Speed Camera Notice (Peculiarities??)

Mark7799

So why not ask for their photographic evidence?

darbooka

I shall certainly ask, but if they don't provide it with the notice at first instance then what is the chance that they'll provide it to me at all?

Bossyboots

darbooka wrote:

I shall certainly ask, but if they don't provide it with the notice at first instance then what is the chance that they'll provide it to me at all?

I am sure they have to provide it if you ask.

Cumbrian_Male

darbooka wrote:

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?

If the road is longer than 4 miles then they must be more specific about the location.

darbooka wrote:

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?

At this point they are only asking for the drivers name, they don't have to supply it automatically. You could request a copy to aid identification if you are genuinely unsure.

darbooka wrote:

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?

No they can't yet. However a shadow licence is generated so if "the driver" were to apply to exchange thier foreign licence for a UK one it would generate with the points on.

darbooka wrote:

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?

Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act states you must supply the name of the driver. To fail to do so will result in a prosecution for failing to comply. If you don't know who was driving then s.172 (4) allows for a defence but you must be able to demonstrate you have done everthing in your power to identify the individual. IE checking bank/credit card statements to see where you were at or about the time.

Check out PePiPoo for constructive advice.

darbooka

Some have suggested checking bank & credit card statements as supporting evidence of whether or not a driver might have been responsible for the offense - what should I ask any other possible drivers to produce? Is the issue whether they have made purchases of goods or petrol on the same road as the speed camera, or within a particular vacinity?

Mark7799

Or possibly that they were making purchases or using cash machines so far away that they COULDN'T have been within the vacinity at the time of the incident?

darbooka

Thanks Mark - a helpful thought; however, unless anyway kept a till receipt from that long ago the bank & credit card statements only show store names and amounts and dates but not times of day.

taxiphil

Cumbrian_Male wrote:

Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act states you must supply the name of the driver. To fail to do so will result in a prosecution for failing to comply. If you don't know who was driving then s.172 (4) allows for a defence but you must be able to demonstrate you have done everthing in your power to identify the individual. IE checking bank/credit card statements to see where you were at or about the time.

Section 172 states that a Registered Keeper of a vehicle must exercise due diligence in trying ascertain who the driver was at the given time. However, since the law does not require Registered Keepers to keep a written log of who was using their vehicle, there is great scope for not being 100% sure of who was driving.

And I must stress the importance of being 100% sure. Being only 99% sure, or simply deciding to take the rap of behalf of your wife, for example, is perjury - a far more serious offence than the original one of speeding.

Failing to supply the name of the driver does not automatically result in a prosecution as you suggest, Cumbrian Male. In the majority of cases they drop the whole matter if you write back with a well reasoned argument about how you have an inkling of who was driving but can't be 100% certain.

taxiphil

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

You should check your facts more carefully before casually accusing me of posting "rubbish" which is "very misleading". My facts were perfectly correct and yours were not - the John Terry case was completely different.

taxiphil

Darbooka, you're absolutely right in the stance you're taking on this matter, and I commend you for your common sense.

A simply analogy of the speed camera NIP procedure, for those who still don't understand it is as follows:

The police are writing to you saying "We believe a crime has happened, but we don't know who did it. We have no way of knowing or proving who was driving your vehicle. Therefore, in the absence of us being able to prove anything, we insist that you confess to the crime, or incriminate another person by telling us they definitely committed the crime. If you don't confess or incriminate someone else, we'll charge you with another offence of refusing to confess instead".

It's outrageous for the police to behave like this, really. They are using threats and coercion to extract confessions - denying you the right to remain silent and thus contravening the European Convention on Human Rights. They are also encouraging people to pervert the course of justice - for example a man already on 9 points who needs his car to earn a living may feel pressured into nominating his wife to take the 3 points on her licence. The police's view on this is that "it doesn't matter who takes the rap, as long as someone takes the rap". Hardly a responsible attitude to road safety.