Advice please : 35 in a 30
Discussion
Posted on behalf of my brother, just got a NIP through the door for 35 in a 30 on his bike, one of Brunstroms Scamera vans in N Wales.
Given the 10%+2 guidelines what hope does he have of sticking it to them?
On a personal note this is exactly the stuff that makes me so angry about the scameras. On the one hand we have a an excellent rider (we had a long chat last night about some recent rideouts he has had with his local advanced motorcycling group) who takes a pride in his roadcraft, being stung by these scumbags. On the other hand you get the halfwits I saw this morning on the A12 who drive along phone clamped to one ear, driving erratically, stomping on the brakes to get 10mph below for the limit for every scamera they pass
I seem to recall that the not signing loophole has been closed. Is there anything else he can do that doesn't need a day in court and the subsequent risk and stress?
Given the 10%+2 guidelines what hope does he have of sticking it to them?
On a personal note this is exactly the stuff that makes me so angry about the scameras. On the one hand we have a an excellent rider (we had a long chat last night about some recent rideouts he has had with his local advanced motorcycling group) who takes a pride in his roadcraft, being stung by these scumbags. On the other hand you get the halfwits I saw this morning on the A12 who drive along phone clamped to one ear, driving erratically, stomping on the brakes to get 10mph below for the limit for every scamera they pass
I seem to recall that the not signing loophole has been closed. Is there anything else he can do that doesn't need a day in court and the subsequent risk and stress?
35mph is still an offence even if its below the 37mph.
www.pepipoo.com is really the best place to go.
www.pepipoo.com is really the best place to go.
NCOT - I see you have posted on pepipoo. To achieve a more helpful response than the one you got, please read http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=2906 and then post in the judicial process forum. There is a link to the PACE statement and the case of Mawdesley which decides that pace does apply to S172 i.e. if there is no caution then the evidence is not likely to be admitted, however you have still complied with the NIP requirements. It is best to drag it out as long as possible.
It will take some reaserch, but it is possible to fight it - as far as I know, PACE cases are usually discontinued before reaching trial.
HTH
>> Edited by llamekcuf on Thursday 12th May 18:56
It will take some reaserch, but it is possible to fight it - as far as I know, PACE cases are usually discontinued before reaching trial.
HTH
>> Edited by llamekcuf on Thursday 12th May 18:56
llamekcuf> thank you, that is just what I was after. Not very impressed with pepipoo so far, one count of patronising my mathematical abilites (which were correct by the way), followed by another basically said "yeah crap isn't it, take the points" - er yeah, thanks for the help! 
I don't hold out much hope for any other advice from that site if those are the quality of replies...
(and this a couple of days after signing up to a Vauxhall forum to ask a mundane stereo fitting question to be insulted by some halfwit kev with no ability to read - think I'll stick with PH)
I'll have a look at the stuff you linked to, thanks for your help
I don't hold out much hope for any other advice from that site if those are the quality of replies...
(and this a couple of days after signing up to a Vauxhall forum to ask a mundane stereo fitting question to be insulted by some halfwit kev with no ability to read - think I'll stick with PH)
I'll have a look at the stuff you linked to, thanks for your help
Problem is, you take for granted the usually high standard on places such as PH and then when you post on other forums realise how many half wits there really are around. If you struggle with sorting the PACE thingy out, give me a shout. After next weeks exams, ive got quite a bit of free time 
Cheers
Cheers
NcT
The offence is exceeding a speed limit which is done at 31 mph. The Ten per cent plus is an enforcement guideline suggested by ACPO. So at 35 mph enforcement kicks in at first by a Conditional Offer. 50 and over then its a Court appearance and all that entails.
There is a strong counter argument on this PACE defence. In my opinion there is no need for a caution when you get the 172 demand to name a driver. All that this entails is to establish a driver. Once that is known then any further questions there is a need for a caution.
In a case at ECHR Weh v Austria 2004 when the authorities wanted to know the driver then a form demanding that info was held not to comprise the individuals right not to incriminate oneself and it was thrown out.
But lawyers have to make sheckles and clutch at straws to such an extent that I gather it is now practice in some forces to caution a person when they issue a Producer for docs despite at that time having no reason to suspect an offence, a condition that the caution needs.
The PACE argument has been doing the rounds for some time now and if it had credence then it would have been widely known, used and HMG involved in counter legislation.
I also understand that there are a number of cases awaiting judgement at ECHR on similar submissions and until those are resolved then things will stand as they are.
DVD
The offence is exceeding a speed limit which is done at 31 mph. The Ten per cent plus is an enforcement guideline suggested by ACPO. So at 35 mph enforcement kicks in at first by a Conditional Offer. 50 and over then its a Court appearance and all that entails.
There is a strong counter argument on this PACE defence. In my opinion there is no need for a caution when you get the 172 demand to name a driver. All that this entails is to establish a driver. Once that is known then any further questions there is a need for a caution.
In a case at ECHR Weh v Austria 2004 when the authorities wanted to know the driver then a form demanding that info was held not to comprise the individuals right not to incriminate oneself and it was thrown out.
But lawyers have to make sheckles and clutch at straws to such an extent that I gather it is now practice in some forces to caution a person when they issue a Producer for docs despite at that time having no reason to suspect an offence, a condition that the caution needs.
The PACE argument has been doing the rounds for some time now and if it had credence then it would have been widely known, used and HMG involved in counter legislation.
I also understand that there are a number of cases awaiting judgement at ECHR on similar submissions and until those are resolved then things will stand as they are.
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:
There is a strong counter argument on this PACE defence. In my opinion there is no need for a caution when you get the 172 demand to name a driver. All that this entails is to establish a driver. Once that is known then any further questions there is a need for a caution.
The PACE argument attempts to stop the scammers using your information as evidence, that is the crux of the matter. Since the NIP is only asking for information, that's all you give them using the PACE letter.
Think about it. What other crime can you be accused of where the cops can write to you and tell you to fill in the boxes in their 'confession template', telling you they only want information and then transform this information into evidence which they then use against you in court? Don't forget that your forced written confession is often the only evidence they have that you committed the heinous crime in the first place.
IMO, it's a slippery slope from the current NIP-forced confession-conviction situation to one where the right to silence and the right to a fair trial no longer exist. The scammers are chipping away at rights we have enjoyed for centuries.
well done scamerati, another dangerous criminal penalised.Dwight VanDriver said:
There is a strong counter argument on this PACE defence. In my opinion there is no need for a caution when you get the 172 demand to name a driver. All that this entails is to establish a driver. Once that is known then any further questions there is a need for a caution.
As I understand it, the PACE defence can be distinguished from Mawdesley, Francis et al by virtue of the fact that the defendant is not requesting a caution before he fills out the s172 demand, but if it is to be presented to the court as a means of identification of the driver pursuant to s12 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, which allows s172 requests for 'information' to transform into a self-incriminating confession. I don't believe there is case law on that specific point.
DVD, I'm surprised you haven't been over to PePiPoo and contributed as it's right up your street. There's loads of good discussion over there, particularly concerning road traffic law.
Dwight VanDriver said:
NcT
The offence is exceeding a speed limit which is done at 31 mph. The Ten per cent plus is an enforcement guideline suggested by ACPO. So at 35 mph enforcement kicks in at first by a Conditional Offer. 50 and over then its a Court appearance and all that entails.
There is a strong counter argument on this PACE defence. In my opinion there is no need for a caution when you get the 172 demand to name a driver. All that this entails is to establish a driver. Once that is known then any further questions there is a need for a caution.
In a case at ECHR Weh v Austria 2004 when the authorities wanted to know the driver then a form demanding that info was held not to comprise the individuals right not to incriminate oneself and it was thrown out.
But lawyers have to make sheckles and clutch at straws to such an extent that I gather it is now practice in some forces to caution a person when they issue a Producer for docs despite at that time having no reason to suspect an offence, a condition that the caution needs.
The PACE argument has been doing the rounds for some time now and if it had credence then it would have been widely known, used and HMG involved in counter legislation.
I also understand that there are a number of cases awaiting judgement at ECHR on similar submissions and until those are resolved then things will stand as they are.
DVD
Legal issues don't exist in isolation. You say "In my opinion there is no need for a caution when you get the 172 demand to name a driver. All that this entails is to establish a driver."
What it entails is to establish a driver suspected of speeding!
You don't get s172 enquiries as part of a poll or survey.
The s172 request deals with a specific driver at a specific time, ie when a speeding offence is suspected.
>> Edited by kenp on Friday 13th May 00:00
Dwight VanDriver said:
...I gather it is now practice in some forces to caution a person when they issue a Producer for docs despite at that time having no reason to suspect an offence, a condition that the caution needs.
Surely failing to produce docs at roadside (leading to issue of HORT1) could give an officer suspicion that an offence may have been committed, therefore to caution is correct?
[/pedant]
Dwight VanDriver said:
NcT
In a case at ECHR Weh v Austria 2004 when the authorities wanted to know the driver then a form demanding that info was held not to comprise the individuals right not to incriminate oneself and it was thrown out.
DVD
This is a very misleading summary. In the above case, the enquiry as to who was the driver at a particular car was not a precursor to criminal proceedings, indeed the ECHR held that such proceeding were 'remote and hypothetical and they went on to distinguish it from what we might call s172 cases.
If in doubt here is the summary of the relevant part of the ECHR's judgement.
56. The Court reiterates that it is not called upon to pronounce on the existence or otherwise of potential violations of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis, Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 35, § 90). It considers that, in the present case, the link between the applicant's obligation under section 130 § 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act to disclose the driver of his car and possible criminal proceedings for speeding against him remains remote and hypothetical. However, without a sufficiently concrete link with these criminal proceedings the use of compulsory powers (i.e. the imposition of a fine) to obtain information does not raise an issue with regard to the applicant's right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination.
56
57. Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Dibble said:Note the pedant switch was on Dibble, but no way! Do you show your warrant card to every motorist or MoP you converse with? If not there's a suspicion you're impersonating a police officer, and you should caution yourself
Surely failing to produce docs at roadside (leading to issue of HORT1) could give an officer suspicion that an offence may have been committed, therefore to caution is correct? [/pedant]
kenp said:
NcT
In a case at ECHR Weh v Austria 2004 when the authorities wanted to know the driver then a form demanding that info was held not to comprise the individuals right not to incriminate oneself and it was thrown out.
DVD
This is a very misleading summary. In the above case, the enquiry as to who was the driver at a particular car was not a precursor to criminal proceedings, indeed the ECHR held that such proceeding were 'remote and hypothetical and they went on to distinguish it from what we might call s172 cases.
If in doubt here is the summary of the relevant part of the ECHR's judgement.
56. The Court reiterates that it is not called upon to pronounce on the existence or otherwise of potential violations of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis, Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 35, § 90). It considers that, in the present case, the link between the applicant's obligation under section 130 § 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act to disclose the driver of his car and possible criminal proceedings for speeding against him remains remote and hypothetical. However, without a sufficiently concrete link with these criminal proceedings the use of compulsory powers (i.e. the imposition of a fine) to obtain information does not raise an issue with regard to the applicant's right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination.
56
57. Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Weh case does distinguish the facts of the particular decision from s172 cases. There are several PACE cases awaiting jud review, and several others prepared to take it to ECHR level if necessary. A PACE letter, which gives them no evidence to submit as to the offence (failing to disclose) is quite likely to do the trick - with these things you take your chances. Giving them a run for their money has got to be better than bending over!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff