Speed Camera Notice (Peculiarities??)

darbooka

Cumbrian_Male wrote:

Best of luck darbooka.

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

According to the information-laid date on the Summons, the information was laid in the very last week of the 6 month period; but then the Summons took more than two weeks to reach me after the information was laid. Do you think it is plausible that they backdated the date stating when the information was laid, and that they actually might have done so after the six months?

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

That is a bonus, but I am hopefull of not paying anything and leaving with a costs judgement in my favour so that Gordon's boys will have funded my defense and not visa versa.

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.

The extra penalty seems a very small amount to pay for at least partial justice. But in your circumstance, were you also claiming to be unable to know which of either you or your spouse/partner might have been driving? Did you actually ever name an alternate driver or send back the s172 form?

DAMNOME

So what was the outcome then ????????????????????

DAMNOME

take it you lost then?

darbooka

Hearing was ajourned to early summer. New summons was accompanied by an optional form inviting me to give away the nature of my defense so that the prospecution can consider it and decide if they want to abandon the case (and save themselves the prospect of incurring costs). I have yet to send them that form.

darbooka

Trial took place this week. It was exciting and nerve-wracking, going before 3 judges and facing a professional prosecutor.
The speeding allegation was dropped but the CPS was charging a s172 offense failing to identify the driver.
I claimed the subsection 4 defense of "did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was."
The prosecutor tried to trip me up with trick questions but was entirely unsuccessful and after the magistrates went away briefly to consider their judgement, they returned to give their finding that I am not guilty. I then asked for costs, which they granted in the form of transport and lunch expenses but the clerk contended that I am not entitled to preparation costs as those can only be claimed by a qualified legal representative and I was representing myself. Still, nice to expect the arrival of a a cheque from them instead of having pay a fine and I am glad that the GATSO camera operators and the public purse, after nearly a year of correspondence and litigation, did not win and will not be getting any funds from me.
Have to say that the judges were very fair and were not intimidated into accepting everything the prosecutor said just because he was there for the CPS. They let me reply and make my points and considered every point on its merits. I was able to point out faults in the Police correspondence and handling, some of which the prosecutor declined (seemingly 'conveniently', for him) to mention in his presentation. I was very impressed by the operation of the court and the fairness of the bench in hearing both sides with an open mind.

anewman

darbooka wrote: »

Trial took place this week.

What threw the decision darbooka? Was it just a technicality that they could prove it was your car but couldn't prove you were driving? Or was it that their procedures were in question?

DAMNOME

darbooka wrote: »

Trial took place this week. It was exciting and nerve-wracking, going before 3 judges and facing a professional prosecutor.
.

You must be a very important person to have your case heard by 3 judges in a MAGISTRATES' court! :rotfl: