Help needed on speeding offence.
Discussion
To all you legal types out there, I need some help and advice concerning a speeding offence.
The date of the offence was the 28th of december 2002, place A45 running to Coventry, speed limit 50mph speed of offence 59mph. Caught by forward facing mobile Scamera.
The car is registered to the wife but she was not driving at the time, she contacted the police department in question as her previous letter appeared not to have reached them,to discuss the ticket, as several people (including me) are insured to drive her car and she can't remember who was driving at the time. During her conversation the ticketing department admitted that they cannot identify the driver from the photographic evidence which my wife requested (the police would not allow her to view the evidence or even send a copy!!), which, leaves my wife in a very precarious situation. She has admitted she was not driving but dosn't want to incriminate anyone else (which is fair enough). The police are threatening to send her to court for obstruction of justice and for not keeping adequate information of persons using her vehicle. This is frightening her as having never been to court before this is obviously very daunting, and could lead to an even bigger fine than what I suspect will be 6 points and a £200 fine if somebody owns up!!
Should she fight this through the court and talk to the CPS and get a good barrister/ lawyer, or would it be easier to get somebody to own up and take the hit like a man??
The date of the offence was the 28th of december 2002, place A45 running to Coventry, speed limit 50mph speed of offence 59mph. Caught by forward facing mobile Scamera.
The car is registered to the wife but she was not driving at the time, she contacted the police department in question as her previous letter appeared not to have reached them,to discuss the ticket, as several people (including me) are insured to drive her car and she can't remember who was driving at the time. During her conversation the ticketing department admitted that they cannot identify the driver from the photographic evidence which my wife requested (the police would not allow her to view the evidence or even send a copy!!), which, leaves my wife in a very precarious situation. She has admitted she was not driving but dosn't want to incriminate anyone else (which is fair enough). The police are threatening to send her to court for obstruction of justice and for not keeping adequate information of persons using her vehicle. This is frightening her as having never been to court before this is obviously very daunting, and could lead to an even bigger fine than what I suspect will be 6 points and a £200 fine if somebody owns up!!
Should she fight this through the court and talk to the CPS and get a good barrister/ lawyer, or would it be easier to get somebody to own up and take the hit like a man??
Get a nice solicitor to write to them!
I've never heard of a private car owner being prosecuted for failing to maintain records of persons driving their car, to be honest, I'm at a loss as to what legislation the Police would proceed under.
As for obstruction, they need to provide the identity of the individual officer who has been obstructed by your wife in the execution of his or her duty - interesting in what will be a primarily civilian department.
If they were obtuse enough to try to proceed on these facts if all is as you have described, I'd love to see the disclosure of the Police case prior to court!
I can't see this going anywhere fast.
Sorry about the pun!
I've never heard of a private car owner being prosecuted for failing to maintain records of persons driving their car, to be honest, I'm at a loss as to what legislation the Police would proceed under.
As for obstruction, they need to provide the identity of the individual officer who has been obstructed by your wife in the execution of his or her duty - interesting in what will be a primarily civilian department.
If they were obtuse enough to try to proceed on these facts if all is as you have described, I'd love to see the disclosure of the Police case prior to court!
I can't see this going anywhere fast.
Sorry about the pun!
During her conversation the ticketing department admitted that they cannot identify the driver from the photographic evidence which my wife requested (the police would not allow her to view the evidence or even send a copy!!), which, leaves my wife in a very precarious situation.
Hmm. They have to show you the evidence if you request it i believe.
Guys
Thanks for the responses.
One thing I am very worried about are the ramifications of what is happning here. They cannot prove who was driving at the time, My wife obviously dosn't want to and reasonably can't shop somebody in. She even offered to take the points and fine herself when the lady officer in the Warwickshire station said that was now not possible especially as my wife had just admitted she wasn't driving, they would charge her with falsifying information if she then in retrospect said she was driving.
I get the feeling all they want is to prosecute somebody for something regardless as to what the offence is.
As regards to the picture, my wife offered to come to the station to review the picture, but the police said it was not worthwile, as nothing could been seen of either passenger or driver due to the reflections on the windscreen. What happens if they then try to use this evidence should she go to court?
I believe the police are refering to the information which my wife must supply I.e. who was the driver of the vehicle at the time, when they are refering to falsifying of information.
For my mind I am condsidering going to the CAB firt of all to speak to a solicter FOC before jumping into hiring one.
Also another point none of the documents provided identifies the type of equipement used for capturing the offence. The lady at the CEU (camera enforcement unit) says it was a mobile camera but this calls into question her assertations regarding the calibration of said camera. Aren't these cameras meant to be calibrated on the day by a drive past of a unit with a calibrated speedometer? Should they not also show a calibration certificate valid for the unit as well?
I will let you all know how things proceed.
Please keep the advice coming.
Thanks for the responses.
One thing I am very worried about are the ramifications of what is happning here. They cannot prove who was driving at the time, My wife obviously dosn't want to and reasonably can't shop somebody in. She even offered to take the points and fine herself when the lady officer in the Warwickshire station said that was now not possible especially as my wife had just admitted she wasn't driving, they would charge her with falsifying information if she then in retrospect said she was driving.
I get the feeling all they want is to prosecute somebody for something regardless as to what the offence is.
As regards to the picture, my wife offered to come to the station to review the picture, but the police said it was not worthwile, as nothing could been seen of either passenger or driver due to the reflections on the windscreen. What happens if they then try to use this evidence should she go to court?
I believe the police are refering to the information which my wife must supply I.e. who was the driver of the vehicle at the time, when they are refering to falsifying of information.
For my mind I am condsidering going to the CAB firt of all to speak to a solicter FOC before jumping into hiring one.
Also another point none of the documents provided identifies the type of equipement used for capturing the offence. The lady at the CEU (camera enforcement unit) says it was a mobile camera but this calls into question her assertations regarding the calibration of said camera. Aren't these cameras meant to be calibrated on the day by a drive past of a unit with a calibrated speedometer? Should they not also show a calibration certificate valid for the unit as well?
I will let you all know how things proceed.
Please keep the advice coming.
If you don't know who was driving, then what the hell can they do. Ask for the photo so you can help identify them. If they can't provide it then I don't see they have much of a case.
Its interesting as the forward facers are coming into vogue to stop this kind of problem. The fact that they are doing this supports the argument that a lot of people are getting away with it
To all you legal types out there, I need some help and advice concerning a speeding offence.
The date of the offence was the 28th of december 2002, place A45 running to Coventry, speed limit 50mph speed of offence 59mph. Caught by forward facing mobile Scamera.
The car is registered to the wife but she was not driving at the time, she contacted the police department in question as her previous letter appeared not to have reached them,to discuss the ticket, as several people (including me) are insured to drive her car and she can't remember who was driving at the time. During her conversation the ticketing department admitted that they cannot identify the driver from the photographic evidence which my wife requested (the police would not allow her to view the evidence or even send a copy!!), which, leaves my wife in a very precarious situation. She has admitted she was not driving but dosn't want to incriminate anyone else (which is fair enough). The police are threatening to send her to court for obstruction of justice and for not keeping adequate information of persons using her vehicle. This is frightening her as having never been to court before this is obviously very daunting, and could lead to an even bigger fine than what I suspect will be 6 points and a £200 fine if somebody owns up!!
Should she fight this through the court and talk to the CPS and get a good barrister/ lawyer, or would it be easier to get somebody to own up and take the hit like a man??
FIRTLY SEE MY POSTS HERE www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=28512&f=10&h=0
see also http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/010830/226/c2jwv.html
www.abd.org.uk/righttosilence.htm
fIRSTLY NEVER SEND THEM ANY THING WITH OUT KEEPING COPYS AND RECORDING IT.
No the police legaly do not have to show you the pics. however the cps do, if theye press on with it . Theye are must provide it to your your defence.
It is some time hard to get em to hand it over but stick to your guns and it will be fourth coming.
if cps dont hand it over write to the head of the cps in your area and ask for a writen explenation way
The police and criminal evidence act dont apply to speeding case in your area.
(the evidence will be will vey soon after that)
if you dont get they can ues it as evidencein court.
The police are threatening to send her to court for obstruction of justice .
there just trying it on with that. there no posible chance of a conviction of that.
This is frightening her as having never been to court before this is obviously very daunting
Thats exactly what there trying to do.
FAQ
s.172 and the Road Traffic Act 1988
December 2000
S 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires the keeper of a vehicle to answer questions as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle where the driver is alleged to have been involved in a motoring offence. Does this infringe Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair trial and the right to silence?
There are two distinct questions
Question 1
1) Is it a breach of Article 6 to require, with a penalty for failing to comply, an owner of a vehicle to name the driver? Is the compulsory nature of the question in breach of the right to a fair trial?
Reply 1
The European Commission of Human Rights considered this in the case of Tora Tolmos v Spain , and said no. The applicant, who had been fined for his refusal to identify the driver of his vehicle, argued a violation of article 6 on the basis that his right not to incriminate himself had been infringed. The Commission found there had been no violation of article 6. See also the case of JP, KR, GH v Austria (app. no 15135/89, 5 September 1989) and the House of Lords decision in R v Hertfordshire County Council ex parte Green Environmental Industries (The Times 22 February 2000) that considered the compulsory questioning powers granted by environmental protection legislation.
Question 2
2) Does the use of an admission obtained by compulsory questioning, at a subsequent trial for the road traffic offence, breach the right to a fair trial?
Reply 2
The subsequent use by the prosecution of a compulsorily acquired answer, in a trial for an offence for which the answer incriminates the keeper, has been held by the European Court of Human Rights to breach the right to a fair trial. The leading Strasbourg decision is Saunders v UK (1996, app. no. 19187/91), which was followed recently in ILJ, GMR and AKP v UK . It was held that the privilege against self-incrimination was an internationally recognised standard which lies at the heart of the notion of a fair trial. To allow the admission of statements made under the compulsory questioning powers of Department of Trade and Industry officers in a subsequent fraud trial was to deny the accused a fair trial.
However, the Privy Council has recently considered this issue in the context of an admission made under s 172 in a Scottish drink driving case, in Procurator Fiscal Dunfermline v Brown (The Times 6 December 2000). In a unanimous decision it held that the right against self-incrimination is implied into article 6, and as it is an implied right it may be limited. The Privy Council held that the interests of the community in road safety means that it is permissible to override the privilege against self-incrimination in the limited circumstances allowed by s 172. This decision is of very high persuasive authority in England and Wales and it is therefore likely that courts will allow the admission of compulsorily acquired s 172 admissions.
This in now curently be appealed to the Europian court
and many belive the appeal will be won.
>> Edited by outlaw on Monday 10th February 15:44
There is no and has never been a legal requirement to keep recods of who drives other than a HGV- despite the connivance of Hampshire police with the CPS and Aldershot Magistrates Court to create an impression that this was an offence.
Outlaw's advice is good
Also see
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=27610&f=10&h=0
Fight them
Outlaw's advice is good
Also see
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=27610&f=10&h=0
Fight them
tvrslag said: Guys
Thanks for the responses.
One thing I am very worried about are the ramifications of what is happning here. They cannot prove who was driving at the time, My wife obviously dosn't want to and reasonably can't shop somebody in.
Section 172 of Road Traffic Act 1988 allows the Chief Officer of Police to serve your wife with a notice which requires her to provide any material details of the driver at the time of the offence. Failure to do so will make her liable to prosecution for failing to notify this information.
If she knows and does not want to shop someone else in, then she must take the punishment. I would advise her to tell who the driver was and let them deal with the resulting summons that arrives.
A noble stance to take but may well cost her dear!
She even offered to take the points and fine herself when the lady officer in the Warwickshire station said that was now not possible especially as my wife had just admitted she wasn't driving, they would charge her with falsifying information if she then in retrospect said she was driving.
If she fails to notify relevant information, she will get a fine and points in any case.
Now she has had the conversation, she could be culpable for attempting to pervert the course of Justice ( 7 years imprisonment, ARCHER got 4 years)by taking the fine for someone else (they may have lots of points and require a period of disqualification) as they will have evidence of her stating those facts.
I get the feeling all they want is to prosecute somebody for something regardless as to what the offence is.
They want to prosecute the speeding driver. They would rather do this than prosecute your wife unless of course she was the speeding driver which she has already told them she is not!
As regards to the picture, my wife offered to come to the station to review the picture, but the police said it was not worthwile, as nothing could been seen of either passenger or driver due to the reflections on the windscreen. What happens if they then try to use this evidence should she go to court?
She has a right under the rules of disclosure of evidence to copies of the photographs. the defence MUST provide all the evidence if she is to plead not guilty to the offence. At the moment she has not been summonsed for that offence so they are not obliged to disclose the pictures until she is. They normally will do though if they feel it will help.
I believe the police are refering to the information which my wife must supply I.e. who was the driver of the vehicle at the time, when they are refering to falsifying of information.
For my mind I am condsidering going to the CAB firt of all to speak to a solicter FOC before jumping into hiring one.
No need to go to CAB. I have given you all the information you need. Check the dates that the Sect 172 notice and NIP Notice of intended prosecution were issued. If they were issued (not received by you) later than 14 days AFTER the date of the alleged offence (15 days in total including the offence day) then they were issued out of time and a prosecution will fail. If that is the case, then you must copy the notice and send it back with a letter to the relevant Administration of Justice Dept stating it was out of time and the prosecution will be dropped.
Also another point none of the documents provided identifies the type of equipement used for capturing the offence. The lady at the CEU (camera enforcement unit) says it was a mobile camera but this calls into question her assertations regarding the calibration of said camera.
They do not have to as stated above re disclosure of evidence. Until your wife is summonsed or charged, she is not entitled to any other evidence.
Aren't these cameras meant to be calibrated on the day by a drive past of a unit with a calibrated speedometer? Should they not also show a calibration certificate valid for the unit as well?
They have built in electronic calibration systems which
operate immediately the machine is switched on. They tell the operator that they are functioning correctly and if they are not, the device will not be used as all detected offeces will be wasted.
Having self checked the device on the electronic calibration within it, normally before the check commences, a Traffic car with a calibrated speedo is driven through the check to gain a belt and braces calibration before the check goes ahead. A similar drive through is done at the completeion of the time period the check is running.
I will let you all know how things proceed.
Please keep the advice coming.
My advice is to tell your wife to give the information if she knows it. She is asking for considerable problems if she does not.
There is a case waiting to go through court at the moment called the 'Idris case' in relation to Article 6 ECHR about the right to not self incriminate yourself. This has not been resolved and many drivers in your wife's position are waiting for the outcome of this case. In the mean time the law, as it stands is correct and failure to comply with this could be problematic for her especially if she now states it was her driving when she has told a Police source she was not (think about Jeffrey Archer).
I hope that helps.
If she knows who was driving she must tell them.
If she can reasonably find out who was driving, she must find out and tell them.
If she hasn't a clue, explain why.
Sounds like plain old intimidation by BiB. They can't take anybody to court. They report for prosecution to the CPS - a lawyer who then considers if they are willing to stand up in court and convince a magistrate with the evidence available. In this case, unquestionable the answer is no - case dropped.
Technically the info on attempt to pervert is right, but if she did take the points, a plea of intimidation to a charge of attempting to pervert would see that charge dropped.
Bottom line - write to the police, explain she cannot identify the driver because more than one person does drive on a regular basis, they have refused to produce evidence to assist her, which she is willing to view, so sorry, but can't help. She'll hear no more about it.
If she can reasonably find out who was driving, she must find out and tell them.
If she hasn't a clue, explain why.
Sounds like plain old intimidation by BiB. They can't take anybody to court. They report for prosecution to the CPS - a lawyer who then considers if they are willing to stand up in court and convince a magistrate with the evidence available. In this case, unquestionable the answer is no - case dropped.
Technically the info on attempt to pervert is right, but if she did take the points, a plea of intimidation to a charge of attempting to pervert would see that charge dropped.
Bottom line - write to the police, explain she cannot identify the driver because more than one person does drive on a regular basis, they have refused to produce evidence to assist her, which she is willing to view, so sorry, but can't help. She'll hear no more about it.
bobthebench said: If she knows who was driving she must tell them.
If she can reasonably find out who was driving, she must find out and tell them.
If she hasn't a clue, explain why.
Sounds like plain old intimidation by BiB. They can't take anybody to court. They report for prosecution to the CPS - a lawyer who then considers if they are willing to stand up in court and convince a magistrate with the evidence available. In this case, unquestionable the answer is no - case dropped.
Technically the info on attempt to pervert is right, but if she did take the points, a plea of intimidation to a charge of attempting to pervert would see that charge dropped.
Bottom line - write to the police, explain she cannot identify the driver because more than one person does drive on a regular basis, they have refused to produce evidence to assist her, which she is willing to view, so sorry, but can't help. She'll hear no more about it.
Well said
Personaly if it was me bob. I would be banging on the duty inpectors door, asking for a explenation of the intimidation being handed out.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff