View Full Version : Speeding Offences
orangebird
07-09-2006, 15:17
Hi,
Anyone have any idea what the consequences are of doing 115mph in a 70mph zone?
Thanks. :)
Depends on the circumstances and previous convictions but a mate of mine did similar and he had a 6 month ban, 3 points and fined £70.
Get a good brief. My mate got caught doing 79 in a 40 and thanks to a good brief and a grovelling apology he only got 3 points and a fine.
orangebird
07-09-2006, 15:22
Thanks both. The idiot that got caught already has six points on his license. Am I right in thinking if he gets another six he'll lose his license?
Thanks both. The idiot that got caught already has six points on his license. Am I right in thinking if he gets another six he'll lose his license?
Yep.
If he needs to drive for his job you might get some sympathy. My mate had 8 points already but would have lost his job if he got any more than 3. That said his fine was pretty big.
What ever happens I just hope he has learned his lesson
Oh yes, absolutely.
tot up 12 points and it's a ban. If you have good brief you can sometimes get away without a ban or have the ban reduced to a few weeks.
However, if you friend already has six points and gets caught doing 115 on a motorway it will be an instant ban anyway. Even if he had no points and was caught doing 115 he would most likely be looking at a ban.
Just for ref your points stay on your licence for 3 years, can be used against you in court for 4 years and declared for insurance purposes for 5 years.
In regards to motorway police they wont do you if you are doing under 80, they might pull you and have a word if your doing between 80-90 and driving like a tit, will most likely give you a fixed penalty for anything over 90 to 105 and refer you to court anything past that.
In regards to motorway police they wont do you if you are doing under 80, they might pull you and have a word if your doing between 80-90 and driving like a tit, will most likely give you a fixed penalty for anything over 90 to 105 and refer you to court anything past that.
I would append "usually" to the above statement - I was caught doing 76 (in 70 zone) on the M1, near the M18 junction, and got a ticket - they had a magistrate in the back of the patrol car, on a "familiarisation" drive.
Stuff happens! :dozey:
As a general rule, doing 30mph over any limit is an automatic ban.
If your name happens to be PC Mark Milton you might get away with it. :rolleyes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4669594.stm
I would append "usually" to the above statement - I was caught doing 76 (in 70 zone) on the M1, near the M18 junction, and got a ticket - they had a magistrate in the back of the patrol car, on a "familiarisation" drive.
Stuff happens! :dozey:
Ouch, very harsh.
ACPO guidlines suggest that you should be given 10% of the limit + 2.
Which on a motorway is 79mph
This is because normal speedos in cars are not very well calibrated and your speedo might have been saying 70/71/72 but you might have actually been doing 74/75/76.
I would have contested that ticket if I had received it.
Hi,
Anyone have any idea what the consequences are of doing 115mph in a 70mph zone?
Thanks. :)
Is your friend a police officer and/ or was he familiarising himself to a new vehicle?? ;)
orangebird
07-09-2006, 16:35
Is your friend a police officer and/ or was he familiarising himself to a new vehicle?? ;)
:LOL: No, it's my husbands boss. Sounds wicked, but losing his lisence could bode well for my husband... ;)
It's usually always an automatic ban if you're caught doing over 100. But i'm sure thats already been posted.
If you are driving in excess of 100 mph you are likely to be disqualified as well as being fined.
Source (http://www.carnet.co.uk/carlaw/home/general-speeding-mway.html)
Maybe he could use this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5322302.stm) excuse :D
Goat-free roads made me speed
It's usually always an automatic ban if you're caught doing over 100.
Pretty much unless the police officers have made a mess of the paperwork somewhere along the lines.
Just as a side note in the first 2 years of passing your test you are now only allowed 6 points before you get an automatic ban and once the ban is up you have to go back to being a learner and must pass your theory and driving test again before you are allowed out on the road on your own again
Thanks both. The idiot that got caught already has six points on his license. Am I right in thinking if he gets another six he'll lose his license?
You can drive on un-limited points as long as the magistrates don't ban you, we had a guy working with us who had 15 points on his licence and wasn't banned because driving used to earn him his living.
---------- Post added at 18:19 ---------- Previous post was at 18:19 ----------
Hi,
Anyone have any idea what the consequences are of doing 115mph in a 70mph zone?
Thanks. :)
Looks like he'll be getting a ban if he's exceeded 100MPH.
a mate was doing 115 on the A3 he got 6 points and £950. fine . he needs his lisence for his job that is why he only got 6 points .
---------- Post added at 18:32 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------
Just as a side note in the first 2 years of passing your test you are now only allowed 6 points before you get an automatic ban and once the ban is up you have to go back to being a learner and must pass your theory and driving test again before you are allowed out on the road on your own again
yep dont we know it jules :) ;) .
:LOL: No, it's my husbands boss. Sounds wicked, but losing his lisence could bode well for my husband... ;)
I'd say he should be preparing for a promotion then. 115mph on the motorway with 6 points on your licence already is just taking the proverbial.
I would append "usually" to the above statement - I was caught doing 76 (in 70 zone) on the M1, near the M18 junction, and got a ticket - they had a magistrate in the back of the patrol car, on a "familiarisation" drive.
Stuff happens! :dozey:
Also seems to depend on what area of the country you are caught.
LSainsbury
08-09-2006, 07:31
Wonder what ever happend to Kevin Nicolle (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/5094840.stm)?
Its all been said beforein the thread, but an extra opinion never hurt.
30 mph over on any road is an instant ban, as a rule. This can be avoided, but you have to have a damn good reason, brief and judge. Also, Jules is right too in that in the first 2 years, punishments are effectively doubled.
Its almost a sure-fire certainty hubby's boss will be banned. Doing 115 on 6 points will infuriate the judge as a repeat offender, but even if the judge goes easy on him, he'll still get 6 points and likely to be banned anyway. Almost inconcieveable he'll get 3 points for those circumstances.
His only option to keep the license is to hire a VERY good brief who is well experienced in traffic offenses, and to try and tear apart the circumstances to try and find a loop-hole or technicality. Most have been closed, but some still remain.
A common one is that if the speed trap device wasn't calibrated that day (which I think happens more than most would think), then that is enough to throw out the offense.
andygrif
08-09-2006, 10:00
Thanks both. The idiot that got caught already has six points on his license. Am I right in thinking if he gets another six he'll lose his license?
It's likely, but not 100%. Also, the police officer has to report the driver for consideration by the court. They have six months to do that, but I do know of someone who was caught doing a similar speed to that you described, he was told it would be sent to court and nothing happened.
Sometimes, it's too much hassle for the police to follow-up. Depends on the policeman I guess.
Generally there will be a short automatic ban imposed by the courts for such speeds, but since there's already a fair number of points on his license it might well be longer...that depends on the courts.
I would append "usually" to the above statement - I was caught doing 76 (in 70 zone) on the M1, near the M18 junction, and got a ticket - they had a magistrate in the back of the patrol car, on a "familiarisation" drive.
Stuff happens! :dozey:
Sounds unlikely, as there is guidance from the Association of Cheif Police Officers that speeds should be 10% plus 3mph before nicking someone to allow for variances in speedo calibrations between vehicles and allow a margin for their own equipment's calibration.
Had you have gone to court it would probably have been thrown out.
Sounds unlikely, as there is guidance from the Association of Cheif Police Officers that speeds should be 10% plus 3mph before nicking someone to allow for variances in speedo calibrations between vehicles and allow a margin for their own equipment's calibration.
Had you have gone to court it would probably have been thrown out.
Thanks for letting me know I don't really have 3 points on my licence - maybe I will wake up in the shower and my licence will be clean again. ;)
My wife's best friend, who is a Regional CPS prosecutor, couldn't believe it either - when I asked her should I take it to court, she strongly advised against it (if I had 9 points already, it might be worth the cost and risk, but my licence was clean), as the ACPO is only guidance, not the rule of law. If I had got a stroppy magistrate, I could have been fined more.
http://www.pepipoo.com/Magistrates_guidelines.htm
"For travelling up to 10 mph faster than a 20-30 mph speed limit or up to 15 mph faster than a 40-50 mph speed limit or up to 20 mph faster than a 60-70 mph speed limit the guidelines suggest that the magistrates endorse with 3 penalty points."
"As far as fines are concerned speeding carries a maximum fine of £1,000 (£2,500 if speeding on a motorway). "
ACPO guidelines
http://www.pepipoo.com/files/ACPO/ACPO_enforcement_guidelines.htm
"This guidance does not and cannot replace the police officer's discretion and they may decide to issue a summons or a fixed penalty notice in respect of offences committed at speeds lower than those set out in the table"
andygrif
08-09-2006, 12:10
Thanks for letting me know I don't really have 3 points on my licence - maybe I will wake up in the shower and my licence will be clean again. ;)
Only if you use shower gel too.
Only if you use shower gel too.
Which segues neatly into -
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=52278
:bump:
A colleague of mine has been caught speeding in his company car (he was doing 84 in a 70), so he knows he's going to get 3 points, but does anyone know what sort of fine he's going to be looking at?
TIA :tu:
Graham M
13-09-2006, 14:14
£60 fixed probably
£60 fixed probably
That's what we thought in the office, but he reckoned that the 'standard' fine had been increased to 80 :shrug:
Meh, he's Scottish and thick :D
Please note I'm not saying that all Scottish people are thick; it's just him ;)
arcamalpha2004
14-09-2006, 12:11
Could do what footballers do and get away with it, say you dont recall driving the vehicle at the stated date and time, its a loophole apparently ;)
Could do what footballers do and get away with it, say you dont recall driving the vehicle at the stated date and time, its a loophole apparently ;)
http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/FAQ/FAQ.htm
"This loophole/defence has had much publicity as a number of senior police officers have used it successfully. They argued that they could not remember who was driving and the cases were dropped. From the experience of dealing with vast numbers of email requests for help - just writing back and saying you can't remember will not work. You will need to show in great detail why you can't recall who was driving and what steps you have taken to try and work out who was driving. In many cases this will work and the case will be dropped, but in some regions it will not and the Police/CPS will continue to chase you to name the driver. If you continue to show in detail why you cannot be sure of who was driving in many cases they will give up and drop it. In other cases you may end up having to go to court to show all of the reasons and research you have done to try and identify the driver."
ian@huth
14-09-2006, 13:24
Hi,
Anyone have any idea what the consequences are of doing 115mph in a 70mph zone?
Thanks. :)It all depends on the time of the offence, traffic conditions at the time, weather conditions and how you respond to the police when they stop you. Doing over 100mph in a 30mph area can result in just a warning if you are lucky and give the right answers to the right police officer.
It all depends on the time of the offence, traffic conditions at the time, weather conditions and how you respond to the police when they stop you. Doing over 100mph in a 30mph area can result in just a warning if you are lucky and give the right answers to the right police officer.
If you were that lucky the first thing I'd do is buy a lottery ticket, re-mortage your house and stick all the money on a 500-1 shot horse.
It's *very* rare for anything over 100 to result in less than a ban. Most of the time its part of a deal for the defence lawyers not to probe too far into the procedures and paperwork for the case and they are charged with travelling at 99mph.
Unless it came recorded/registered delivery, ignore the NIP.
Await letter saying "Oi, we sent you an NIP, you didn't return it, what's going on?"
Respond with a request for proof of postage such as the recorded/registered post tracking number.
Do not accept "we know we sent it, so we sent it" as a response, legally, they have to use recorded/registered post to prove postage.
Without this, they cannot consider that the NIP was sent within 14 days, and therefore it is not enforcable.
Of course this doesn't help if you were pulled over.
I would imagine however, if someone seriously broke the speed limit, like the person OB mentioned, they'll probably still end up in court, if only to waste their time and hope to get a conviction.
A Notice of Intended Prosecution is still valid if sent by 1st class mail unless it is returned undelivered.
It's best practise to send them by recorded delivery but wouldn't 100% get you off if they didn't send it that way.
A Notice of Intended Prosecution is still valid if sent by 1st class mail unless it is returned undelivered.
It's best practise to send them by recorded delivery but wouldn't 100% get you off if they didn't send it that way.
I suppose that it's difficult for them to prove that you actually received it if they don't send it recorded - if it's just been put through your door with the rest of the post, you can always deny that you got it :shrug:
arcamalpha2004
15-09-2006, 10:00
http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/FAQ/FAQ.htm
"This loophole/defence has had much publicity as a number of senior police officers have used it successfully. They argued that they could not remember who was driving and the cases were dropped. From the experience of dealing with vast numbers of email requests for help - just writing back and saying you can't remember will not work. You will need to show in great detail why you can't recall who was driving and what steps you have taken to try and work out who was driving. In many cases this will work and the case will be dropped, but in some regions it will not and the Police/CPS will continue to chase you to name the driver. If you continue to show in detail why you cannot be sure of who was driving in many cases they will give up and drop it. In other cases you may end up having to go to court to show all of the reasons and research you have done to try and identify the driver."
It would still be for the crown to prove that " you " had been driving at the time, hence the new speed cameras being brought in that take a frontal picture of the offender.
Another staller is to ask for all the evidence in the case, photos, callibration records for the gatso or whatever method was used, a lot of the time because the police are si stretched they do not produce the evidence in time and the case will be thrown in the trash.
I do not condone speeding, but if youre caught play the system as people in higher places do.;)
A Notice of Intended Prosecution is still valid if sent by 1st class mail unless it is returned undelivered.
It's best practise to send them by recorded delivery but wouldn't 100% get you off if they didn't send it that way.
the road traffic offences act specifically states that registered/recorded post must be used in order to confirm postage.
A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him
ian@huth
15-09-2006, 12:27
If you were that lucky the first thing I'd do is buy a lottery ticket, re-mortage your house and stick all the money on a 500-1 shot horse.
It's *very* rare for anything over 100 to result in less than a ban. Most of the time its part of a deal for the defence lawyers not to probe too far into the procedures and paperwork for the case and they are charged with travelling at 99mph.There are many police officers who look realistically at the situation, taking all factors into consideration and decide just to let the offender off with a warning. The amount of paperwork involved in processing the incident and the nearness to knocking off time / break time can be deciding factors in how to proceed.
the road traffic offences act specifically states that registered/recorded post must be used in order to confirm postage.
What if you are not in when one of these arrive - then don't bother going to the post office to collect it for two weeks (perhaps you are on holiday), so it is returned to sender. Does that mean they can't prosecute you?
What if you are not in when one of these arrive - then don't bother going to the post office to collect it for two weeks (perhaps you are on holiday), so it is returned to sender. Does that mean they can't prosecute you?
That's the whole point of them sending it recorded.
If they have legally recognised proof that they posted the NIP, whether it was lost in the post or not signed for, it is deemed that they have served you with a NIP.
Same as if you haven't updated your address so they send it to your old home.
Makes no difference then, they've served you with notice.
However, sending out NIPs recorded would cost them a fortune, so they don't bother.
This is one of the loopholes that you can try and exploit.
Just make sure you use recorded for every letter you send back to the police telling them you never recieved the NIP and requesting proof of postage.
When this happened to me, and I hadn't recieved a NIP, they lied on their statement to the CPS claiming they'd not recieved response from me.
However, as I was able to produce proof that they had recieved my last letter, and the case was dropped as they police were unable to give a satisfactory reply to the CPS' enquiries into why their statement was wrong.
...or of course you could just take responsibility for your speeding.
...or of course you could just take responsibility for your speeding.
Indeed you could and pay the price.
Or you could take responsibility, not pay the price, consider yourself very lucky, and not do it again.
I suppose 'talking responsibility' can mean different things to different people.
funky_fones
15-09-2006, 14:48
The biggest problem with 'talking responsibility' is that you are automatically branded EVIL/spawn of satan/not fit for society etc etc and you will get the book thrown at you, dont admit it or get a lawyer to not admit it for you.
Last time I admitted something I got 6points.
I got a years insurance, paid by direct debit, one of which got cancelled due to lack of funds cos I was moving house, they cancelled the policy which then showed up on a police patrol car who pulled me and towed the car away, I tried to explain that I had 3 years no claims so makes no sense to not have insuarnce now and the policy had wrongfully been cancelled only afew days ago (according to his records, I didint know until he told me), I had to explain the whole thing in court as well, they said we understand your situation but heres 6 points anyway though we'l let u off a fine because of the situation, yeah thanks a bunch.
Anyway sorry about the rant but sometimes you have to own up and sometimed its best not to.
The biggest problem with 'talking responsibility' is that you are automatically branded EVIL/spawn of satan/not fit for society etc etc and you will get the book thrown at you, dont admit it or get a lawyer to not admit it for you....
I hear you. All too often they go after the easy target, and cut their losses when chasing real criminals. Its almost as if accountants were in charge.
Surely if you commit an offence (whther or not you agree with the offence) you should take the due punishment?
Saaf_laandon_mo
15-09-2006, 15:59
A week ago I was doing 40 in a built up area when a speed camera on the other side of the road flashed off as i just passed it. I went back teh other way and it looks like the Gatso is positioned to take pics of cars driving away from it?
Will I get done? Can the Gatso be looking out for speeders on both sides of the road?
A week ago I was doing 40 in a built up area when a speed camera on the other side of the road flashed off as i just passed it. I went back teh other way and it looks like the Gatso is positioned to take pics of cars driving away from it?
Will I get done? Can the Gatso be looking out for speeders on both sides of the road?
Gatsos in this country are not set to flash approaching cars (because they flash, and can cause a deistraction). Truvelo cameras are used if they want to catch you head-on as they use some kind of infra-red flash.
However, if they develop the photo and can establish your speed and reg.no. from it, I would not be surprised if they did have a go. I don't think there is any law that says they can't Gatso you from the front.
Saaf_laandon_mo
15-09-2006, 16:08
Thanks for that Chris. Would you happen to know how long does it take between getting flashed and receiving a fine. Im still having sleepless nights, :S
Guess we are lucky in Norn Iron we don't have to many fixed cameras. But are getting more.
I drive from Bristol to Wales a lot, the first couple of times was amazed by the amount of cameras. Got used to it now, know where most of them are!
Thanks for that Chris. Would you happen to know how long does it take between getting flashed and receiving a fine. Im still having sleepless nights, :S
If you don't get a letter in the post in the next couple of weeks, you probably got away with it....
Surely if you commit an offence (whther or not you agree with the offence) you should take the due punishment?
I agree - it is the "heavy handed" tactics that I disagree with. In this example, was it really necessary to tow away his car?
To give another example: A colleague boarded a train for work without buying a ticket - she was late, the ticket machine was out of order, and there was a queue at the counter. Upon arrival in London, she went to the "penalty fare" counter and offered to pay the full fare. She was told that she also had to pay a fine, and if she refused the police would be called. This was her first "offence", and she had no intention of avoiding payment, but these facts did not matter. In my opinion they insisted on the extra payment because it was easy for them to do so. Easier than repairing a ticket machine, or paying for an additional member of staff.
funky_fones
15-09-2006, 18:24
Surely if you commit an offence (whther or not you agree with the offence) you should take the due punishment?
If you actually do the crime then fair enough, the problem with giving points out on a free for all basis is that the insurance companies become the only winners, why not say ok you were speeding, use the money we (the court) would have fined you to go on a safety awareness course, see some of the victims and injuries caused by speeding IN THE WRONG TIME AND PLACE and learn why there are speed limits, oh and your not allowed on the road for afew weeks, it'l give you time think about what you did,It would mean less people with points, lower insurance and people more aware of road safety but I personally dont agree on fines/points for drivers doing 10/20 even 30 mph over in quiet motorways when cars are designed for those kinds of speeds in mind anyway, and to anyone saying it not the cars but the people causing accidents, well the safety courses should include being able to drive properly. There are some people out there who should NOT be allowed anywhere near a motorway
JB001D7606
16-09-2006, 18:27
Hi my name is harford and I'm a new guy. I would comment on the speeding question and would endorse what has been said about clever solicitors - as you are aware there are now quite a few who specialise in traffic. Normally, if you exceed any speed limit by in excess of 30mph you do get disqualified. If your brief addresses the court sincerely and says it will cause you great hardship and would it be possible for a short ban say two weeks and my client would take his holidays from his job as a punishment for his error - I've seen this done - the guy then books a last minute holiday abroad. On the other hand there is the taxi driver who says of his already 9 points - if you ban me - you'll put me on the dole. The answer to that one is OK we'll give you 3 points but will not ban you - he then drives like an angel until his first set of points come off his license. I'm glad to join you lads and lasses and look forward to some interesting topics - regards harford
arcamalpha2004
22-09-2006, 14:15
Surely if you commit an offence (whther or not you agree with the offence) you should take the due punishment?
Yes ;) but not everyone gets the " due punishment " and that is the ball breaker.
Who gets the " due punishment " often depends whether or not you are in the club ;) so to say.
---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 14:10 ----------
I agree - it is the "heavy handed" tactics that I disagree with. In this example, was it really necessary to tow away his car?
To give another example: A colleague boarded a train for work without buying a ticket - she was late, the ticket machine was out of order, and there was a queue at the counter. Upon arrival in London, she went to the "penalty fare" counter and offered to pay the full fare. She was told that she also had to pay a fine, and if she refused the police would be called. This was her first "offence", and she had no intention of avoiding payment, but these facts did not matter. In my opinion they insisted on the extra payment because it was easy for them to do so. Easier than repairing a ticket machine, or paying for an additional member of staff.
And this kind of case is the perfect reason to have your day in court.
The court would look at the evidence, non working ticket machine, lack of staff to collect fairs and make a sensible decision, unlike the " fine him/her" attitude.
Thanks for that Chris. Would you happen to know how long does it take between getting flashed and receiving a fine. Im still having sleepless nights, :S
If they don't get a NIP to you within 14 days of the alleged offence, you're in the clear. Good luck!
---------- Post added at 15:39 ---------- Previous post was at 15:36 ----------
Could do what footballers do and get away with it, say you dont recall driving the vehicle at the stated date and time, its a loophole apparently ;)
I went one better than that. I actually proved it wasn't me who was driving my car when it was GATSO'ed. So they took me to court for "Failure to provide information", and it was treated the same as speeding. Pathetic bench, TBH. They decided that I "hadn't tried hard enough" to find the driver. £60 fine and 3 points, and that was AFTER I'd proven some of the prosecution evidence to be wrong. :mad:
---------- Post added at 15:41 ---------- Previous post was at 15:39 ----------
Unless it came recorded/registered delivery, ignore the NIP.
Await letter saying "Oi, we sent you an NIP, you didn't return it, what's going on?"
Respond with a request for proof of postage such as the recorded/registered post tracking number.
Do not accept "we know we sent it, so we sent it" as a response, legally, they have to use recorded/registered post to prove postage.
Without this, they cannot consider that the NIP was sent within 14 days, and therefore it is not enforcable.
Of course this doesn't help if you were pulled over.
I would imagine however, if someone seriously broke the speed limit, like the person OB mentioned, they'll probably still end up in court, if only to waste their time and hope to get a conviction.
Part of my case involved not receiving the first NIP. The prosecution paperwork came with a statement from the admin person swearing they had sent it by first class post, which (they claimed) proves that it was delivered. Funnily enough, they didn't receive one of my replies, which I swore that I'd sent. Different rules for the rest of us, apparently.
---------- Post added at 15:43 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------
Generally 30+ over the limit is a ban. I pleaded guilty a few years ago to 60+ in a 30 limit, but had what I thought was a good solicitor. I got a 2 week ban and a fine. 2 weeks was more for inconvenience, but it screwed my insurance for a few years after that.
My advice to anyone with a speeding ticket is to contest it, unless you are 100% guilty. There are many loopholes, but also the prosecution case is often as weak as Tetleys.
---------- Post added at 15:45 ---------- Previous post was at 15:43 ----------
His only option to keep the license is to hire a VERY good brief who is well experienced in traffic offenses, and to try and tear apart the circumstances to try and find a loop-hole or technicality. Most have been closed, but some still remain.
A common one is that if the speed trap device wasn't calibrated that day (which I think happens more than most would think), then that is enough to throw out the offense.
And it has to have been calibrated by a qualified person, and operated by one, in the case of hand-held devices.
Anyone interested in "unfair" treatment of motorists might want to look here:
http://pepipoo.com/
arcamalpha2004
24-09-2006, 18:23
"Part of my case involved not receiving the first NIP. The prosecution paperwork came with a statement from the admin person swearing they had sent it by first class post, which (they claimed) proves that it was delivered. Funnily enough, they didn't receive one of my replies, which I swore that I'd sent. Different rules for the rest of us, apparently."
Yep can imagine the scene, the admin person is asked by their boss if they posted the letter " yes gaffa, I posted it first class "
So that is evidence enough to convict, its a very sorry state of affairs that these letters are not required to be sent by registered post, seeing how important they are, heaven help us, people send letters to ntl by registered post, letters from the prosecution that could mean you losing your livelihood arrive by first class stamp, if theyre not thrown into some bush somewhere because some cretin finds his round too exhausting.
hatedbythemail
24-09-2006, 19:15
not sure complaining about insurance companies after youve been done for speeding is really fair. youre a proven risk and, after all, many provide discounts for those who take advanced/defensive driving courses.
what will be interesting to se is whether tthe two drivers taking the UK to the european court this week win. they claim that being forced to disclose who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offence is contra to our long established principle of innocent until proven guilty. i agree.
now, who's going to praise or damn the human rights lawyers now? ;-) if only it were cherie blair putting forward the case :-)
..snip..
what will be interesting to se is whether tthe two drivers taking the UK to the european court this week win. they claim that being forced to disclose who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offence is contra to our long established principle of innocent until proven guilty. i agree.
now, who's going to praise or damn the human rights lawyers now? ;-) if only it were cherie blair putting forward the case :-)
With rights come responsibilities - the two drivers are using their "rights" to evade their responsibilities. What's their excuse for not remembering who was driving? Were they too p*ssed? They should both be prosecuted for wasting police time.
By not knowing who was driving the car, surely their insurance was invalid?
hatedbythemail
24-09-2006, 19:34
With rights come responsibilities - the two drivers are using their "rights" to evade their responsibilities. What's their excuse for not remembering who was driving? Were they too p*ssed? They should both be prosecuted for wasting police time.
By not knowing who was driving the car, surely their insurance was invalid? but in our country it is up to the justice system to prove guilt. its fundamental. trust me i have no sympathy with at least one of the characters involved, who was speeding in a 30, but theres an important principle at stake.
i thought gatsos provided photographic evidence of the driver though?
but in our country it is up to the justice system to prove guilt. its fundamental. trust me i have no sympathy with at least one of the characters involved, who was speeding in a 30, but theres an important principle at stake.
i thought gatsos provided photographic evidence of the driver though?
But surely they are guilty of being "dicks" ;) - understand what you are saying, but it is abuses of these rights that weaken them.
About the Gatsos - unfortunately no, as my wife got a speeding ticket in Headingley a few weeks ago - we asked for the photos, as she couldn't actually remember driving on that road that Sunday; the photos showed her car from the back; she was the only one that could have been driving it (unless someone broke in the house without damaging the locks, took the keys, borrowed the car for an hour, broke back in, and put the keys back), so she has taken the pain (and the fine and 3 points). She accepts the responsibility of being the car owner, and that an offence occurred, so it is down to her.
hatedbythemail
24-09-2006, 19:55
not a lot of point debating this i guess but principles are fundamentals. you cant mess with them, especially in law. if a precedent is set for assumption of guilt where does it end?
not a lot of point debating this i guess but principles are fundamentals. you cant mess with them, especially in law. if a precedent is set for assumption of guilt where does it end?
Sorry, didn't explain myself well enough (/my bad/).
Charge them both with wasting police time, since one of them was driving, and they both know who.
Would you still agree with their "innocence" if they had run some one over and killed him/her? - What about his/her rights? (beside the "last" ones).
TheDaddy
24-09-2006, 20:42
I am no lawyer but wouldn't it be perverting the course of justice if the above happened.
I am no lawyer but wouldn't it be perverting the course of justice if the above happened.
What - charging them with wasting police time, or the two chancers not admitting who was driving?
Anyhoo, we should do what other countries do - if no one will admit to driving, the owner of the car is responsible (if not, his insurance is invalid for letting someone drive it without his permission).
hatedbythemail
24-09-2006, 20:44
Sorry, didn't explain myself well enough (/my bad/).
Charge them both with wasting police time, since one of them was driving, and they both know who. well youd still have to prove one of them was driving. i dunno though, its difficult. you cannot firce people to give evidence so whether you could make a case for wasting time.
Would you still agree with their "innocence" if they had run some one over and killed him/her? - What about his/her rights? (beside the "last" ones).i'd expect considerable resource to be given to finding the perpretrator. but here, even more important to ensure the evidence proves the case.
TheDaddy
24-09-2006, 20:46
What - charging them with wasting police time, or the two chancers not admitting who was driving?
No the offence that the pair would be commiting, which I believe is more serious than wasting Police time as well, whats going on this evening Foreverwar did you have a few shandy's with lunch ;)
well youd still have to prove one of them was driving. i dunno though, its difficult. you cannot firce people to give evidence so whether you could make a case for wasting time.
i'd expect considerable resource to be given to finding the perpretrator. but here, even more important to ensure the evidence proves the case.
Do you agree that the owner of the car is responsible for ensuring he knows who drives his car?
---------- Post added at 20:51 ---------- Previous post was at 20:46 ----------
No the offence that the pair would be commiting, which I believe is more serious than wasting Police time as well, whats going on this evening Foreverwar did you have a few shandy's with lunch ;)
Nah (I wish) - it is just if one is not 100% precise on this forum, the minutae can often be used to shred the thrust of the argument.
I thought you meant the two lovely boyos, but did not want to assume.
With rights come responsibilities - the two drivers are using their "rights" to evade their responsibilities. What's their excuse for not remembering who was driving? Were they too p*ssed? They should both be prosecuted for wasting police time.
By not knowing who was driving the car, surely their insurance was invalid?
From the sounds of things, they aren't claiming they don't know who was driving, they're claiming that by being forced to say who was driving is against their human rights.
If you believe people have the right to remain silent, then this is what they are on about.
Insurance is not dependant on the owner of the vehicle.
I'm currently using my mum's car, I'm on her insurance.
She's still insured to drive it.
However, if one day we did many identical quick trips (say helping someone move) with either of us driving, if the car was caught by a gatso, it would be difficult to prove who was driving at that time.
Now as there is a 50/50 chance that it could have been me, is it right that my mother should be punished for an offence she has not been proven to have committed?
TheDaddy
24-09-2006, 21:17
From the sounds of things, they aren't claiming they don't know who was driving, they're claiming that by being forced to say who was driving is against their human rights.
If you believe people have the right to remain silent, then this is what they are on about.
I think his point is that if they want to remain silent then fine but let them be charged with something more serious, which imo is a fair point, justice is not served by people wasting time and resources trying to weasel out of things by claiming that they can't remember.
From the sounds of things, they aren't claiming they don't know who was driving, they're claiming that by being forced to say who was driving is against their human rights.
If you believe people have the right to remain silent, then this is what they are on about.
Agreed - they should not have to incriminate themselves - however, since they know who was driving the car, they should be charged with wasting police time. And, the car owner's insurance company should invalidate his insurance for allowing his car to be driven by an unnamed driver.
And again, as I have said before, with rights come responsibilities - we should change the law to that of other countries where, if it cannot be proved who was driving the car, the owner is held responsible (just like they are for road tax and insurance).
I think his point is that if they want to remain silent then fine but let them be charged with something more serious, which imo is a fair point, justice is not served by people wasting time and resources trying to weasel out of things by claiming that they can't remember.
If they remain silent, and that is their right, then they should not be punished for an offence that they have not been proven to have committed right?
They also should not be punished for practicing a legal activity, such as not answering questions.
It should be up to the police to prove who committed the offence, otherwise it is no different than someone being prosecuted for GBH because their bicycle was in the area.
If the police don't have the tools to do the job, then give them the tools, such as funding for mobile units or truvelo cameras so that the driver can be captured.
Supply that information with the NIP to aid the owner of the vehicle with identifying who was driving.
At the moment they don't do this, and most constabularies are loath to provide photographic evidence because it prove that the owner was not the driver, and give the owner the oppertunity to protect the driver by giving false contact details "it was my cousin over from Botswana, he went back the day after"
However, why should driving offences be different to every other offence in that you have to prove your innocence rather than the authorities having to prove your guilt?
TheDaddy
24-09-2006, 21:39
I agree with much of what you say but remaining silent is only part of the issue the main point as I read it is whether you should be forced to incriminate yourself by saying who was driving the car and my point is if once it gets to court and you are found guilty despite trying to weasel out of it by claiming memory loss you should be punished much more severly than those that accept they have done wrong and take it on the chin, thus not wasting time and resources, whilst I accept that incidents do legitimately occur when people genuinely don't know who was driving I suspect that there are more incidents of people using it as a dishonest legal loop hole and imo it can't be allowed to continue.
hatedbythemail
24-09-2006, 21:46
Do you agree that the owner of the car is responsible for ensuring he knows who drives his car? yes, assuming taken with consent. doesnt mean you can charge them with an offence you cant prove. the insurance idea sounds a valid one 9except that xaccers has raised an equally valid point about how uk insurance works ;-) ).
---------- Post added at 21:46 ---------- Previous post was at 21:44 ----------
From the sounds of things, they aren't claiming they don't know who was driving, they're claiming that by being forced to say who was driving is against their human rights.
If you believe people have the right to remain silent, then this is what they are on about. correct - well i think it refers to our unwritten constitutioon which kind of predates the much abused term of "human rights"
If the police have the evidence showing you were the driver, such as a photo or film footage clearly showing it was you driving, then you should expect to be punished, as long as the police have followed their legal responsibilities correctly.
However, how can you prove that someone hadn't forgotten who was driving, in order to give them a tougher sentence?
Just fyi
this is what was happening on the night they got gatso'ed, in 2000.
"Amesh Chauhan, 22, and Dean Hollingsworth, 23, both from Birmingham, were caught by a speed camera, allegedly racing cars around the city centre with several others."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/834532.stm
Luvverly!
Strange, isn't it, that you never hear of people being unfairly convicted due to legal loopholes.
Even JUSTICE are against this use of the "right to silence"
http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/brownp.PDF#search=%22two%20drivers%20speeding%20ap peal%20european%20court%20human%20rights%22
JUSTICE is an independent all-party human rights law reform organisation, and is the British Section of the International Commission of Jurists.
Specifically
"The right against self-incrimination is one aspect of a fair trial under Article 6. Its purpose is to protect individuals from improper compulsion and/or the unfair use of evidence obtained by compulsion and it should be interpreted according to that purpose. Consequently, it is neither absolute nor inflexible in character."
and
"JUSTICE further submits that there is a clear and obvious public interest in the prosecution of RTA offences. This public interest can justify a more restrictive interpretation of the right against self-incrimination in the context of RTA prosecutions than would be permitted in relation to other offences, so long as any such interpretation leaves in tact the twin pillars of the right against self-incrimination: protection from improper compulsion and unfair use of compulsorily obtained evidence."
TheDaddy
24-09-2006, 21:59
However, how can you prove that someone hadn't forgotten who was driving, in order to give them a tougher sentence?
I don't actually think it would be as hard as it sounds, for instance if they are interviewed correctly I suspect many would slip up, if they were cross examined in court many would slip up and if the punishment fitted the crime many more would not try it at all. At the end of the day it is possible, it just depends on how far you want to go to criminalise and prosecute the offence.
I don't actually think it would be as hard as it sounds, for instance if they are interviewed correctly I suspect many would slip up, if they were cross examined in court many would slip up and if the punishment fitted the crime many more would not try it at all. At the end of the day it is possible, it just depends on how far you want to go to criminalise and prosecute the offence.
If it is found they have lied, especially in court, then definitely charge them with purgery.
But surely they are guilty of being "dicks" ;) - understand what you are saying, but it is abuses of these rights that weaken them.
About the Gatsos - unfortunately no, as my wife got a speeding ticket in Headingley a few weeks ago - we asked for the photos, as she couldn't actually remember driving on that road that Sunday; the photos showed her car from the back; she was the only one that could have been driving it (unless someone broke in the house without damaging the locks, took the keys, borrowed the car for an hour, broke back in, and put the keys back), so she has taken the pain (and the fine and 3 points). She accepts the responsibility of being the car owner, and that an offence occurred, so it is down to her.
As I recall, the line used by the CPS was that the GATSO photo just proves the car was there at the time. The owner has to provide driver info. However, there is always the possibility that the vehicle is a "ringer"... an identical car with false number plates. Like I say, it's a possibility.
---------- Post added at 22:19 ---------- Previous post was at 22:17 ----------
not sure complaining about insurance companies after youve been done for speeding is really fair. youre a proven risk and, after all, many provide discounts for those who take advanced/defensive driving courses.
I wasn't actually complaining ;) However it was a shock just how much the ban affected my insurance. The brokers just told me that a ban, any ban, will ramp up the insurance much more than points.
---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:19 ----------
what will be interesting to se is whether tthe two drivers taking the UK to the european court this week win. they claim that being forced to disclose who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offence is contra to our long established principle of innocent until proven guilty. i agree.
There is another angle here. If you take the NIP for what it is, it roughly translates to "You're guilty of this offence, pay a fine, or we will prosecute you for a different offence". Now, this is actually in contravention of the 1689 Bill of Rights, which prohibits "fines and forfeitures before conviction". Basically, the NIP is acting as prosecutor, jury and judge, all in one.
As I recall, the line used by the CPS was that the GATSO photo just proves the car was there at the time. The owner has to provide driver info. However, there is always the possibility that the vehicle is a "ringer"... an identical car with false number plates. Like I say, it's a possibility.
The photos from the Gatso (x2) clearly show the car (or did in my wife's case) - they are so clear they showed the small "Mum's Taxi" sign in the back window, and the text of the sign was readable - so unless it was an identical car, with cloned numberplates, and they had also the same sign, the odds are pretty much upon it was her.
There is another angle here. If you take the NIP for what it is, it roughly translates to "You're guilty of this offence, pay a fine, or we will prosecute you for a different offence". Now, this is actually in contravention of the 1689 Bill of Rights, which prohibits "fines and forfeitures before conviction". Basically, the NIP is acting as prosecutor, jury and judge, all in one.
What about parking tickets and London Congestion Charge? Or, you could take it as - you are the owner of this car, this car was speeding, you are responsible, as the owner, for this car, pay the fine or prove it wasn't you.
Update from Speed-trap website
"Section 172 loophole. This loophole was exploiting an apparent conflict between the PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence) rules where you must be cautioned first and the process of receiving a Notice of Intended Prosecution from a Gatso (or similar scamera) where you don't get cautioned and just receive paperwork through the post. This loophole has for now been closed following a ruling by the High Court in the case of Francis -v- DPP. This is being taken to the European courts but it is unlikely to get a hearing this year."
hatedbythemail
25-09-2006, 09:38
JUSTICE might not support the right to silence but Liberty do. i believe theyre supporting this case.
on the issue of death or injury caused by speeding then a gatso is hardly likely to be the prime evidence source. accident investigators would scour the scene and use skid marks (or lack of them) to determine speed and other evidence to demonstrate a drivers actions. they would still need to prove who the driver of the car was and could not rely on a suspect to incriminate themselves, or indeed clear themselves as that might not be possible.
Any news on what is going to happen to your husbands boss over this OB?
JUSTICE might not support the right to silence but Liberty do. i believe theyre supporting this case.
on the issue of death or injury caused by speeding then a gatso is hardly likely to be the prime evidence source. accident investigators would scour the scene and use skid marks (or lack of them) to determine speed and other evidence to demonstrate a drivers actions. they would still need to prove who the driver of the car was and could not rely on a suspect to incriminate themselves, or indeed clear themselves as that might not be possible.
Source? Can't find anything on their website.
Can we get this into proportion - it was a couple of guys zooming around a city centre, at high speeds, and we are very lucky no one was injured or killed. They have been appealing against this conviction for six years. If you believe that it is a basic human right to lie after committing a crime, good for you. Some of us believe in taking responsibility for our actions, and wish others would think the same way.
hatedbythemail
25-09-2006, 10:42
Source? Can't find anything on their website. soz, couldnt remember where id read it http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,,1879737,00.html
What about parking tickets and London Congestion Charge? Or, you could take it as - you are the owner of this car, this car was speeding, you are responsible, as the owner, for this car, pay the fine or prove it wasn't you.
Actually, I recently had an issue with a parking ticket issued by Westminster City Council. Generally they are one of the worst when it comes to tickets. Anyhow, I challenged the ticket on several grounds. They argued my point about Bill of Rights, saying that ticket offences had been "decriminalised", and I argued back; strange though, the ticket was cancelled, and I was compensated :p:
I have won a Congestion Charge case, but on different grounds.
The point you make actually flies in the face of "innocent till proven guilty"... what you suggest is more "guilty unless you prove otherwise". You are assuming that all of the points you make are true, and none have to be proven, which seems a little biased towards the CPS.
The point you make actually flies in the face of "innocent till proven guilty"... what you suggest is more "guilty unless you prove otherwise". You are assuming that all of the points you make are true, and none have to be proven, which seems a little biased towards the CPS.
I am glad you won your cases, and I am sorry if I did not make my point clear.
When my wife received her NIP, she couldn't remember driving down that road that day - so she contacted the appropriate agency, and asked for the photos. These were sent in a couple of days, clearly showing her car (from the back). She then took responsibility, and accepted that she must have been driving the car, and had just forgotten.
What gets me irate is when people know they were speeding, and then try and weasel out of paying the fine using legal loopholes - just me, I suppose.
I am glad you won your cases, and I am sorry if I did not make my point clear.
When my wife received her NIP, she couldn't remember driving down that road that day - so she contacted the appropriate agency, and asked for the photos. These were sent in a couple of days, clearly showing her car (from the back). She then took responsibility, and accepted that she must have been driving the car, and had just forgotten.
What gets me irate is when people know they were speeding, and then try and weasel out of paying the fine using legal loopholes - just me, I suppose.
Sorry, my error... I misunderstood what you said.
I agree... I don't fight every ticket, just the ones I've got a gripe with.
arcamalpha2004
26-09-2006, 12:02
With rights come responsibilities - the two drivers are using their "rights" to evade their responsibilities. What's their excuse for not remembering who was driving? Were they too p*ssed? They should both be prosecuted for wasting police time.
By not knowing who was driving the car, surely their insurance was invalid?
The point is that as an " accused " you cannot "incriminate" yourself, because of our " innocent til proven guilty in a court of law " system < which I fully agree with > you are entitled to not say a word.
Like the woman who was high on a cocktail of drink and drugs whose lawyer got her off because as he stated " she should not have incriminated herself "
The human rights case is due in october, the result if in favour of the claimant will be very interesting, meaning all past convictions may have to be quashed and any monies fined refunded.
As I always say, it is not for you to prove your innocence, its for the state to prove you are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, which is fair imo.
---------- Post added at 12:02 ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 ----------
I am glad you won your cases, and I am sorry if I did not make my point clear.
When my wife received her NIP, she couldn't remember driving down that road that day - so she contacted the appropriate agency, and asked for the photos. These were sent in a couple of days, clearly showing her car (from the back). She then took responsibility, and accepted that she must have been driving the car, and had just forgotten.
What gets me irate is when people know they were speeding, and then try and weasel out of paying the fine using legal loopholes - just me, I suppose.
And you sound a law abiding person, sadly people who are guilty get away with it, but who sets the standards we have in our country? who is meant to lay down the law? but when people tire of seeing cases of the " standard " makers exploiting loopholes what can we expect?
If its ok for a highly paid footballer or a police officer to exploit a loophole why should someone of lesser means not do the same?
The point is that as an " accused " you cannot "incriminate" yourself, because of our " innocent til proven guilty in a court of law " system < which I fully agree with > you are entitled to not say a word.
Like the woman who was high on a cocktail of drink and drugs whose lawyer got her off because as he stated " she should not have incriminated herself "
The human rights case is due in october, the result if in favour of the claimant will be very interesting, meaning all past convictions may have to be quashed and any monies fined refunded.
As I always say, it is not for you to prove your innocence, its for the state to prove you are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, which is fair imo.
It's actually "don't have to", not "cannot" - if it was "cannot", no one could plead guilty. The joy of "don't have to" is that it is up to your personal morals and sense of responsibility.
You seem to be missing the point I have made many times in this thread - with rights come responsibilities; if you committed an act, and you know your are guilty, you should accept responsibility. But as I have also previously said, that could be just me (doesn't seem like it though, with comments in other threads about yobbish youths causing problems).
And you sound a law abiding person, sadly people who are guilty get away with it, but who sets the standards we have in our country? who is meant to lay down the law? but when people tire of seeing cases of the " standard " makers exploiting loopholes what can we expect?
If its ok for a highly paid footballer or a police officer to exploit a loophole why should someone of lesser means not do the same?
mmmmm... so when there is a riot, and you see people destroying and stealing stuff, it's alright to join in?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Just because someone else is doing wrong, doesn't mean we all have to.
All it takes for evil to succeed, is for good people to do nothing.
arcamalpha2004
28-09-2006, 11:17
It's actually "don't have to", not "cannot" - if it was "cannot", no one could plead guilty. The joy of "don't have to" is that it is up to your personal morals and sense of responsibility.
You seem to be missing the point I have made many times in this thread - with rights come responsibilities; if you committed an act, and you know your are guilty, you should accept responsibility. But as I have also previously said, that could be just me (doesn't seem like it though, with comments in other threads about yobbish youths causing problems).
mmmmm... so when there is a riot, and you see people destroying and stealing stuff, it's alright to join in?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Just because someone else is doing wrong, doesn't mean we all have to.
All it takes for evil to succeed, is for good people to do nothing.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but in the society we live in, where people who should know better bend the rules to suit a particular reason what can we expect?
I am not talking about a riot, the issue here is about speeding, about being innocent until proven guilty, whether or not you know deep in your heart you were caught bang to rights.
It is, with respect, cannot incriminate yourself, thats the way it is stated, because lets say you're belting along the motorway 120 miles per hour, the bobby pulls you over, he says to you that you were going way over 100 you do not have to say anything because to say anything would incriminate yourself, so there is where "cannot" comes in.
Yes if you commit an offence you should take the rap, but why should you when other people just use the system in the way it was intended?
All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing?
Now we are getting deep.
Sadly evil has been around since whenever, a guy goes out to remonstrate with yobs who are throwing eggs at his windows, they beat him to a pulp, the yobs get a light custodial sentence, what does this tell you about our society? I know my opinion, but dont kid yourself that by being good and standing up to be counted that evil will stop, it will still be here long after I am gone.
Sadly evil has been around since whenever, a guy goes out to remonstrate with yobs who are throwing eggs at his windows, they beat him to a pulp, the yobs get a light custodial sentence, what does this tell you about our society? I know my opinion, but dont kid yourself that by being good and standing up to be counted that evil will stop, it will still be here long after I am gone.
If you stand up and take the rap, all that happens is you become an easy target for the Police, CPS etc. That way they can leave the more difficult cases, yet still hit their targets. Why do you think we have speed cameras? One reason is that it's easier to catch people for speeding than it is to go out and do some real police work, like catching muggers, vandals etc.
If you stand up and take the rap, all that happens is you become an easy target for the Police, CPS etc. That way they can leave the more difficult cases, yet still hit their targets. Why do you think we have speed cameras? One reason is that it's easier to catch people for speeding than it is to go out and do some real police work, like catching muggers, vandals etc.
I agree :D
Many organisations take this "easy" route. Cynics might say it is an economic way to meet targets.
hatedbythemail
28-09-2006, 17:38
but just because one crime is easier to prosecute than another doesn't mean it shouldn't be prosecuted.
but no-one should have to give up their right to the presumption of innocence. its a fundamental principle of our justice system, even if it sometimes raises the kind of moral dilemmas people have raised here.
I agree :D
Stop it, damn you!! ;) :) :)
I've got a question - I've got a letter indicating that 'proceedings are contemplated against the driver' for 'contravening a red light'?? Aledged offence 1.9.06 - letter dated 5.10.06.
Anyone advice on what to do? As they are outside the 14 days do i need to worry?
Thanks in advance for any advice - will put me at 9 points..
I've got a question - I've got a letter indicating that 'proceedings are contemplated against the driver' for 'contravening a red light'?? Aledged offence 1.9.06 - letter dated 5.10.06.
Anyone advice on what to do? As they are outside the 14 days do i need to worry?
Thanks in advance for any advice - will put me at 9 points..
Does it say whether papers have been put before a judge? And does if offer you a fixed penalty? Is it headed "Notice of Intended Prosecution"?
Me283,
It says Notice of Intended Prosecution but doesn't offer me a fixed penalty??
Thanks in advance for any help
Well I got flashed by a speed camera Tuesday morning in a 40MPH limit along with many other motorists, we were all in a queue of traffic travelling around 15MPH !
It is correct that the police and CPS are human beings, and like many people in the workplace they will take the easiest options to meet their targets and keep their job. I was once at the receiving end of some bad police treatment, and all because I had done something wrong and held my hand up straight away. The police then tried to add some more serious charges and even claimed to have a couple of witness statements, when it got to court however the one person (neighbour who I didn't get on with) had lost their backbone and withdrawn their statement.
The police had obviously told them I would confess and they wouldn't be called in court to give evidence, but how wrong they were.
These days the person who does something wrong and has a conscience gets the full wrath of the law because they are an easy target. If however you deny and stick to your story no matter what happens, they are likely not to persue the action. I have been in both situations, and I have also been in the situation of two police officers coming here to warn me about a crime where I didn't actually know what the hell they were talking about. in that instance I didn't even know the person they were talking about and they warned me to stay away from them, I did the exact opposite and confronted them. They were very sheepish and admitted that they knew who committed the crime but was afraid to point the finger.
I went to the police station about that and told them who had committed the crime, but suprise suprise they weren't interested. They had the culprit but couldn't pin the evidence on ME. They had accused me of committing an assault on someone three weeks before they visited me, the person had taken 3 weeks to report the incident that I dont think actually ever happened.
I made the person aware that any such rubbish in the future would certainly result in an assault.
SMHarman
12-10-2006, 20:36
Anyhoo, we should do what other countries do - if no one will admit to driving, the owner of the car is responsible (if not, his insurance is invalid for letting someone drive it without his permission).I like the US approach that you have a right to cross examine / meet with the person charging you in court, being as the thing charging you is a machine it is rather difficult to up root it and bring it to the witness box where it seems to use its right to remain silent.
---------- Post added at 15:36 ---------- Previous post was at 15:34 ----------
not sure complaining about insurance companies after youve been done for speeding is really fair. youre a proven risk and, after all, many provide discounts for those who take advanced/defensive driving courses.Except speed is generally not the major cause of accidents on its own, and even where it is, it is often excessive for the circumstances. As the policeman earlier in this thread highlighted, it is possible to drive safely and exsessivly fast at 4 am (not at 8am on the M25).
Me283,
It says Notice of Intended Prosecution but doesn't offer me a fixed penalty??
Thanks in advance for any help
Respond stating that they are outside the 14 day limit and you therefore consider this matter closed.
Make sure you use recorded delivery.
Me283,
It says Notice of Intended Prosecution but doesn't offer me a fixed penalty??
Thanks in advance for any help
As Xaccers says, they are supposed to issue the NIP within 14 days of the alleged offence. I would ring the court and ask them if they realise what they've done. I have heard of tales where the court are very helpful and will just admit the mistake, then withdraw the NIP. Failing that, definitely write to them, and as Xaccers points out, use Recorded Delivery. It's funny how often they "don't receive" post :rolleyes:
Basically, they're trying it on.
They do it all the time, they know any conviction got in such circumstances would be illegal, but that doesn't stop them trying in the hope that you don't know the law, this is why they don't bother using recorded delivery themselves, nor send out photographic evidence as you could use it to get off and that would cost them a conviction (they hope you'll just accept the charge and pay the fine).
Basically, they're trying it on.
They do it all the time, they know any conviction got in such circumstances would be illegal, but that doesn't stop them trying in the hope that you don't know the law, this is why they don't bother using recorded delivery themselves, nor send out photographic evidence as you could use it to get off and that would cost them a conviction (they hope you'll just accept the charge and pay the fine).
Yep... and they do it all in the name of "safety"...:rolleyes:
Thanks guys, a great relief.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.