Speeding summons - Has plod dropped a bollock?
Discussion
Got my court summons for speeding today. I have to attend the magistrates court on the 30th.
I've notice an error in the statement of the officer who stopped me and I'm hoping It might just mean I can dodge a fine and points.
Paragraph three of his statement reads:
"At 06:12hrs I saw a Toyota motor vehicle travelling in that direction and formed the opinion that it was travelling in excess of the permitted speed limit of 30MPH. I pointed the device at the Nova and obtained a steady reading of 57MPH and locked that reading into the device."
I don't drive a Toyota Nova (or a Vauxhall one for that matter). Any chance this means I can escape a conviction for this? Or am I pissing in the wind?
Obviously I'll be talking to a solicitor but if anyone knows the score on this I'd like to hear it.
I've notice an error in the statement of the officer who stopped me and I'm hoping It might just mean I can dodge a fine and points.
Paragraph three of his statement reads:
"At 06:12hrs I saw a Toyota motor vehicle travelling in that direction and formed the opinion that it was travelling in excess of the permitted speed limit of 30MPH. I pointed the device at the Nova and obtained a steady reading of 57MPH and locked that reading into the device."
I don't drive a Toyota Nova (or a Vauxhall one for that matter). Any chance this means I can escape a conviction for this? Or am I pissing in the wind?
Obviously I'll be talking to a solicitor but if anyone knows the score on this I'd like to hear it.
What you need to do is firstly see a solicitor as you say and then plead not guilty (on his advice of course).
You need to keep this gem of information to yourself until you cross examine the officer. I doubt he will remember your vehicle or for that matter you.
Having asked him if he wishes to refresh his memory from his notes, ask him what kind of car you were driving. If you are unlucky and he remembers it was a Vauxhall, then you are at liberty to ask him why he states in his statement it was a Toyota and vice verca.
You only have to throw an elemnt of doubt on the case. If you let on before the case, then they may even change the statement of facts.
What does the summons say you were driving?
What does the officers statement say you were driving?
If these two documents are at odds, you may have a good chance of getting off.
You need to keep this gem of information to yourself until you cross examine the officer. I doubt he will remember your vehicle or for that matter you.
Having asked him if he wishes to refresh his memory from his notes, ask him what kind of car you were driving. If you are unlucky and he remembers it was a Vauxhall, then you are at liberty to ask him why he states in his statement it was a Toyota and vice verca.
You only have to throw an elemnt of doubt on the case. If you let on before the case, then they may even change the statement of facts.
What does the summons say you were driving?
What does the officers statement say you were driving?
If these two documents are at odds, you may have a good chance of getting off.
penfold said: Thanks Madcop.
I had no intention of fighting this but it seems rude not to now. I've also noticed that the summons is dated on the 20th of December yet I did not recieve it until today. The case is to be heard on the 30th. Should I have been given more time?
Time is not an issue for the service of a summons. It could feesibly be served the day before your case. You would just have to go along and ask for an adjournment so that you had time to seek advice.
Magistrates are good like that
I won't tell the whole story otherwise I'll become as boring as Flasher as I've told it dozens of times before, however I did once get done for doing 67.something in a 70mph limit ! obvious typo should have been 97.whatever and they changed it simply by saying ooops sorry typo, have some points and a fine.
Hmm. Thanks for the advice. I'm not really sure about seeing a solicitor now as I don't want to add that expense to the inevitible fine/costs.
Anyway, they have given me very little time to do anything about it as the court date is the 30th and I have to get all the paperwork back before then.
Anyway, they have given me very little time to do anything about it as the court date is the 30th and I have to get all the paperwork back before then.
I think the first consultation with a solicitor is either a set fee or free. You will do well to go and see one even if you do not employ him/her
You need to be ble to show that the officer giving evidence was confused at which car he was pointing the device. As I stated before, if he remembers you because of some particular reason such as the hard time you gave him, you may be unlucky. If you were one of 20 that morning (you state it was 06.30 ish. That syas to me 6.30 a.m. or was it evening time. If the summons/statement time is 12 hours out then there is more doubt that can be thrown at it), it will be unlikely that he remembers either you or what vehicle you were driving, He cannot guess in the witness box.
If you ask him "Do you recall exactly what make of car I was driving?" He will either remember it and be correct or state he cannot recall what it was you were driving.
You then question him about where the other make of car comes into the equation and get him to admit he has made a mistake by confusing two different models. Something which for an expert in motoring and motoring law is a fundamental error as most cars have the names of the makes written on them!
You then run with this and state that if he is able to make such a simple mistake whereby he has been unable to describe what car you were in, you question whether the reading that was taken may also have been mistaken.
Do you get my drift. (more and more doubt thrown on the case)
You can only try it. This is how a solicitor would attack this one. Do not question integrity but slip in that although the Police officer is an expert in his field, he is after all human and capable of mistakes, even very basic ones.
Even experienced solicitors sometimes lose. That is the gamble of going not guilty I am afraid.
Best of luck
You need to be ble to show that the officer giving evidence was confused at which car he was pointing the device. As I stated before, if he remembers you because of some particular reason such as the hard time you gave him, you may be unlucky. If you were one of 20 that morning (you state it was 06.30 ish. That syas to me 6.30 a.m. or was it evening time. If the summons/statement time is 12 hours out then there is more doubt that can be thrown at it), it will be unlikely that he remembers either you or what vehicle you were driving, He cannot guess in the witness box.
If you ask him "Do you recall exactly what make of car I was driving?" He will either remember it and be correct or state he cannot recall what it was you were driving.
You then question him about where the other make of car comes into the equation and get him to admit he has made a mistake by confusing two different models. Something which for an expert in motoring and motoring law is a fundamental error as most cars have the names of the makes written on them!
You then run with this and state that if he is able to make such a simple mistake whereby he has been unable to describe what car you were in, you question whether the reading that was taken may also have been mistaken.
Do you get my drift. (more and more doubt thrown on the case)
You can only try it. This is how a solicitor would attack this one. Do not question integrity but slip in that although the Police officer is an expert in his field, he is after all human and capable of mistakes, even very basic ones.
Even experienced solicitors sometimes lose. That is the gamble of going not guilty I am afraid.
Best of luck
Crown will get the chance to amend the charge when it comes before the court, provided the change does not alter a critical part of the charge. If it were me, then the offence is that on a specific road at a specific time, you were speeding. You have fair notice of the charge against you i.e. where, when and what the facts are. Is it vitally significant the make of car ? No, the offence is still the same.
If cop comes to court and accepts he may be mistaken on the type of car about type of vehicle, but confident of all the rest, you'll get convicted. You rely on him sticking to his guns, no pun intended, that there is such a thing as a Toyota Nova and you were driving one, to show him as a liar rather than someone who is fallable.
The type of amnedment that isn't allowed is where it changes the whole nature of the charge. e.g. the month of the offence or the speed involved, since you cannot prepare for such changes in advance. E.g. charged on 12th Feb, you prove wou were on holiday in Scotland, CPS say, I meant March ?
If cop comes to court and accepts he may be mistaken on the type of car about type of vehicle, but confident of all the rest, you'll get convicted. You rely on him sticking to his guns, no pun intended, that there is such a thing as a Toyota Nova and you were driving one, to show him as a liar rather than someone who is fallable.
The type of amnedment that isn't allowed is where it changes the whole nature of the charge. e.g. the month of the offence or the speed involved, since you cannot prepare for such changes in advance. E.g. charged on 12th Feb, you prove wou were on holiday in Scotland, CPS say, I meant March ?
I spoke to a solicitor today and he pretty much confirmed what I thought and what many of you have told me. He said he tried to defend someone recently where the officer had mis-stated his clients' direction od travel in his witness statement. The magistrate just accepted it was a clerical error and convicted him anyway.
I'm not going to take the risk of getting hammered by pleading not guilty. I'll just turn up looking smart, tell them how sorry I am and hope I can avoid a ban.
Thanks for all the advice people. I'll let you know what the outcome is.
I'm not going to take the risk of getting hammered by pleading not guilty. I'll just turn up looking smart, tell them how sorry I am and hope I can avoid a ban.
Thanks for all the advice people. I'll let you know what the outcome is.
ATG said: BtB ... if you thought someone had pleaded not guilty on the off chance they could get off on a technicality, would you be inclined to dish out a more severe sentence if you went on to find them guilty anyway?
If some twat clearly just wasting time, Yes. If a genuine case for the CPS to answer, then no, I'd wish him luck. Police and CPS screw up all the time but nobody challenges them. The odd rocket up their ar@@ does them good. After all just cos you didn't prove they screwed up, doesn't necessarily mean they did it right.
The court is supposed to give you a discount for pleading guilty at an early stage.
The benchmark is a third off the sentence, compared to what you would get if you were convicted after trial.
With traffic offences, the only real difference an early plea makes is to the order for costs that the court will make.
Guilty plea, first appearance = £35 costs.
Late guilty plea = roughly £75 costs.
Conviction after trial = £150-250 costs.
These are guestimates which will vary from court to court and from case to case.
Costs, of course, are additional to and separate from the fine that is likely to be imposed.
Good luck.
>> Edited by PatHeald on Saturday 18th January 19:36
The benchmark is a third off the sentence, compared to what you would get if you were convicted after trial.
With traffic offences, the only real difference an early plea makes is to the order for costs that the court will make.
Guilty plea, first appearance = £35 costs.
Late guilty plea = roughly £75 costs.
Conviction after trial = £150-250 costs.
These are guestimates which will vary from court to court and from case to case.
Costs, of course, are additional to and separate from the fine that is likely to be imposed.
Good luck.
>> Edited by PatHeald on Saturday 18th January 19:36
PatHeald said: The court is supposed to give you a discount for pleading guilty at an early stage.
Discount !!! You're mixing us up with Allied Carpets, they do discounts.
Courts are required to have regard to the stage at which any guilty plea is tendered, no more. They can therefore deal with early pleas at the earliest opportunity. The rest can get mucked about as much as they muck about the court. e.g. defer sentence, building up hopes of a reduced penalty, only to throw the book at them anyway, or ordain personal appearance just to get to mock the offender in court for not pleading guilty early, but not having the balls to see their challenge through. As I have said previous, respect to those who see legitimate challenges through to the bitter end, even if they lose, contempt to those who cave in half way.
Late guilty pleas fall into two categories, clients putting off the inevitable, or briefs milking their clients by claiming more research time and appearance money. Both take up court time, so we take up theirs.
Late guilty pleas fall into two categories, clients putting off the inevitable, or briefs milking their clients by claiming more research time and appearance money. Both take up court time, so we take up theirs.
Many late guilty pleas are because the CPS serves disclosure of the evidence, which shows a big bit missing, and only gets round to filling the gap just before the trial.
The defendant then pleads guilty, but loses all his credit for doing so late. In essence, the defendant gets punished for the CPS and the police not getting the case together until the last minute.
The flip side is that the CPS often fails to fill the gap in the evidence and the charge then fails.
The defendant is not always putting off the inevitable, he just wants to see that the case can be proved before he pleads guilty.
PatHeald said:
The defendant is not always putting off the inevitable, he just wants to see that the case can be proved before he pleads guilty.
Oh yes he is! (true pantomime style
) How many cases have I been called to attend court to give evidence on that which could clearly have been accepted section 9, but to be REQUIRED
along with all other witnesses, by the defence? When all the witnesses are produced, a guilty plea is entered. Complete waste of time for everyone (except the lawyer, whos bill is rather more than it would have been if a guilty plea had been entered from the earliest opportunity
Had a s172 trial a couple of weeks ago.
The dibble turned up without the V5 or a PNC printout.
Result? No proof of the registered keeper of the car.
CPS application to adjourn refused.
No evidence offered. Case dismissed. Punter keeps clean licence.
You should only plead guilty if the case can be proved. Be advised, however, that it almost always can be.
The dibble turned up without the V5 or a PNC printout.
Result? No proof of the registered keeper of the car.
CPS application to adjourn refused.
No evidence offered. Case dismissed. Punter keeps clean licence.
You should only plead guilty if the case can be proved. Be advised, however, that it almost always can be.
Update.
Just been to court and been awarded (is that the right word?!) 6 points and a £175 fine (+ costs)
Quite happy with that as I could have been banned and I think I might have won the sweepstake at work
It's made me realise just how fragile a driving licence though. I'll be a lot more sensible in the future.
Thanks again for all the advice.
>> Edited by penfold on Thursday 30th January 11:47
Just been to court and been awarded (is that the right word?!) 6 points and a £175 fine (+ costs)
Quite happy with that as I could have been banned and I think I might have won the sweepstake at work
It's made me realise just how fragile a driving licence though. I'll be a lot more sensible in the future.
Thanks again for all the advice.
>> Edited by penfold on Thursday 30th January 11:47
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff