes clearly seen to take the goods and walk out without paying - no suspicion - the offence is made out.
But he is not compelled to admit the offence and if he refuses, he will have his day in court where the prosecution MUST prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.Not the case with speeding offences - if you refuse to confess, you are simply prosecuted for failing to confess.
Edited by Bigends on Thursday 13th July 18:05
zarjaz1991 said:
Bigends said:
Ok - hes clearly seen to take the goods and walk out without paying - no suspicion - the offence is made out.
But he is not compelled to admit the offence and if he refuses, he will have his day in court where the prosecution MUST prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.zarjaz1991 said:
Not the case with speeding offences - if you refuse to confess, you are simply prosecuted for failing to confess.
Nope. If you refuse to nominate the driver, you may be prosecuted for failing to provide driver details.You will not be prosecuted for 'failing to confess'.
Cat said:
zarjaz1991 said:
Boosted's point was that with other offences you are not prosecuted for witholding information. That is clearly not the case.
Cat
Not quite what I meant. With most offences you have the right to silence and aren't penalised for not incrimitating yourself. You'll get my drift even if I've not phrased it correctly.Cat
This has been a very bent and punitive system for years but people have just come to accept it as the norm. It's seen as an unavoidable tax. It's a cash cow revenue stream and it's been accepted more or less.
just out of interest, are the magistrates courts still a part of the safety partnership? Camera's, police and magistrates dealing out fair justice? It still stinks to me.
SS2. said:
zarjaz1991 said:
Bigends said:
Ok - hes clearly seen to take the goods and walk out without paying - no suspicion - the offence is made out.
But he is not compelled to admit the offence and if he refuses, he will have his day in court where the prosecution MUST prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.zarjaz1991 said:
Not the case with speeding offences - if you refuse to confess, you are simply prosecuted for failing to confess.
Nope. If you refuse to nominate the driver, you may be prosecuted for failing to provide driver details.You will not be prosecuted for 'failing to confess'.
Bigends said:
SS2. said:
zarjaz1991 said:
Bigends said:
Ok - hes clearly seen to take the goods and walk out without paying - no suspicion - the offence is made out.
But he is not compelled to admit the offence and if he refuses, he will have his day in court where the prosecution MUST prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.zarjaz1991 said:
Not the case with speeding offences - if you refuse to confess, you are simply prosecuted for failing to confess.
Nope. If you refuse to nominate the driver, you may be prosecuted for failing to provide driver details.You will not be prosecuted for 'failing to confess'.
They get their money either way.
In a normal situation the prosecution would have to prove who committed the crime from scratch.
If safety was the real issue I'd like to see campaigns on tv to help motorists and pedestrians alike. Just dumbing down on speeding isn't going to fool anybody. Everybody speeds at some point hence all the speed traps, kerching!
In a normal situation the prosecution would have to prove who committed the crime from scratch.
If safety was the real issue I'd like to see campaigns on tv to help motorists and pedestrians alike. Just dumbing down on speeding isn't going to fool anybody. Everybody speeds at some point hence all the speed traps, kerching!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff