Discussion
A friend of mine has received a NIP. The alleged offence took place on the Hogs Back (A31) travelling from Guilford towards Farnham (i.e. my friend was travelling SOUTH), the alleged incident occured at 14:32hrs at PUTTENHAM (alleged 71 in a 60).
The same friend then received another NIP today for the same date. This alleged offence occured further down the same stretch of road (i.e. FURTHER SOUTH) at SEALE at 14:30hrs (alleged 86 in a 60). My friend didn't see the 2nd van which is odd as they are big white things with POILCE written on them, also odd as the friend did see the first van.
My friend wishes to know what is the likely hood that this will get thrown out of court due to the fact they were't piloting the Tardis or any other time travelling machine for that matter.
My friend also does not believe they were travelling at an alleged 86 when the alleged 2nd (or is it first) offence occured.
Incidentally the PUTTENHAM alleged offence NIP was sent out 4 days before the alleged second offence by the same police force. My friend isn't sure if this will have any influence on the case.
The wisdom of PH would be greatly appreciated so I can pass your comments and advice on to my friend.
The same friend then received another NIP today for the same date. This alleged offence occured further down the same stretch of road (i.e. FURTHER SOUTH) at SEALE at 14:30hrs (alleged 86 in a 60). My friend didn't see the 2nd van which is odd as they are big white things with POILCE written on them, also odd as the friend did see the first van.
My friend wishes to know what is the likely hood that this will get thrown out of court due to the fact they were't piloting the Tardis or any other time travelling machine for that matter.
My friend also does not believe they were travelling at an alleged 86 when the alleged 2nd (or is it first) offence occured.
Incidentally the PUTTENHAM alleged offence NIP was sent out 4 days before the alleged second offence by the same police force. My friend isn't sure if this will have any influence on the case.
The wisdom of PH would be greatly appreciated so I can pass your comments and advice on to my friend.
jimmyb said:
Um i might be reading this wrong but does your friend have a time machine as it appears he went through the second camera before the first?
jimmyb, my friend does not have a time machine but what you have pointed out is correct. It would seem that my friend has gone through the 2nd camera before the first.Hoolio said:
jimmyb said:
Um i might be reading this wrong but does your friend have a time machine as it appears he went through the second camera before the first?
jimmyb, my friend does not have a time machine but what you have pointed out is correct. It would seem that my friend has gone through the 2nd camera before the first.Presume both NOIP's received within 14 days (ignoring date of offenes) by Reg Keeper?
What is the state of his Licence - virginal or well marked?. If the later - not good.
Bit complicated this one. For the first one he would qualify for a Conditional offer (60/3 points).
For the second the speed is 1 mph more than for which a CO can be issued if they are operating under ACPO Guidelines so it will be summons to Court. Possiblity of fine and ban. At Court amendment may be made to the incorrect timing that they mention and summons amended.
It is presumed that the distance between the two camera is more than a few yards otherwise it may have been possible to make a plea of duplicity.
How he plays it, God knows.
Consideration writing back accepting the first for a CO and see if they would drop the second because of the defect in timing giving a possible (weak) argument for a NG plea and mention duplicity or accepting a Co for the first and Court for the second.
dvd
What is the state of his Licence - virginal or well marked?. If the later - not good.
Bit complicated this one. For the first one he would qualify for a Conditional offer (60/3 points).
For the second the speed is 1 mph more than for which a CO can be issued if they are operating under ACPO Guidelines so it will be summons to Court. Possiblity of fine and ban. At Court amendment may be made to the incorrect timing that they mention and summons amended.
It is presumed that the distance between the two camera is more than a few yards otherwise it may have been possible to make a plea of duplicity.
How he plays it, God knows.
Consideration writing back accepting the first for a CO and see if they would drop the second because of the defect in timing giving a possible (weak) argument for a NG plea and mention duplicity or accepting a Co for the first and Court for the second.
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
Presume both NOIP's received within 14 days (ignoring date of offenes) by Reg Keeper?
What is the state of his Licence - virginal or well marked?. If the later - not good.
Bit complicated this one. For the first one he would qualify for a Conditional offer (60/3 points).
For the second the speed is 1 mph more than for which a CO can be issued if they are operating under ACPO Guidelines so it will be summons to Court. Possiblity of fine and ban. At Court amendment may be made to the incorrect timing that they mention and summons amended.
It is presumed that the distance between the two camera is more than a few yards otherwise it may have been possible to make a plea of duplicity.
How he plays it, God knows.
Consideration writing back accepting the first for a CO and see if they would drop the second because of the defect in timing giving a possible (weak) argument for a NG plea and mention duplicity or accepting a Co for the first and Court for the second.
dvd
DVD, is it worth, in your opinion, going to court to argue the case that their equipment must be faulty?What is the state of his Licence - virginal or well marked?. If the later - not good.
Bit complicated this one. For the first one he would qualify for a Conditional offer (60/3 points).
For the second the speed is 1 mph more than for which a CO can be issued if they are operating under ACPO Guidelines so it will be summons to Court. Possiblity of fine and ban. At Court amendment may be made to the incorrect timing that they mention and summons amended.
It is presumed that the distance between the two camera is more than a few yards otherwise it may have been possible to make a plea of duplicity.
How he plays it, God knows.
Consideration writing back accepting the first for a CO and see if they would drop the second because of the defect in timing giving a possible (weak) argument for a NG plea and mention duplicity or accepting a Co for the first and Court for the second.
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
see if they would drop the second because of the defect in timing giving a possible (weak) argument for a NG plea
Possible argument: calculating the speed of a vehicle requires a precise clock. One of these cameras clearly has a defective clock. What effect does that have on the speed calculation?If one of them has a defective clock, can it be proved that the other one does not?
I don't know the answers, but I'd be asking the questions
joewilliams said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
see if they would drop the second because of the defect in timing giving a possible (weak) argument for a NG plea
Possible argument: calculating the speed of a vehicle requires a precise clock. One of these cameras clearly has a defective clock. What effect does that have on the speed calculation?If one of them has a defective clock, can it be proved that the other one does not?
I don't know the answers, but I'd be asking the questions
Problem is has the fault in the timing device for time of offence
effected the speed measurement devices - I would say probably not. Been set at the wrong time when switched on? No mention by posted "I wassn't adoing that speed" ?
Faced with a double NG - and summons in which time of offence has been corrected and found Guilty double whammy and a bit?
May well be worth while discuissing with CAB Solicitor for his opinon and will probaby have knoeldge of local Court.
dvd
effected the speed measurement devices - I would say probably not. Been set at the wrong time when switched on? No mention by posted "I wassn't adoing that speed" ?
Faced with a double NG - and summons in which time of offence has been corrected and found Guilty double whammy and a bit?
May well be worth while discuissing with CAB Solicitor for his opinon and will probaby have knoeldge of local Court.
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
Problem is has the fault in the timing device for time of offence
effected the speed measurement devices - I would say probably not. Been set at the wrong time when switched on? No mention by posted "I wassn't adoing that speed" ?
Faced with a double NG - and summons in which time of offence has been corrected and found Guilty double whammy and a bit?
May well be worth while discuissing with CAB Solicitor for his opinon and will probaby have knoeldge of local Court.
dvd
My friend certainly wasn't doing the alleged 86mph. Actually they had slowed down after the 1st camera. Thefore could it be proved the 2nd camera is wrong? Or is the first camera wrong? Are they both wrong? As someone has pointed out it's worth asking the questions. Also how can my friend out when the devices were last calibrated?effected the speed measurement devices - I would say probably not. Been set at the wrong time when switched on? No mention by posted "I wassn't adoing that speed" ?
Faced with a double NG - and summons in which time of offence has been corrected and found Guilty double whammy and a bit?
May well be worth while discuissing with CAB Solicitor for his opinon and will probaby have knoeldge of local Court.
dvd
Hoolio said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
Problem is has the fault in the timing device for time of offence
effected the speed measurement devices - I would say probably not. Been set at the wrong time when switched on? No mention by posted "I wassn't adoing that speed" ?
Faced with a double NG - and summons in which time of offence has been corrected and found Guilty double whammy and a bit?
May well be worth while discuissing with CAB Solicitor for his opinon and will probaby have knoeldge of local Court.
dvd
My friend certainly wasn't doing the alleged 86mph. Actually they had slowed down after the 1st camera. Thefore could it be proved the 2nd camera is wrong? Or is the first camera wrong? Are they both wrong? As someone has pointed out it's worth asking the questions. Also how can my friend out when the devices were last calibrated?effected the speed measurement devices - I would say probably not. Been set at the wrong time when switched on? No mention by posted "I wassn't adoing that speed" ?
Faced with a double NG - and summons in which time of offence has been corrected and found Guilty double whammy and a bit?
May well be worth while discuissing with CAB Solicitor for his opinon and will probaby have knoeldge of local Court.
dvd
Indeed in this case, it is like choosing to 'split' on a blackjack table. If they decide to throw everything at disproving your cases then you will end up with double the costs.
Indeed, if you decide to fight either, you will probably not end up with 3 points for each.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff