Re: Road Traffic Act
 

OK, here's another interesting point: when one receives the "Notice of Intended Prosecution", one is being accused of a crime (otherwise they wouldn't be prosecuting). Now, I have always believed that one of our basic rights was the right to remain silent (as stated in Police cautions). BUT, the offence of "Fialing To Provide" means that you are NOT allowed to remain silent...? So, is the Road Traffic Act in it's various guises actually contrary to English Law?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I would appeal but only if I could prove absolutely that, beyond any doubt, I had indeed contacted the FPSU for a request to see the photo. In that case, it is not for the magistrates to fine someone due entirely to the failings of officials to respond. You should have the benefit of the doubt.
You can also ask the magistrates what constitutes "chasing up", i.e. ask for where in the RTA it states for such a specific requirement.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

yes it appears you are effectively being asked to be a witness against yourself.

I recon you could have a good chance to get this conviction overturned on appeal. Get a good lawyer!

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Have a read of this thread

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Flubflow, I agree with you, it SHOULD be the case. But here's a quandary: how does one "prove" that one has written to the FPSU? For an answer we should refer to the FAQ section on the paperwork sent out by the court. One example question asks how the FPSU can prove the Notice was sent; the answer is that the FPSU provide a statement to that effect, and the court regard that as "Good Service". So wjy is it not the same rule for me?
__________________

But caqn one appeal against a Magistrates' Court decision? Incidentally I asked what factor(s) had turned the "balance of probability" against me; the magistrate told me rather aggressively I could not challenge the decision there and then (even though I wasn't challenging), and ordered me to leave the court immediately!

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I might be wrong but i think if you appeal against the magistrates ruling then it goes to the CPS. If it has merit then you wind up in a crown court with a jury.

Read that other thread that Debsy suggested. Some useful info there.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

The whole asking for evidence bit is listed on a websote about talivans.
It states that if they refuse to provide a picture, you muist then accuse them of soliciting money with intent.
You cannot be charged with a crime without evidence, however when it comes to speed cameras the police do not have to provide the evidence.

Also, you shouldnt have been speeding in the first place.

Still I do agree, that its a tad unfair that they said you should have spent your time chasing them when they wanted to prosecute you.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

My point was that I wasn't speeding... I was able to prove that I was elsewhere at the time. The fact that I couldn't state for sure who WAS driving apparently means that my licence now has three penalty points. Hardly makes me a dangerous driver, does it?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Well if thats the case then challenge it.

A copper got away with in in Cleveland, if he did then legally they are on very dodgy ground if they uphold the conviction.
Also mention the attitude of the magistrate when you asked for clarification, just because they may be in a bad mood does not give them the right to be snotty, they are after all public servants.

I speed, I wonmt deny it, I speed stupidly on motorways at times, however if I was caught it would be a fair cop, My attitude is that I take a risk in speeding, if I loose the bet (that there arent any coppers or cameras around) then I pay the price. I could get all moral about it, but even my mother speeds occasionally, and I dont mean 35 in a 30 zone, I mean 31 in a 30 zone, yet Cleveland police prosecute for this.

Yes I could kill someone in an accident, but I culd kill somone in an accident at 30 mph too, its not big its not clever, but thats how I drive. I have a pretty open mind about the issues, anyone caught speeding in a school zone should have their car taken off them. Anyone caught speeding on a motorway between 70 and 100mph should face a series of fines but no points. Also you should be able to opt to pay a higher fine and receive no points.

IN your case though, if you could prove you were elsewhere they have convicted you for a crime you didnt commit (just like the A-Team) However if they have woprded it the way I think, then you werent convicted for speeding, you were convicted because they deemed you didnt do enough to assist them, which is also an offence.

Basically in most cases you cant win.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

We dont know if he was speeding in the first place though, without evidence!

I was sent a fine for tavelling over London Bridge in a vehicle weighing over 25 Tonnes, the laughable bit is the vehicle registered to me is a 3 wheel tricycle weighing approx 220Kg.

I phoned them and asked for evidence, and they were very unhelpful to say the least. They said I was guilty and would be far better off admitting the offence than trying to get away with it, I sent them a letter asking for photographic evidence of my vehicle crossing the bridge and received a letter of apology.

I thought this was amazing considering the foreigner I spoke to at their department handling fines assured me he had the picture on screen of a vehicle with my registration number, they had even got hold of the vehicle details and had put taxation class as Tricycle on the paparewpork with the fine. I asked the guy what was the maximum permitted weight for a vehicle in that taxation class, and he didn't have a clue. Also they had informed the DVLA because the vehicle was not taxed (declared SORN)! Amazingly the vehicle had not been out of my garage for over 2 years, but as far as they were concerned I was guilty. :D

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

It's true, they found me guilty of "Failure To Provide Info", on the grounds that I hadn't made sufficient effort to find out the driver's identity. I had asked for a copy of the photo, but that request was ignored. I figured that there wasn't much more that I could do, other than ask any of the other occasional drivers of the car; of course, nobody would own up to it.

I think I shall go into politics, using the eradication of speed cameras as a manifesto item!

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Another thing that concerns me is the cover letter that gets sent out with the photographic evidence, when they deem it permissible to let the accused see it. It states something along the lines of "...photo eveidence is not intended to identify the driver, but merely to place the vehicle at the scene of the alleged offence. Funny, but I thought they prosecute the driver, not the car...

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

But I thought that you said that they ignored your request for the photo, how come you got "a cover letter that gets sent out with the photo" then?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I was speaking generally. I have seen the letter that gets sent out and it's a total copout. I was sent my picture with the summons. Most helpful, it's the back of my car.

Apologies if my last post appeared several times... I can't seem to see beyond post number 15 on here. Help!

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Thats the magic word = guideline.

It's not the law its just a suggestion & can be set however they want it wherever.