Getting off Scamera convictions
Discussion
As promised -
LETTER THAT CAN SAVE YOUR LICENCE
A simple letter using legal wording has opened up a new route to get speeding charges dropped, according to experts. The statement is at the centre of a High Court appeal to be heard this summer, but for now police forces across the country are dropping cases when it has been used. People accused of speeding have simply been sending in the statement in response to Notices of Intended Prosecution (NIPs).
Speed cameras rely on a law requiring you to say who was riding your bike (or driving your car) at the time of an alleged offence. Not saying who it was will lead to a charge of withholding information under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, which admitting to being the rider will lead to a fixed penalty for speeding.
But another law says that before suspects are questioned about an offence they should receive a formal caution – and no caution is given when a speeding notice is delivered through the post.
The standard statement, reproduced below, is designed to accompany an admission to being the driver. It points out that, since no caution has been given, the admission cannot be used as evidence in court.
Specialist road traffic lawyer Robert Dobson, whose client’s case is to be heard by the High Court, said: “In English law there’s a requirement that if a statement is going to be used against somebody, that person has to be cautioned under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If a caution hasn’t been given, then the argument runs that anything that’s said cannot be used as evidence in court”.
Dobson added: “We’ve complied with Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act by identifying the driver. But what we’re saying is that we’re not going to allow that information to then be used against us. Any charge under Section 172 must fail as we have complied. And if any charge is brought for speeding, we’ll say, how do you know who was driving?”.
The loophole letter, called the PACE Witness Statement (after the Police and Criminal Evidence Act), is a Catch 22 for police and camera partnerships, according to Dobson.
Even though someone has admitted to being the rider at the time of the offence, that admission can’t be used as evidence as no caution was given. If an officer then visits the rider to caution him, only statements made after that can be used – and a caution gives the right to silence.
Dobson’s client’s case has been funded by anti-speed camera campaigner Mike Morgan, using donations made to his campaign website.
Morgan said: “Forces have dropped cases all over the country. To my knowledge, very few people who have used the letter have been convicted and a lot of cases have been dropped. I believe the Metropolitan Police, and many other forces, have not issued a summons to anybody who has sent back the statement”.
Letter reads:
[insert their reference number here]
[insert your registration number here]
Dear Chief Constable,
Further to the above Notice of Intended Prosecution, I confirm that the following individual was driving the above vehicle at the time of the alleged motoring offence:
[insert all of the details asked for on the NIP here, including name, address, date of birth and driver number]
As this statement is provided under threat of criminal penalty (Funke v France) and as I have not received the caution required by paragraph 10.1 of PACE Code C (Mawdesley v the Chief Constable of Cheshire (2004) 1 All E.R. 58), I make this statement on the express understanding that it shall not be used or disclosed in any proceedings of whatever nature against myself.
Yours sincerely,
[insert your signature here]
[insert your name here]
LETTER THAT CAN SAVE YOUR LICENCE
A simple letter using legal wording has opened up a new route to get speeding charges dropped, according to experts. The statement is at the centre of a High Court appeal to be heard this summer, but for now police forces across the country are dropping cases when it has been used. People accused of speeding have simply been sending in the statement in response to Notices of Intended Prosecution (NIPs).
Speed cameras rely on a law requiring you to say who was riding your bike (or driving your car) at the time of an alleged offence. Not saying who it was will lead to a charge of withholding information under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, which admitting to being the rider will lead to a fixed penalty for speeding.
But another law says that before suspects are questioned about an offence they should receive a formal caution – and no caution is given when a speeding notice is delivered through the post.
The standard statement, reproduced below, is designed to accompany an admission to being the driver. It points out that, since no caution has been given, the admission cannot be used as evidence in court.
Specialist road traffic lawyer Robert Dobson, whose client’s case is to be heard by the High Court, said: “In English law there’s a requirement that if a statement is going to be used against somebody, that person has to be cautioned under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If a caution hasn’t been given, then the argument runs that anything that’s said cannot be used as evidence in court”.
Dobson added: “We’ve complied with Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act by identifying the driver. But what we’re saying is that we’re not going to allow that information to then be used against us. Any charge under Section 172 must fail as we have complied. And if any charge is brought for speeding, we’ll say, how do you know who was driving?”.
The loophole letter, called the PACE Witness Statement (after the Police and Criminal Evidence Act), is a Catch 22 for police and camera partnerships, according to Dobson.
Even though someone has admitted to being the rider at the time of the offence, that admission can’t be used as evidence as no caution was given. If an officer then visits the rider to caution him, only statements made after that can be used – and a caution gives the right to silence.
Dobson’s client’s case has been funded by anti-speed camera campaigner Mike Morgan, using donations made to his campaign website.
Morgan said: “Forces have dropped cases all over the country. To my knowledge, very few people who have used the letter have been convicted and a lot of cases have been dropped. I believe the Metropolitan Police, and many other forces, have not issued a summons to anybody who has sent back the statement”.
Letter reads:
[insert their reference number here]
[insert your registration number here]
Dear Chief Constable,
Further to the above Notice of Intended Prosecution, I confirm that the following individual was driving the above vehicle at the time of the alleged motoring offence:
[insert all of the details asked for on the NIP here, including name, address, date of birth and driver number]
As this statement is provided under threat of criminal penalty (Funke v France) and as I have not received the caution required by paragraph 10.1 of PACE Code C (Mawdesley v the Chief Constable of Cheshire (2004) 1 All E.R. 58), I make this statement on the express understanding that it shall not be used or disclosed in any proceedings of whatever nature against myself.
Yours sincerely,
[insert your signature here]
[insert your name here]
Need something similar for Congestion charge penalties as well?
I forgot to pay the Congestion Charge on the day of travel but remember reading that I could pay the following day, I went to my usual post office & I searched the TFL web site, and I eventually called TFL and they told me:-
This had been misrepresented in the press and the press statement had not come from them, that this will be coming in but not until the late summer and I therefore stood a 50/50 chance of getting this squashed off if I wrote in with this explanation
Wish me luck.
Sam
I forgot to pay the Congestion Charge on the day of travel but remember reading that I could pay the following day, I went to my usual post office & I searched the TFL web site, and I eventually called TFL and they told me:-
This had been misrepresented in the press and the press statement had not come from them, that this will be coming in but not until the late summer and I therefore stood a 50/50 chance of getting this squashed off if I wrote in with this explanation
Wish me luck.
Sam
vetteheadracer said:
I read this in MCN (one of the guys I have been working with this week is a biker).
Sounds like a classic
That's where I got it from
also posted here as well www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=260100&f=23&h=0 interesting that an ex-copper says it should work
Wasnt there another angle ??
I read somewhere that if it goes to court, naturally any evidence relating to prosecution must be available to all parties, otherwise a prosecution cannot take place ( evidence must be in court )
As a matter of course, photographic evidence is not given to the person being prosecuted, so on fact the case goes to court with NO evidence at all.
I read somewhere that if it goes to court, naturally any evidence relating to prosecution must be available to all parties, otherwise a prosecution cannot take place ( evidence must be in court )
As a matter of course, photographic evidence is not given to the person being prosecuted, so on fact the case goes to court with NO evidence at all.
Does this letter work retrospectively?
I filled in a NIP two weeks ago. I requested and saw the photos -which did not show who the driver was, but I figured it wasn't worth the hassle of arguing even though I could have used the Hamilton defence ie "don't know whether it was me or my wife driving at the time".
I received the follow up notice giving me the option of paying £60 +3 points or go to court. But if I can send the suggested letter before hand arguing that "it has been brought to my attention that the statement was provided under threat of criminal penalty...etc" I wonder if that would work?
I filled in a NIP two weeks ago. I requested and saw the photos -which did not show who the driver was, but I figured it wasn't worth the hassle of arguing even though I could have used the Hamilton defence ie "don't know whether it was me or my wife driving at the time".
I received the follow up notice giving me the option of paying £60 +3 points or go to court. But if I can send the suggested letter before hand arguing that "it has been brought to my attention that the statement was provided under threat of criminal penalty...etc" I wonder if that would work?
michaelz16 said:
Does this letter work retrospectively?
I filled in a NIP two weeks ago. I requested and saw the photos -which did not show who the driver was, but I figured it wasn't worth the hassle of arguing even though I could have used the Hamilton defence ie "don't know whether it was me or my wife driving at the time".
I received the follow up notice giving me the option of paying £60 +3 points or go to court. But if I can send the suggested letter before hand arguing that "it has been brought to my attention that the statement was provided under threat of criminal penalty...etc" I wonder if that would work?
There seems to be some logic to the rationale behind the letter so I would say give it a try Mike. Easy to say when it's not me, but let us know how you get on. Good luck
michaelz16 said:
Does this letter work retrospectively?
I filled in a NIP two weeks ago. I requested and saw the photos -which did not show who the driver was, but I figured it wasn't worth the hassle of arguing even though I could have used the Hamilton defence ie "don't know whether it was me or my wife driving at the time".
I received the follow up notice giving me the option of paying £60 +3 points or go to court. But if I can send the suggested letter before hand arguing that "it has been brought to my attention that the statement was provided under threat of criminal penalty...etc" I wonder if that would work?
might be worth posting that on the main PH forum (as above)as there was a response from an excop - he would have more idea than most. Apart from that I would say get legal advise, that got me off once a long time ago
Gixer said:
Does this letter work retrospectively?
I filled in a NIP two weeks ago. I requested and saw the photos -which did not show who the driver was, but I figured it wasn't worth the hassle of arguing even though I could have used the Hamilton defence ie "don't know whether it was me or my wife driving at the time".
I received the follow up notice giving me the option of paying £60 +3 points or go to court. But if I can send the suggested letter before hand arguing that "it has been brought to my attention that the statement was provided under threat of criminal penalty...etc" I wonder if that would work?
might be worth posting that on the main PH forum (as above)as there was a response from an excop - he would have more idea than most. Apart from that I would say get legal advise, that got me off once a long time ago
once you have signed and sent [your] details on their NIP form, the damage is done. if you do get a NIP, send PACE... if you're prepared to take the legal fight to the prosecution. at the point when the prosecution decided to discontinue the charge against me (representing myself), after my second pre-trial, the PACE defence still had not been taken all the way... the CPS just give up - usually the case. Pepipoo.com is the w/site. be prepared to go all the way... soon it will get as far as ECHR (european court of human rights). someone might also decide to take the CPs to court over the NIP/ COFP system as it contravenes your implied right not to incriminate yourself - i couldn't afford it if i took it on and things went wrong, but it'd be very satisfying to give them their points back.
SNIP
If you signed the NIP then they don't need them as you have already admitted guilt.
SNIP
Don’t sign the NIP
I put a sticker on the signature space and said please correspond to my work address but didn’t sign it, by the time I had missed one court appearance and just turned up to a second they didn’t have all the stuff from DVLA and without a signature the case was dismissed
Sam
If you signed the NIP then they don't need them as you have already admitted guilt.
SNIP
Don’t sign the NIP
I put a sticker on the signature space and said please correspond to my work address but didn’t sign it, by the time I had missed one court appearance and just turned up to a second they didn’t have all the stuff from DVLA and without a signature the case was dismissed
Sam
My girlfriend tried to use the letter the other week after receiving a speeding ticket in Warickshire. They sent her back a letter saying that 1)she had forgotten to sign the form and b) that they do not have to issue a caution, stating some legal jargon (I don't have the letter in front of me currently)
I'm beginning to think that maybe she did sign the form but used that as anexcuse to send the letter.
Has this happened to anyone else and what do you reckon she should do? I say send the letter again this time making sure to sign the form as I think Warickshire Police are trying it on?
Any suggestions?
I'm beginning to think that maybe she did sign the form but used that as anexcuse to send the letter.
Has this happened to anyone else and what do you reckon she should do? I say send the letter again this time making sure to sign the form as I think Warickshire Police are trying it on?
Any suggestions?
They are bullshiting you!!! Don't sign it - if your gf has then she has lost as the signiture is an admission of guilt. For them to convict you in court they need to have cautioned you b4 hand. I would really suggest posting the above on the main PH forum as there are more informed people hanging out that will be able to give better advise
This is nonsense. This point has been decided already. There is no need to issue a caution until such time as you suspect someone of committing the offence. The whole point of the NIP is to ask who the driver was so you have a suspect. There are also other suggested ways of utilising the signed form even if some magistrate decided to go along that path.
As long as there are scameras, there will be people trying to get off them. Every angle has been tried and they are well known. Without discussing the ethics or morality of cameras, the fact is the law either applies to everyone or no-one, that's the rule of law. It's not one rule for the rich and one for the poor and bear in mind when you're hailing these people that success for them on the flimsiest technicalities usually results in an award of costs from central funds (that's you, the taxpayer) and you'll find you're funding not only your convictions but the latest footballer's acquittal because the Court liked him in last month's issue of "Hello".
As long as there are scameras, there will be people trying to get off them. Every angle has been tried and they are well known. Without discussing the ethics or morality of cameras, the fact is the law either applies to everyone or no-one, that's the rule of law. It's not one rule for the rich and one for the poor and bear in mind when you're hailing these people that success for them on the flimsiest technicalities usually results in an award of costs from central funds (that's you, the taxpayer) and you'll find you're funding not only your convictions but the latest footballer's acquittal because the Court liked him in last month's issue of "Hello".
LuS1fer said:
This is nonsense. This point has been decided already. There is no need to issue a caution until such time as you suspect someone of committing the offence. The whole point of the NIP is to ask who the driver was so you have a suspect. There are also other suggested ways of utilising the signed form even if some magistrate decided to go along that path.
As long as there are scameras, there will be people trying to get off them. Every angle has been tried and they are well known. Without discussing the ethics or morality of cameras, the fact is the law either applies to everyone or no-one, that's the rule of law. It's not one rule for the rich and one for the poor and bear in mind when you're hailing these people that success for them on the flimsiest technicalities usually results in an award of costs from central funds (that's you, the taxpayer) and you'll find you're funding not only your convictions but the latest footballer's acquittal because the Court liked him in last month's issue of "Hello".
Have to dissagree with you Lusifer, others have used this method ok. Have you seen the main PH threads and the press??? We all know the NIP is already illegal and if you had the money to go all the way you would win. Signing the NIP is an admission of guilt - your right as a motorist - to silence has been taken. Even some cops agree with the no-caution action as above. My advise would be to seek a solicitor that works in this specific field. Though if its only 3 points on an otherwise clean license - is it really worth it.
Years ago with what would of made 9 points, I went the solicitor route and won with ease people shouldn't be affraid of standing up to these law-breaking, bull-shitting scamera partnerships. Maybe if we all did we would have safer, cameraless roads.
Gassing Station | Corvettes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff