The Hamiltons screw S172!
Discussion
Just got an e-mail from the RAC Foundation with this:
"It's not a good week for speed cameras. The latest nail has kindly been provided by Christine Hamilton - yes that Christine Hamilton - who yesterday was acquitted by a District Judge [no less] of failing to name the driver of her car which was caught exceeding the limit at a set of motorway road works.
The very brief circumstances seem to be that Christine and Neil were en route to Leeds to open a childrens' home when caught on camera. A NIP and S172 notice were received by Christine 14 days after the event.
CH declined to complete the S172 notice saying that as she and Neil share the driving and were both in the car, either could have been the driver and after 2 weeks she really couldn't remember who was driving.
The Safety Camera Parnership were unimpressed and took CH to court. The Justices of the Peace were unable to make a decision and referred the case up to a District Judge, who accepted CH plea and acquitted her of the charge.
Whilst this is by no means the first case of this kind - previously reported cases have involved celebs and cops - this is the first case where the owner of the car has admitted to being in the car and succeeded in persuading a judge that she has a valid defence to S 172. This certainly increases the chances of success in evading S172 and thereby speed camera cases in respect of families or other organisations who own cars which can legitimately be drivern by more than one driver.
My view is that, subject to an appeal by the Safety Camera Partnership, lawyers the length and breadth of the land will be reading the judgement carefully and that we can expect a significant increase in the number of contested S 172 cases."
No fan of the Hamiltons, but in this case I'd say
"It's not a good week for speed cameras. The latest nail has kindly been provided by Christine Hamilton - yes that Christine Hamilton - who yesterday was acquitted by a District Judge [no less] of failing to name the driver of her car which was caught exceeding the limit at a set of motorway road works.
The very brief circumstances seem to be that Christine and Neil were en route to Leeds to open a childrens' home when caught on camera. A NIP and S172 notice were received by Christine 14 days after the event.
CH declined to complete the S172 notice saying that as she and Neil share the driving and were both in the car, either could have been the driver and after 2 weeks she really couldn't remember who was driving.
The Safety Camera Parnership were unimpressed and took CH to court. The Justices of the Peace were unable to make a decision and referred the case up to a District Judge, who accepted CH plea and acquitted her of the charge.
Whilst this is by no means the first case of this kind - previously reported cases have involved celebs and cops - this is the first case where the owner of the car has admitted to being in the car and succeeded in persuading a judge that she has a valid defence to S 172. This certainly increases the chances of success in evading S172 and thereby speed camera cases in respect of families or other organisations who own cars which can legitimately be drivern by more than one driver.
My view is that, subject to an appeal by the Safety Camera Partnership, lawyers the length and breadth of the land will be reading the judgement carefully and that we can expect a significant increase in the number of contested S 172 cases."
No fan of the Hamiltons, but in this case I'd say
Well done Christine; sensible anti-short arsed tactics from a seemingly happier ex-MP's wyfe.
As someone who may have been snapped by a most sneakily placed talivan yesterday for committing that most heinous of '50 in a 40' sins, I may be yet be rediscovering some venom for this most scurrilous of on-going state oppressions.
As someone who may have been snapped by a most sneakily placed talivan yesterday for committing that most heinous of '50 in a 40' sins, I may be yet be rediscovering some venom for this most scurrilous of on-going state oppressions.
derestrictor said:
As someone who may have been snapped by a most sneakily placed talivan yesterday for committing that most heinous of '50 in a 40' sins, I may be yet be rediscovering some venom for this most scurrilous of on-going state oppressions.
So I take it you've signed the S.A.F.E.R. petition then d
Some comment from Idris Francis
------------------------------------------------------
Note - good news, but NOT the first case by any means where two people who
shared the driving were unable to remember who was driving at the time.
This is the para 4 defence of S172, not knowing who was driving, despite
'reasonable' efforts to find out.
Over the last 18 months I have copied this information, with an increasing
number of examples of people who have seen the cases dropped, or who have
won in court, to a long list of people.
If anyone wants the info - don't ask a policeman, they prefer you not to
know - ask me!
Would someone copy this note to pistonheads as below? Not sure if it is a
closed list
Idris
------------------------------------------------------
He can be contacted at i r f r a n c i s (at) o n e t e l . n e t . u k
Close up the gaps, obviously.
------------------------------------------------------
Note - good news, but NOT the first case by any means where two people who
shared the driving were unable to remember who was driving at the time.
This is the para 4 defence of S172, not knowing who was driving, despite
'reasonable' efforts to find out.
Over the last 18 months I have copied this information, with an increasing
number of examples of people who have seen the cases dropped, or who have
won in court, to a long list of people.
If anyone wants the info - don't ask a policeman, they prefer you not to
know - ask me!
Would someone copy this note to pistonheads as below? Not sure if it is a
closed list
Idris
------------------------------------------------------
He can be contacted at i r f r a n c i s (at) o n e t e l . n e t . u k
Close up the gaps, obviously.
Well done the Hamiltons! I have always felt that this is a good and perfectly reasonable defence.
Looking at the speed camera in the Sun article, it saddens me that such a VISIBLE camera on a straight road can catch so many people. What a sad reflection on driving standards, although I agree that the speed limit is probably far too low.
Looking at the speed camera in the Sun article, it saddens me that such a VISIBLE camera on a straight road can catch so many people. What a sad reflection on driving standards, although I agree that the speed limit is probably far too low.
Very mixed feelings about this. I don't like the idea that people who commit motoring offenses can avoid being accountable for their actions, surely this would let them get away with a whole load of stuff not just speeding. On the other hand, I do think that the current trend of speed limit enforcement leads to people being penalised unreasonably when they're doing no harm, and in this case I have to condone people who avoid the penalty any way they can.
strict enforcement of speed limits is completely missing the point (that the goal is safety, not slowness) and somebody who speeds safely should not be penalised
strict enforcement of speed limits is completely missing the point (that the goal is safety, not slowness) and somebody who speeds safely should not be penalised
GreenV8S said:
Very mixed feelings about this. I don't like the idea that people who commit motoring offenses can avoid being accountable for their actions, surely this would let them get away with a whole load of stuff not just speeding.
The whole point is that this is applicable only to people have have been caught speeding by the sneaky cash machines otherwise known as Gatso, Truvelo, Talivan. None of these so called "safety cameras" will capture any kind of dangerous driving bar excessive speed; the only way these drivers will be caught is via good old fashioned policing. In this instance S172 is not involved.
GreenV8S said:
I don't like the idea that people who commit motoring offenses can avoid being accountable for their actions, surely this would let them get away with a whole load of stuff not just speeding.
From reading the posts of Madcop et al, we see that scrotes walk free daily from the Courts, who have failed to convict them on this technicality or that, when everybody down to the coalman's horse knows that they're as guilty as hell.
Why should it be any different for motoring offences?
The fact that most motoring offences come with "strict liability" attached (ie. the judicial system doesn't have to prove intent to commit a crime, only that one was committed) mean that the majority of motorists just bend over and plead guilty.
If they didn't, the whole magistrates court system would be overwhelmed and would grind to a halt.
In my opinion, well done the Hamiltons and anybody else who makes it difficult for the judicial system.
(And, by the way, I wouldn't have said that 5 years ago - the current fixation of targetting speeding at the expense of almost any other "crime" has caused a remarkable change of mind in this individual)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff