Falsely accused of speeding. Taking me to court. Advice needed.

sarahg1969

vaio wrote: »

In the old days I’m sure for speeding it was either two officers armed with the mark one human eyeball or one officer plus a calibrated speedo (which any motorway police car is going to have)

It still is. But that does not apply to motorways.

Weirdlittleman

Was having a read up on this and the suggestion is that the reason for the motorway exemptions is due to speeds and road structure it can be difficult to always guarentee the required situation for corroboration by cameras etc due to the fact bridges are often too far away when the incline is considered and so on.

Convictions are rarely sought without corroboration and the no corroboration argument tends to be used when the culprit argues that the camera isnt corroboration due to it being used outwith ACPO guidelines (i.e its too far away - which is needed due to the incline on a bridge)

The OP can confirm but I will bet that in addition to the officer they have another officer or camera read out but are possibly choosing not to use it to avoid the OP clouding the issue with arguments about ACPO guidelines.

Swiss_Toni

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

The OP can confirm but I will bet that in addition to the officer they have another officer or camera read out but are possibly choosing not to use it to avoid the OP clouding the issue with arguments about ACPO guidelines.

The OP would probably be better off paying for advice rather than worrying about what the ACPO guidelines say - they are just that, guidelines, which also state that the full circumstances need to be taken into account - there is no problem prosecuting for 31mph in a 30mph limit if the circumstances are such that it is in the public interest (for example).
And it is not the Police who prosecute, it is the Crown Prosecution Service.

artbaron

mivec88 wrote: »

Will try to explain this as best as possible

If that's your best possible explanation then I don't rate your chances of fighting this.

What where the circumstances of the stop?
What happened when you stopped?
What did the officer say?
What was the reason he gave for stopping you?
What did you say?
What happened then?

forgotmyname

Dont they need a reason to stop you? Even a feeble one?

sarahg1969

forgotmyname wrote: »

Dont they need a reason to stop you? Even a feeble one?

There was one. Speeding.

Happychappy

Why does the officer need to invent a speeding offence ? are all the police bashers saying the officers have a personal interest ? or is the old pub story of promotion, commission on offences etc really believed ?

Weirdlittleman

Happychappy wrote: »

Why does the officer need to invent a speeding offence ? are all the police bashers saying the officers have a personal interest ? or is the old pub story of promotion, commission on offences etc really believed ?

It's the same way how everytime a bank or shop tell you something you don't like they are evil; inprofessional, rude etc.

The fact is there is no reason a traffic officer would want to pull over a random strange and lie about speeding. Sure there would have been plenty of actual speeders about.

Happychappy

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

It's the same way how everytime a bank or shop tell you something you don't like they are evil; inprofessional, rude etc.

The fact is there is no reason a traffic officer would want to pull over a random strange and lie about speeding. Sure there would have been plenty of actual speeders about.

You are right, and I'm amazed you have gone against the flow, everytime there is another "interesting" speeding story which doesnt add up, this board is then full of fantastic agatha christy stories, of demon cars inches from bumpers with no concern for their own life, just wanting to stitch up an innocent motorist who was fleeing from a maniac, maybe it's just the MSE's who have vivid imaginations :eek:

I am sure there will be a deluge of stories to follow, and yet how many ordinary people moan about the demise of traffic cops instead of camera's, bit of a no win situation as the traffic cops are clearly all bent and corrupt.

smitchy73

Up here in Scotland there is now a thing called 'disclosure' where the prosecution has to share the 'evidence' for the charge, as well as all statements, usually you also need at least two police officers, or one with video/photo evidence to back it up, hence why these police programs have so many single police cars but they're fitted with camera's.
If you'd don't have a lawyer maybe now is the time to speak to one, and if you search online you may find one who specialises in motoring convictions, although the cost maybe more than accepting the £60 fine and points.