Speed Camera Notice (Peculiarities??)

darbooka

Earlier in the thread I stated that the 6 month limitation period had past. I thought it had well cleared and in fact quite more than six months had indeed lapsed; but to my surprised I've recieved a summons! I wonder if they read this thread. What happened was that they "laid information" before the court just a few days before the six months lapsed. And then it took them fully two weeks more to send out the summons.

They stepped up to the plate! Now I can ask for costs and try to show them a thing or two about bringing arguably frivellous actions when their case has no merit.

However, I am no longer being charged for speeding. I am now being charged for failing to disclose who the driver was. I do not know who the driver was, there were two drivers regularly and interchangably using the car, and the speedcam photo gives no indication whatsover of who the driver is.

So now I come back to ya'all for some questions:
Is this kosher? I would've thought that the summons would be sent out within a couple of days an not have it left it "laid" and unattended for two weeks.

Secondly, if I claim not guilty do I need to burden my witness by dragging them all the way to court or will a written statement by them suffice?

Happychappy

Im really pleased for you now you can have your day in court and tell the system what you realy think ?

Your witnesses will need to attend court as they need to give evidence on oath, minor point which helps convict perjurers, this cannot be done through unsworn evidence, also you can show through your witnesses being cross examined, how credible your defence is, and cast doubt upon the prosecutions claim that you could not possibly or reasonably know who was driving?

There is a system where witnesses can have their statements served Section9, but this is only if the defence and prosecution accept what is being said. In this case they clearly would not, as I imagine it hinges on what other people say?.

As an aside, I read in the paper how a police officer off duty has just been convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice where he states he thought the vehicle was being driven by a french chap he knew, Interpol tracked down the address in France and completed enquiries etc which cast doubt upon his honesty. He is to be sentanced in March and will go down.

You would have thought with a speeding fine being a "Voluntary tax" where the individual chooses to be liable to pay it is they decide to ignore the law, it would be easier for him cough up and stop whinging rather then the
"Do not pass go collect £200" option

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=124615&command=displayContent&sourceNode=124519&contentPK=16650910&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch

Let us know how you get on.

tomstickland

darbooka wrote:

Firstly, that's not what you said in your post before you edited it in response to my comment. Your wording suggested that everyone recieving a Notice of Intended Prosecution is guilty.
Secondly, Police automated speed camera detection of an offense being committed is not enough to ensure that a particular person is to be found guilty of that offense.

IIRC I edited the post to make it clearer.

I'm not a fan of the current situation, and I think you'll find that I posted in support much earlier in this thread. My recent postings have been about very specific claims which, in my opinion, weaken a good argument with some poor arguments.

darbooka

Happychappy wrote:

Im really pleased for you now you can have your day in court and tell the system what you realy think ?

Your witnesses will need to attend court as they need to give evidence on oath, minor point which helps convict perjurers, this cannot be done through unsworn evidence,

The only problem with the witness attending is having to watch the youngsters. Childminding excess charges will only increase the 'costs' that we will have to claim back, and really will disrupt the routine of the lil'ones. As far as you know can a witness statement be sworn and witnessed beforehand at our local county court, in the same way that statutory declarations can?

Happychappy

No, purely because your witness may be give evidence which the prosecution would wish to explore and does not accept.

On a simple speeding offence which is uncontested, the evidence of the police witnesses etc is firstly served upon the defence and if uncontested is dealt with under S9.

In your case I would imagine you are trying to cast doubt upon something, and using witnesses to suppport this, therefore the prosecution has a right to explore your defence and cross examine your witnesses evidence and credibility.

The prosecution albeit laying information at the eleventh hour, would appear to have put forward a justified case which now hangs on whether your actions, memory etc are reasonable? Yes you may not be convicted of speeding, but the offence you are summonsed for is the alternative which is widely used for companies such as Manchester Utd and individuals who lead busy hectic lives, or are either uncooperative or suffer poor memory.

It really is down to your personal belief as to whether it really is worth fighting it now they have called your bluff, or to roll over and put it down to experience.

Clearly if you are absolutely certain in your heart of hearts you do not know the driver and could not possibly have known, then plead not guilty.

I have unfortunately witnessed many magistrate trials for this offence, which has bordered upon a Brain Rix farce and ended up a very stressful time for the defendent who clearly was being somewhat economical with his memory :rolleyes:

I am not saying this is the case with your own circumstances, however I would have a cold look at the facts and your own recollections, before putting yourself through a clearly stressful event?

This may help http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section14/chapter_p.html
Best of luck

darbooka

Thanks for the useful insights.
What can be so "stressful" about a husband and wife answering questions as to whether they are married and whether they routinely share their cars without keeping records of who drives each time?
Maybe bringing two impatient crying babies along will result in cute chaos (bless 'em) will be stressful - but only to the prosecution and the bench as we're used to it:) , but at least that would save some costs to be claimed back from the public purse for childmining.
I'm actually quite looking forward to the whole thing and to telling them about the numerous errors and ommissions in the various Police correspondence, including their sending and asking me to sign in incompletely printed s172 form, how they changed the date of the alleged offense later in the correspondence, how they changed my gender in their letters, how they gave written instructions contrary to what was indicated in the NIP...etc. Whether or not I committed an offense may remain to be judged, but whether they conducted my file offensively is quite clear.

exil

"Whether or not I committed an offense may remain to be judged"

Well presumably YOU know whether you did or not.

Generally - there are a few cases where people have been wrongly done for speeding. And there are people in jail who have been wrongly done for burglary. Does that mean we should make burglary legal?

darbooka

exil,
you're missing the point. i'm no longer being done for speeding. the offense they are charging is the s172 failure to state who was driving.
there are lots of things i can't remember and cannot state decisvely and reliably, in relation to incidents that happened 6 months ago. but only one such memory failure seems to be illegal - the inability to recall who of multiple (ie, two) drivers was driving my car on a given day last summer. As part of my 'diligence' i asked for the police evidence, waited two months for them to send it to me (although when i phoned up to discuss it they called it up on the computer in about 20 seconds), and the photo didn't help at all. How can I comply by telling them who the driver was unless I commit perjury and lie by stating what I do not know to be true?
Silly law, silly flaw.

Cumbrian_Male

Best of luck darbooka.

I couldn't believe it when I saw this pop back to the top.

I thought it had timed out. Didn't they miss the 6 month time limit to lay papers before the Magistrates.

Just remember any fine now goes to the Exchequer and can't be netted off to buy more cameras.

I took mine to court just to deprive them of the money.

£60 + 3pts became £75 + £35 costs + 3pts. Worth every penny to see the camera partnership not get any of it.

If everyone opted for trial the system would collapse.

Horasio

darbooka wrote:

CCStar, sorry to hear of your experience. Was it from an unmanned automated speed camera? If you don't know who the driver was, are you going to pay anyway or inform them that you do not know and challenge them to prove who the driver was?

Yes it was an unmanned camera but we know who was driving:(