S172 for excess speed - wrong location cited for camera

[Who me ?]

Bigends said:

Remember, pre automated speed enforcement we used to stop and process all speeders at the roadside -

However in pre auto days ,enforcement was done by folks with no targets, either financial or otherwise ,and who knew East from west. Makes us wonder the depths the speed enforcement organization has sunk to ( not really with an ex submariner involved) . What next, camera op suspended for knowing his left hand from right ?

[Bigends]

SS2. said:

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.

A s.172 notice doesn't compel you to admit any offence.

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'.

A S172, in effect, compels you to admit the offence if you were driving

No, it doesn't - 'in effect' or otherwise.

You admit to driving - you were the speeder

[Boosted LS1]

That's what they like to hear.

[SS2.]

Bigends said:

You admit to driving - you were the speeder

You admit to driving, that's all - unless you choose to dispose of the matter by course or FPN, they still need to prove to the required criminal standard that you were speeding.

[zarjaz1991]

SS2. said:

You admit to driving, that's all - unless you choose to dispose of the matter by course or FPN, they still need to prove to the required criminal standard that you were speeding.

No they don't, not in practice. They simply assert that you were, that's enough.

Nobody without access to top lawyers can do a damn thing about it, whether they have a case or not. And if you have the audacity to try on your own, they will throw the book at you for wasting their time.

It is no longer a proper judicial process, it is an administrative process.

[SS2.]

zarjaz1991 said:

SS2. said:

You admit to driving, that's all - unless you choose to dispose of the matter by course or FPN, they still need to prove to the required criminal standard that you were speeding.

No they don't, not in practice.

Yes, they do.

zarjaz1991 said:

[Nobody without access to top lawyers can do a damn thing about it, whether they have a case or not.

I have done, without a solicitor on board and, if I was innocent or aware of a fundamental procedural or evidential flaw, I'd do it all over again.

zarjaz1991 said:

[And if you have the audacity to try on your own, they will throw the book at you for wasting their time.

Last time I took a [NIP & s.172] speeding allegation to court, the only thing thrown my way was a not guilty verdict and my costs.

[No ideas for a name]

SS2. said:

Last time I took a [NIP & s.172] speeding allegation to court, the only thing thrown my way was a not guilty verdict and my costs.

Same here. I accepted I was driving the vehicle, but I was falsely accused of exceeding the limit. I took it to court without legal representation.
Case was dropped after two visits to court, I was awarded my costs.

Not a process I enjoyed going through - but I was damn sure I wasn't going to accept being charged with something I hadn't done.

[SS2.]

No ideas for a name said:

SS2. said:

Last time I took a [NIP & s.172] speeding allegation to court, the only thing thrown my way was a not guilty verdict and my costs.

Same here. I accepted I was driving the vehicle, but I was falsely accused of exceeding the limit. I took it to court without legal representation.
Case was dropped after two visits to court, I was awarded my costs.

Not a process I enjoyed going through - but I was damn sure I wasn't going to accept being charged with something I hadn't done.

Quite - a completed s.172 form in which you nominate yourself as the driver is not an automatic slam-dunk to conviction, as some on here continue to assert.

Well done, by the way.

[The Mad Monk]

zarjaz1991 said:

If you challenge something like that, they will simply bring a copper to court who will lie under oath. If you're really lucky, like me, the same copper and his mate will also threaten you on your way out of the court building as well for having the audacity to challenge them.

You haven't got a chip on your shoulder, have you?

[XCP]

SS2. said:

Quite - a completed s.172 form in which you nominate yourself as the driver is not an automatic slam-dunk to conviction, as some on here continue to assert.

Well done, by the way.

s.172, or it's equivalent, has been around since The Road Traffic Act of 1930. It is also used for a lot more than speeding.

[Dagnir]

Boosted LS1 said:

Dagnir said:

Just suck it up ffs.

Jeeez everyone trying to shirk their resonsibilites/consequences!

Why should you 'suck it up' if there's a chance they've not got their house in order? They invented the rules so should at least abide by them if they expect us to.

...because the driver was in the wrong. it's pretty simple.

[No ideas for a name]

Dagnir said:

...because the driver was in the wrong. it's pretty simple.

Yes, which brings us full circle.
The OP was asking if a small error in location made any difference, though he did accept he had commited the offence.
It is a fair question, which was answered in post 2 - no, it makes no difference.

The OP was big enough to take the punishment if it was due.
We then got derailed about the system being unfair etc.

If you believe you haven't committed the offence, then you are able to defend it.
If you think you have committed it, then you should really take the punishment.

[Pupp]

Crikey... that's quite a fight, even by PH standards; but thanks to all for the contributions.

It was me driving and I have no grounds to dispute the claimed speed etc. The only possible issue is the fact of the *wrongly* described evidence and. although perfectly qualified and capable to check the relevant law, thought I'd test it on here before doing so... not a case of trying to avoid/evade due process but happen to believe quite strongly in the rule of law so was simply interested in whether a technical defence might exist before engaging (do it properly; we pay enough for that),

Going to 'fess to being the driver but will point out the description of camera capture is wrong. Up to them then and be interesting whether any natural justice filter comes into play or whether it follows an inevitable and dogmatic course to disposal. I'm not betting

[Bigends]

Pupp said:

Crikey... that's quite a fight, even by PH standards; but thanks to all for the contributions.

It was me driving and I have no grounds to dispute the claimed speed etc. The only possible issue is the fact of the *wrongly* described evidence and. although perfectly qualified and capable to check the relevant law, thought I'd test it on here before doing so... not a case of trying to avoid/evade due process but happen to believe quite strongly in the rule of law so was simply interested in whether a technical defence might exist before engaging (do it properly; we pay enough for that),

Going to 'fess to being the driver but will point out the description of camera capture is wrong. Up to them then and be interesting whether any natural justice filter comes into play or whether it follows an inevitable and dogmatic course to disposal. I'm not betting

I posted earlier this is sloppy work. Had it been a court charge containing such an inaccuracy it would have to be amended before the court heard it

[SS2.]

Pupp said:

The only possible issue is the fact of the *wrongly* described evidence and. although perfectly qualified and capable to check the relevant law, thought I'd test it on here before doing so... not a case of trying to avoid/evade due process but happen to believe quite strongly in the rule of law so was simply interested in whether a technical defence might exist before engaging,

There is no requirement to provide the location of the camera on a Notice of Intended Prosecution.

That they've advised the camera location but done so incorrectly will not invalidate the notice. That said, there's absolutely no harm in letting them know about their 'error' at the same time as you return the completed s.172 form.

I'd be incredibly surprised if they quietly dropped the matter on that basis, but stranger things have happened - probably.

[Boosted LS1]

Dagnir said:

Boosted LS1 said:

Dagnir said:

Just suck it up ffs.

Jeeez everyone trying to shirk their resonsibilites/consequences!

Why should you 'suck it up' if there's a chance they've not got their house in order? They invented the rules so should at least abide by them if they expect us to.

...because the driver was in the wrong. it's pretty simple.

Is the system right? It's not that simple at all as I said above. The prosecution needs to be tested to prove it's case so I'll test it if I can. Obviously I have to weigh up the punishment for trying and failing and decide if it's worth it. There have been numerous dodgy convictions in the past. Most just 'suck' it up and not always because they were in the wrong.