I suppose it was just a matter of time....
Discussion
I am now the proud owner of my very first NIP courtesy of the chimp 46 in a 40.
At first I thought the usual "pay up and shut up" but I went to see where the alleged offence took place according to the NIP and its right on the edge of a 40 zone before it goes to 50. Middle of the countryside, no junction, no schools, no pavements just a few sheep, a couple of cows grazing (I know they stand up on their hind legs again as soon as I'm out of sight a la Far Side) oh and a pig.
So now methinks this is especially harsh, predictably.
I fill in the details within the timescales and decide that I really am innocent until proven guilty so would like to see the evidence but there's nowhere on the NIP to request a looksee.
I attach a note to the NIP stating that whilst I am compliant with the requirements by returning the details it is NOT an admission of guilt and want to see the evidence and so withold my signature in order that the case does not get automatically processed.
There is a slight aside here cos I saw the lovely van really early and made sure I was under the 50 limit it was in. It was parked off the side of the road obscured by a hedge and was low down so IIRC if my pic has my ugly mug on it - blah blah data protection, human rights blah blah (could be a straw worth cluching at).
Any views would be much appreciated - after all of this it may well simply be a case of 'you're nicked'
At first I thought the usual "pay up and shut up" but I went to see where the alleged offence took place according to the NIP and its right on the edge of a 40 zone before it goes to 50. Middle of the countryside, no junction, no schools, no pavements just a few sheep, a couple of cows grazing (I know they stand up on their hind legs again as soon as I'm out of sight a la Far Side) oh and a pig.
So now methinks this is especially harsh, predictably.
I fill in the details within the timescales and decide that I really am innocent until proven guilty so would like to see the evidence but there's nowhere on the NIP to request a looksee.
I attach a note to the NIP stating that whilst I am compliant with the requirements by returning the details it is NOT an admission of guilt and want to see the evidence and so withold my signature in order that the case does not get automatically processed.
There is a slight aside here cos I saw the lovely van really early and made sure I was under the 50 limit it was in. It was parked off the side of the road obscured by a hedge and was low down so IIRC if my pic has my ugly mug on it - blah blah data protection, human rights blah blah (could be a straw worth cluching at).
Any views would be much appreciated - after all of this it may well simply be a case of 'you're nicked'
Under the Conditional Offer then there is no obligation to disclose evidence. It is simply an admin procedure for those who consider themselves 'Guilty" and wish to get the matter over and done with. If evidence is required then one should enter a plea of Not Guilty and go for a Court hearing which results in a full disclosure of evidence.
In the Idris case the High Court came to a decision that Form under 172 (name driver)sent with NOIP had to be completed and signed. Failure to do so gives them the right to prosecute for failing to name driver.
DVD
In the Idris case the High Court came to a decision that Form under 172 (name driver)sent with NOIP had to be completed and signed. Failure to do so gives them the right to prosecute for failing to name driver.
DVD
lanciachris said:
Under the Conditional Offer then there is no obligation to disclose evidence.
That cant be right... in any prosecution both sides evidence has to be disclosed and made available before the case can proceed. Of course if you choose not to view it..
Is that 'right' as in just, or 'right' as in indicative of the current interpretation of the law? It is definition 2 and it probably isn't definition 1.
You can only view the evidence against you if you enter a plea of 'not guilty'. The NIP just asks you to name the driver. If you're not guilty of speeding, put your name down and plead not guilty.
Or just go to www.pepipoo.com fightback forums.
Or just go to www.pepipoo.com fightback forums.
Jewhoo said:
Of course you can't be sure that you aren't guilty unless you see the evidence....
Exactly, its basically asking for money with menaces and goes against the concept of "natural justice" that the British legal system is based on. If everyone exhausts every possible legal avenue before paying up the sytem will crack. The problem is that most people don't bother to fight it and so the gravy train carries on its merry way
A couple of technical points to consider:
How far outside the 40 mph speed limit was the van? If a reasonable distance (maybe 400m or so) then dependent on the environment they may not be able to prove you were actually still inside the 40 mph zone when they 'got' you.
Also request the police officer's service number, this is for the police officer who formed the impression of excess speed before using the speed measurement device.
How far outside the 40 mph speed limit was the van? If a reasonable distance (maybe 400m or so) then dependent on the environment they may not be able to prove you were actually still inside the 40 mph zone when they 'got' you.
Also request the police officer's service number, this is for the police officer who formed the impression of excess speed before using the speed measurement device.
I pleaded not guilty, 56 in a 50 and went to court, magistrates ruled that the equipment was home office approved and the officers were properly trained so i must have been speeding.
Cost me £800 plus costs. four points
If you plead not guilty, dont be suprised if you get a big bill!
Adrian
Cost me £800 plus costs. four points
If you plead not guilty, dont be suprised if you get a big bill!
Adrian
Adrian W said:
I pleaded not guilty, 56 in a 50 and went to court, magistrates ruled that the equipment was home office approved and the officers were properly trained so i must have been speeding.
Cost me £800 plus costs. four points
If you plead not guilty, dont be suprised if you get a big bill!
Adrian
That stinks. 6mph over the limit and your now nearly £1000 worse off and one third of the way to losing your license. I bet the magistrate has never speeded in his/her life
leosayer said:
That stinks. 6mph over the limit and your now nearly £1000 worse off and one third of the way to losing your license. I bet the magistrate has never speeded in his/her life
I am sure I read somewhere that they relaxed the rules on magistrate speeding offences - on the grounds that over a third of applicants would be ineligible.
I think they are allowed 6 points on their own licences now - but I did read this in a popular tabloid und have no idea if they "jazzed it up" a bit.
Interesting that they were parked in a 50 but taking readings in a 40.
When Gwent (or was it South Wales?) boys did that in the temp limit at J24 of the M4 a number of people managed to identify that the point at which their speed was measured was outside the (not very clearly ?) marked boundaries of the speed limit area.
Now in most cases the uppper limit distance for taking a reading will be around 300 meters although the measurement device manufacturers claim longer distances as maximums. Obviously sight lines can influence the actual distance used. You will be more visible to them than they are to you.
However in any circumstances where a speed limit change point is part of the 'site' I think it should be accepted as an automatic challenge since there could easily be a human error when assessing if the measurement distance was indeed inside the limited area - and of course by how much.
It does seem to me that these cash cows in the countryside are potentially more dangerous than those in town and 46 in a 40 just goes to show that the 10% +2 ACPO recommendation no longer applies.
Presumably the police are losing control of the scamera partnerships to the money grabbing local councils.
When Gwent (or was it South Wales?) boys did that in the temp limit at J24 of the M4 a number of people managed to identify that the point at which their speed was measured was outside the (not very clearly ?) marked boundaries of the speed limit area.
Now in most cases the uppper limit distance for taking a reading will be around 300 meters although the measurement device manufacturers claim longer distances as maximums. Obviously sight lines can influence the actual distance used. You will be more visible to them than they are to you.
However in any circumstances where a speed limit change point is part of the 'site' I think it should be accepted as an automatic challenge since there could easily be a human error when assessing if the measurement distance was indeed inside the limited area - and of course by how much.
It does seem to me that these cash cows in the countryside are potentially more dangerous than those in town and 46 in a 40 just goes to show that the 10% +2 ACPO recommendation no longer applies.
Presumably the police are losing control of the scamera partnerships to the money grabbing local councils.
I was in a similar situation, so I wrote them a nice letter saying couldn't remember who was driving could thy send me the photo/video. They sent me a letter back saying they couldn't send me the video but I could view it down at the cop shop. I went down their & they let me view it. It wa quite intersting, you couldn't tell it was me driving from the video. It showed the exact point that they took my speed as it had a distance from the laser unit to the car. What was interesting was that they had the road junction name wrong on the NIP by about 500m. I then sent them a letter filling my name on the NIP however pointing out if they couldn't work out the road name then they probably were not capable of working the equipment correctly and suggested that they cancelled the NIP as I didn't think it would do them any good when if they took me to court I would make them look a bit stupid. They promptly sent me back a condtional offer of a FPN which they gave me 28 days to accept. I ignored it and I have never heard anything else from them. As its more than two years ago I think they have given up. If everyone went took the attitude of I will see you in court then they would stop daft prosecution for 6mph over the limit and stick with people doing stupid speeds. Also the money from courts doesn't go to the scameras.
parrot of doom said:
I just ignore NIPs. They never send out by registered mail, and have easier fish to fry.
Come on, prove I received it!
They don't need to. 1st class is good enough for them unfortunately. 2nd class isn't, so if you get one of those just don't open it.
Incorrect, they do need to prove it. NOIPs that are sent first class are presumed to have arrive "unless the contrary is proved". This means you need to stand up in court and say you didn't receive it within the permitted 14 day window. If you are a credible witness, the prosecution case has no chance of success.
lanciachris said:
Under the Conditional Offer then there is no obligation to disclose evidence.
That cant be right... in any prosecution both sides evidence has to be disclosed and made available before the case can proceed. Of course if you choose not to view it..
DVD is correct. Until you plead not guilty, you are entitled to diddly-squat from the police/CPS.
trev r said:
You DO NOT need to enter a plea before seeing evidence!
see www.notsoaccurate.com
YES YOU DO.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff