Speed Camera Notice (Peculiarities??)

pboae

Thanks for that NAR, I've seen it repeated many times, but I was never sure if it was true.

darbooka

NAR wrote:

I wish people wouldn't post rubbish like this, which is very misleading especially in such serious circumstances.
John Terry was fined £100 yesterday for such an offence http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5265272.stm

Read again... You seem to be misinterpereting the article says: "Despite several letters Mr Terry failed to respond with details of who was driving on the day," a spokesman for Surrey Police's safety camera partnership said.

From the article (which is by no means thorough), it seem that he altogether ignored his obligation to reply to the form he must send back. If he had sent it back and indicated that he doesn't know who the driver is, or that he knows who one or more of the drivers might have been but cannot be sure, then he may well have not gotten the fine. It's more about not coming to court repeatedly and ignoring the requisite paperwork than not naming a driver. Either again the police here seem to be capitalizing on lack of knowledge of the public in their explanation, or the editor of the article should have been more thorough in describing the details of the background to the story.

darbooka

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,28830-2278250,00.html

Times Online July 20, 2006


Speed camera blues
By District Judge Stephen Gerlis


Stephen Gerlis is a district judge at Barnet County Court

In November 2003, Christine Hamilton, wife of former cash-for-questions row MP Neil Hamilton, escaped a speeding fine by saying she couldn't remember who was behind the wheel when her car was snapped by a speed camera doing 63 mph in a 50 mph zone. The decision gave hope to thousands of motorists who had become victims of the "happy snapper cameras" by presenting what appeared to be a defence to such offences. Concern at the decision was such that the matter was raised in Parliament, before the Select Committee on Transport no less, on the December 17, 2003, when the "Hamilton Defence" was described as a "big loophole" in the law relating to speeding.

The law has not been changed since that time but the matter did come to the recent attention of the Divisional Court of the High Court. The owner of a motorcycle raised the Hamilton Defence against a speed camera charge, saying in response to a request for details of the rider that on the day in question more than one person had been using the bike and that he required photographic evidence to help him determine who was riding the bike at the time of the offence. Such evidence was provided but he responded that it was not conclusive and that it could have been himself or "a friend" who had been using the motorcycle, and neither of them could remember who was the rider. In response to a further request for information, he finally revealed details of the identity of the "friend" but could not throw any light on who was actually riding the bike when the offence was committed.

At the hearing of the case, the "friend" did not give oral evidence as he was living abroad, but supplied a written statement that also raised doubts as to who was the rider.



When someone is caught by a speed camera, the registered owner will receive a notice of intended prosecution together with a request that the owner supplies information as to the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence, or any information that the owner has which will lead to the identification of the driver. The information has to be supplied within 28 days of service of the notice. That was where the alleged "biker" lost out. By the time the owner had identified a possible alternative rider, the 28-day period had expired. He lost his case on that technicality. To add to his misery, the penalty for failing to supply information as to the driver is similar to that relating to the speeding offence.

However, the case did raise some interesting issues with regard to the Hamilton Defence. The court found the owner to be a credible witness: in other words, if he had responded to the form properly and in time, he might have succeeded with the defence. His only error was not providing the name of the other possible rider soon enough. The present case was distinguished from one in 2004 where the owner responded that his car could have been driven at the relevant time by any number of people because it was one of a fleet of vehicles, and he was unable to say who the driver of the vehicle was on the occasion of the offence. In that case the owner succeeded because he had replied within the 28-day time limit and had given as much information as he had in his possession. The owner of the motorbike in the present case had only identified an alternative rider after the time period had expired, even though he was aware of that information right from the start.

At the time of the hearing, the motorbike owner stated that he was sure he was not the rider of the motorbike at the time of the offence. This merely compounded his position, because if he was certain of that he should have said so in reply to the initial request for information and named the person he thought might have been the rider, within the 28-day limit.

What conclusions are to be drawn from this case as far as the Hamilton Defence is concerned? First, if the owner of a vehicle is genuinely uncertain as to who was driving it at the time of the offence, they should say so in response to the request for information, within the time limit laid down for the response, while at the same time supplying as much information as they have as to the possible driver. Secondly, such a response provides a possible defence but it is subject to being tested by the court. Raising it does not get the owner off the hook — he will still have to convince the court that he is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

blindman

darbooka wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,28830-2278250,00.html

In November 2003, Christine Hamilton, wife of former cash-for-questions row MP Neil Hamilton, escaped a speeding fine by saying she couldn't remember who was behind the wheel when her car was snapped by a speed camera doing 63 mph in a 50 mph zone.

And I really believe her
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

The owner of a motorcycle ........................who was riding the bike at the time of the offence. Such evidence was provided but he responded that it was not conclusive and that it could have been himself or "a friend" who had been using the motorcycle, and neither of them could remember who was the rider.

Selective amnesia, very handy....:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

At the hearing of the case, the "friend" did not give oral evidence as he was living abroad

,

even handier:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

darbooka
Pay up and stop wasting everyones time.:wall::wall:

darbooka

blindman wrote:

darbooka
Pay up and stop wasting everyones time.:wall::wall:

Blindman, we're trying to discuss facts and procedure and the law here, and not your subjective opinion. Magistrates Court does not have juries so you must be playing 'judge' today.

darbooka

dmg24, you asked for further details of this issue on penalty notices being (inappropriately?) issued on behalf of the chief of police. Here's some. It would be interesting to read the judgement if anyone has it.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/tees/5148224.stm

Published: 2006/07/04 18:58:55 GMT

Campaigners hail speed appeal win
Thousands of speeding tickets could be overturned after a motorist successfully appealed.
Dr Will Dehany, 52, from Maltby on Teesside was caught by a speed van driving his wife's car at 35mph in a 30mph zone on Worsall Road in Yarm.

He argued that a notice requesting the car owner to identify the driver could not be proved to have come from Cleveland Police's chief constable.

Anti-speed camera campaigners say further appeals are likely to follow.

Dr Dehany was given a £60 fine and three penalty points by Teesside magistrates when he was caught speeding in his wife's Opel Astra in October 2004, but his conviction was overturned at Teesside Crown Court on Tuesday.

He said: "Obviously the police constable operating the speed camera cannot issue them all himself, but they should be signed by, or on behalf of the Chief Constable by someone authorised to do that.

'Countless millions'

"In fact, it didn't say anything other than 'Cleveland Police' on the documents. The woman who issues them is simply a clerk."

She had only been authorised to issue notices by the previous chief constable, he added.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed campaign which opposes fixed cameras, said: "All those convicted in Cleveland since 2000 on the basis of faulty procedure should now apply to have their fines refunded, licence points removed, and in many cases to be compensated for consequential losses.

"The knock-on effects are massive and will cost countless millions."

A Cleveland Police spokeswoman said: "We note the judgment of the court but until we have time to consider it in detail, it would not be appropriate to comment."

hjb123

OP,

You either were or werent on the road at the time. It would state a time didnt it? It cant be that long since so surely you would remember where you were and whether you were on a stretch 'the enormously long road'?

blindman

......we're trying to discuss facts and procedure and the law here

:rotfl::rotfl:

Sounds like you're looking for an excuse not to pay

........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 ?

and as dmg24 wrote

Were you on the road at the time in question? If so, pay up.

blindman

darbooka wrote:

dmg24, you asked for further details of this issue on penalty notices being (inappropriately?) issued on behalf of the chief of police. Here's some. It would be interesting to read the judgement if anyone has it.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/tees/5148224.stm
............Dr Will Dehany, 52, from Maltby on Teesside was caught by a speed van driving his wife's car at 35mph in a 30mph zone on Worsall Road in Yarm.

He argued that a notice requesting the car owner to identify the driver could not be proved to have come from Cleveland Police's chief constable.

He was CAUGHT speeding, END of STORY.
He got off on a technicality which is totally irrellevant

The law is an 'rs' at times as are people who speed, get caught and then wriggle out of it.

darbooka

OH and I have two cars and both use both cars with absolutely no preference or routine as to either. Sometimes one of us uses one car because baby seats are in it, we alternate on those douties without any explict routine or any records of who drove which car. Neither of us can remember whether we used the car listed on the notice at the time in question, and both of us do not recall being on that road on the day; but even if we could recall being on that road we would probably not accept an allegation of a violation having taken place unless we were told EXACTLY where on that road. For example, would you accept an allegation of having assaulted someone if the accuser only specified that your alleged transgression occured somewhere in Moneysavingland but didn't mention exactly where the incident took place?
There is a very peculiar and ambiguous note on the documentation accompanying the Notice, to the effect that they will be unwilling to disclose the location of any camera because they aknowledge that not all cameras are used simultaneously and they wouldn't want to give away information that the public can use to piece together which cameras are functional and which aren't at a given time. That sounds like whitewash intimidation tactic - if there was concern that Police might have fiddled with camera evidence in the Demendez shooting then surely their integrity with speed cameras can't be worthy of total blind confidence when they decline to provide photos with the Notice or even to mention the exact location of the alleged transgression.
The police must PROVE allegations - at least, if challenged. The public does not swear loyalty to the police. If they can show me a photo of the driver which can be identified I'll pay gladly and expeditiouslyif it turns out to have been me. But if they can only send papers indicating general highway name and car registration number, and I cannot remember or know from the details supplied who was driving, then I'll be proud to fight them in court - not out of disrespect for the police, but out of high regard for British justice.