Speed Camera Notice (Peculiarities??)

darbooka

Hiya,
I recently recieved 'Notice of Intended Prosecution' for ALLEGEDLY exceeding the speed limit (35 mph in a 30mph zone) - but can anyone provide any insights as to whether aspects of the notice, as indicated below, are inappropriate, insufficient or peculiar to the point where it is not possible to be sufficiently certain that I am responsible for any such contravention ?

a) LOCATION: Firstly, the Notice only indicates the name of the very long major road where ALLEGEDLY the violation occured. It does not give an address, camera number or any other specific location. So how can I know if I went by that camera or if the camera is appropriately signposted and visible if they dont say where the camera is?

b) PHOTO: The Police notice contends that photographic evidence will be supplied to the court, but they do not give me a copy of any such photo. In America, for example, the photographs are provided with the notice by mail so the person can see their car at the location of the contravention, to avoid doubt. In this case, if I can't see a photo of the car how can I even be sure that my number plates were not duplicated or any other circumstances that might be relevant and evident from a photo, or even whether such photo evidence exists at all? Doesn't any 'defendant' have the right to examine claims and evidence againt them before court so they can address it in court?

c) POINTS: In any event, what happens if a penalty were to be somehow granted when the driver has a non-UK drivers license? DVLA can't put points onto a foreign license can they?

D) The notice is accompanied by a form that the owner of the car is required to return; but as per issues A) and above, the form cannot be completed with confidence so what should be done?

taxiphil

Regarding the photo, they will supply you with a copy free of charge if you ask them for this.

Do remember that the NIP form they've sent you is highly misleading and does not correctly explain your legal rights. You are NOT obliged to incriminate yourself by naming yourself as the driver, nor are you are obliged to name anyone else if you are not 100% sure of who was driving.

To do so would be to commit perjury, which is a far more serious offence than the original alleged offence of speeding.

They are also violating the European Convention on Human Rights by threatening you with a greater punishment if you refuse to incriminate yourself.

You are quite within your rights to write back and explain that you are not 100% sure of who was driving your car at the time of the alleged offence. There is no legal requirement for keepers of vehicles to keep written records of who was driving their car. It is then up to the Police to try to find out who was driving instead of taking the lazy (and illegal) way by bullying you into confessing.

dmg24

Were you on that particular road at that time? Is it your number plate? If so, then accept that you were caught speeding and pay up!

If not, then request further evidence.

The notice that you have been sent uses the word 'allegedly' because at the moment you have neither admitted to the offence, nor have you been found guilty through trial in a court of law.

There is no obligation for the owner of a car to keep records of who has their car at any particular time, but unless you can prove it was somebody else, then the liability stops with the registered owner of the car.

You have every right to take this case right through to a court hearing. However, if found guilty you will inevitably face a greater punishment. It is not illegal for the courts to impose this, it is in recognition of the fact that you had wasted the time of the police and the courts.

darbooka

So the Police don't have to bother specifying where on the road the camera allegedly took the photo, and don't have to bother sending the photo so I can see if it's my car or a mistake in interpreting the plate number etc.?

Dipak

taxiphil wrote:

Regarding the photo, they will supply you with a copy free of charge if you ask them for this.

Do remember that the NIP form they've sent you is highly misleading and does not correctly explain your legal rights. You are NOT obliged to incriminate yourself by naming yourself as the driver, nor are you are obliged to name anyone else if you are not 100% sure of who was driving.

To do so would be to commit perjury, which is a far more serious offence than the original alleged offence of speeding.

They are also violating the European Convention on Human Rights by threatening you with a greater punishment if you refuse to incriminate yourself.



You are quite within your rights to write back and explain that you are not 100% sure of who was driving your car at the time of the alleged offence. There is no legal requirement for keepers of vehicles to keep written records of who was driving their car. It is then up to the Police to try to find out who was driving instead of taking the lazy (and illegal) way by bullying you into confessing.

Taxiphil,

My car got caught but a mobile camera and i was selling my car at the time so i didnt have the person who test drove my car details and i wrote to them and told them and they said its the responsiblilty of the registered keeper to insure his car is not breaking any law. I ended up with the points. Should that have been allowed then? i was honest and told them exactly what i never and 1 still ended up with the points.

D

darbooka

dmg and Taxiphil thanks for your insights. I read somewhere that there was a case successfully contended by the recipient of a similar notice who said the notice is improper because it is signed 'on behalf of the chief of police' and the police were not able to prove that the chief was aware or that it was genuinely on his behalf. Anyone heard about this?

MORPH3US

dmg24 wrote:

Were you on that particular road at that time? Is it your number plate? If so, then accept that you were caught speeding and pay up!

Op, read the above a 2nd time and act on it.

Its common sense.

This isn't America and there is no obligation to provide a photo initially!

darbooka

Morph, Thanks for pointing out that this isn't America. I am sufficiently proficient at geography and map-reading to know this. I was pointing out a similar example to show where - even if it happens in America - the UK procedure may be deficient or unreasonable.
If the notice fails to indicate exactly where on a very long stretch of road the alleged violation took place, and if the police do not supply photographs clearly identifying both the car AND the driver, then if at the same time the driver genuinely isn't sure that he/she was at fault and behind the wheel how else can there possibly be sufficient evidence for a COURT to determine that the vehicle owner was NECESSARILY driving the car?

Surely speed camera imagery deciphering technicians cannot be given the powers of magistrates nor expected to be as unbiased as the courts in making the appropriate final determination where: a) the car owner hasnt' been given the full evidence to prove if he/she was driving; and b) neither the photos on which the fine was based nor the car owner's honest recollection and testimony can be shown to indicate that he/she was the driver at the location in question?

darbooka

MORPH3US wrote:

...there is no obligation to provide a photo initially!

Interesting point. If the Police are going to the effort of sending at least three sheets of paper, including allegations of the violation and if they can produce evidence of photos to the court, then why not print out a photo or two and send them to you in the same envelope to reduce doubt? Why go to such effort to hide the photo evidence from the alleged offender? This is law enforcement, not a hand of poker.

taxiphil

dmg24 wrote:

There is no obligation for the owner of a car to keep records of who has their car at any particular time, but unless you can prove it was somebody else, then the liability stops with the registered owner of the car.

Absolutely wrong. You don't have to prove your innocence. The Crown has to prove your guilt. That's how British justice works.

There is absolutely nothing in the law to say that the Registered Keeper is automatically the person driving the vehicle unless they can prove otherwise. If this was the case, it would have led to thousands of cases of wrongful convictions!

It is a perfectly acceptable and valid defence to say that you don't know who was driving at the time. If they think you're lying they'd have to PROVE you were lying - you're not simply guilty by default!

chatta

You were given the name of the road where the offence supposedly happened, so you do have the address. All you have to do is ask for the photographic evidence of this if you dispute you were there. I believe the letter you have been sent is asking you if you are the owner or driver of the vehicle at the time.