Pulled over after caught speeding on an SL700
Discussion
Do these take photos when you are caught with them and pulled? I don't think it does so in court am I correct in thinking that all there evidence consists of is the statement from the police present. Does this mean there is no defence as you have no picture or video to review and find flaw with?
Not in court for that one had a fixed penalty, however in court (probably) for one 2 weeks earlier sounds bad but that was the first time I have ever been caught in 10 years of driving and then twice in 2 weeks. That one was on an LTI 20:20 and that is the one I am contemplating fighting by getting the video as I suspect there are more than a few technically suspect errors with it.
mmm-five said:
7db said:
Ah - the old fishing for a defence approach. Good luck with that -- hope the mags don't fine you a lot more than the FPN.
It's all we have to balance the 'old fishing for a conviction approach' of the police from using dodgy equipment to meet quotas
Cheeky, but true, sadly.shuvitupya said:
If it was the Police using the SL700, that is all the evidence required.
The device just confirms their opinion that you were speeding.
I thought the SL700 was mainly used by neighbourhood watch, anti-speed types?
The device just confirms their opinion that you were speeding.
I thought the SL700 was mainly used by neighbourhood watch, anti-speed types?
Wrong!
A defendant has every right to question anything the police do in the way of procedure.
If this was one officer standing at the roadside with this device, he is turning up in court to attempt to prove the offence with NO witnesses to corroborate and NO material evidence.
In other words he can say anything, but cannot prove a thing.
He is also using the most unreliable and fault ridden device on the market.
If you had a witness in the car with you, it is his unsubstantiated word against you and your witness.
Beyond reasonable doubt?
I don't think so!
Fight it.
herewego said:
He was pulled over and would have been shown the reading on the meter at the time. He must have made some comment such as “I definitely wasn’t doing that speed, there must be some mistake” or “OK fair cop”. How could he fight it later?
Eh!!??
Where does it say that or even hint at it?
What difference does it make what speed was shown , even if it was?
The accused has the right to plead any way he wants.
In all trials evidence can be brought to light at the very last minute in the middle of the trial that can totally change the opinion of the accused or the defence and therefore the outcome of the trial.
Fair cop most definitely does not come into it; there is little if anything fair about modern detection concepts. It is all about entrapment for revenue, not road safety.
jith said:
herewego said:
He was pulled over and would have been shown the reading on the meter at the time. He must have made some comment such as “I definitely wasn’t doing that speed, there must be some mistake” or “OK fair cop”. How could he fight it later?
Eh!!??
Where does it say that or even hint at it?
What difference does it make what speed was shown , even if it was?
The accused has the right to plead any way he wants.
In all trials evidence can be brought to light at the very last minute in the middle of the trial that can totally change the opinion of the accused or the defence and therefore the outcome of the trial.
Fair cop most definitely does not come into it; there is little if anything fair about modern detection concepts. It is all about entrapment for revenue, not road safety.
It’s a pity the OP isn’t here to tell us, but I’ve had to assume he was shown his recorded speed. Maybe he said nothing, we don’t know.
The speed shown is the thing of most importance isn’t it?
As I asked before, how could he fight it later? What could his defence be?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff