How do people get prosecuted from a video of their driving

[ging84]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wale...
i'm sure this story on a biker getting banned for a 120mph youtube video has been discussed on here at some point but i couldn't find a thread

Every time i see a story like this where someone's been prosecuted based on some crappy internet video it makes me feel slightly uneasy. There are all sorts of boxes that need to be ticked for a successful speed camera conviction, including NIP being issued within 14 days
But there seem to be nothing like this for unsolicited videos found on the internet.
I watched the video, it does show the guy's own speedo, but it doesn't show his face or his number plate and there is no date or time on the video, how have they prosecuted without these fairly basic details? let alone getting on to if the speedo evidence should be admissible.

With thousands of cars now being kitted out with cameras how long is it going to be until anyone can give a video to the police of someone doing anything wrong in a car and it leading to a prosecution

[oldsoak]

Basically they (The Police) need to either see a crime being committed or find evidence of one being committed...If you are a big enough muppet to post on the interweb footage of you committing a crime (aka evidence)and the police are able to trace the person who committed the crime so kindly captured on video, that person deserves all that is coming to him.

[jondude]

I would guess they have been able to prosecute because the biker admitted the offence. If he had made a dummy name for You Tube and not left, as it appears, an easy trail to his home address, then there is nothing the police can do (so long as the plate is hidden, as you say it was).

Another method may be people shop the poster and he is approached outside of You Tube but then I would think all he had to do was keep saying 'it was not me driving, in fact it is not my bike' and whether that is a lie or not, there can be no way the police can prosecute......?????

[ging84]

i understand how it can come back to you, but what i don't understand is how it's enough for a prosecution, when the same standard of evidence provided by the police themselves would get thrown straight out.
is it just st lawyers and people not used to being in trouble not knowing when to exercise their right to remain silent. Or has this sort of thing been successfully prosecuted when someones has denied everything and plead not guilty ?

[98elise]

Your youtube account (password protected).
Video evidence of a crime.
You own the same vehicle used in the crime (possibly with video evidence proving its the actual vehicle)
You don't have any other explanation for the evidence.

Couple that with being stupid enough to do all of the above and an admission of guilt would not be far off.

[anonymous-user]

Courts use the best evidence available. If the evidence is convincing to the relevant (here criminal) standard of proof, then Bubba is happy.

[SS2.]

ging84 said:

There are all sorts of boxes that need to be ticked for a successful speed camera conviction, including NIP being issued within 14 days..

Agreed, s.1 RTOA 1988 [generally] requires a NIP to be served within 14 days for alleged offences of speeding, dangerous, careless, etc..

Musing here, but if the details of the incident did not come to light until the 14 days had already passed, then maybe the police were hoping to rely on the statutory exception which provides that failure to serve a NIP is not a bar to conviction if they could not with reasonable diligence ascertain the driver / RK's details in time to serve a NIP within the 14 days.

Then again, they might have been winging it and 1) relying on the defendant to submit a guilty plea or 2), gambling that he wouldn't have the benefit of a decent solicitor..