Speed Camera Notice (Peculiarities??)

LittleJo

Hi,
A friend of mine replied to a fixed penalty notice for speeding by saying he was unsure who was driving.
By return of post he got a an amended ticket, fine was now £120.
He took legal advice and paid up.
Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is not well looked on.
Jo

darbooka

Jo, are you insinuiting that anyone commenting on this thread favours conspiracies to pervert anything? And what was the justification used to substantiate the increase in penalty amount?

dmg24

Darbooka,

The distinguishing fact in this case is noted below:

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

Very much a technicality, I would not rely on this in any challenge to your case unless the same situation does actually apply.

Let us know when you receive the picture(s).

Out of interest, how long was the road?

Wig

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

He got off lightly!

Wig

taxiphil wrote:

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.

Taxiphil

you are entitled to say what you want, believe what you want, but you could look up the acronym "IANAL" IMO.

My beliefs are as follows:
The Human rights act has been challenged on this already, it was decided that where the HRA conflicted with another law if in persuing the other law the law enforcement and legal system was acting in the greater public benefit then that would override the HRA. In other words so there is not anarchy on our roads and in order to police by means of speed cams, your rights are overruled.

You do have to disclose who was driving because of the above HRA reference, and for the simple fact that you are responsible for your car, you have to be sure if you lend your car to someone that they are insured to drive it. Otherwise you are guilty of allowiing your vehicle on the road uninsured. Not many theifs take a car and then bring it back and if they do (friends etc) they are guilty of taking a vehicle without permission.

You can claim you don't know who was driving fine all well and good (the point is you have to reply), but the court will decide if you are telling the truth or not, and unless you are a chief constable you're not going to get away with it, because magistrates will always err on the side of the state and you will have to be the one to appeal (should you feel like doing something really stupid).

To the OP,

They used to not supply the photos even when asked for them! Another tactic of thiers to force you to just pay up and shut up, until someone argued successfully that as the Road traffic act says the registered keeper must use due dilligence to identify the driver, that requesting the photographs was inkeeping with "using due dilligence" and any obstruction of that by the police was therefore not the registered keepers fault and he/she had kept within the law required of them by requesting the photos.

So now if you think you need the photos you can ask for them and they will be supplied. You can also ask for the location of the camera should it not be apparent from the photos.

The only defence you have OP which holds any water is that you have not been cautioned under PACE, therefore, any statement given is inadmissable in court. Should you decide you want to go along this route, jus fill out the NIP (thus satisfying your duty to disclose) and attach a letter to the effect of.... "Although I have informed you who was driving and signed the form enclosed, as I have not been cautioned under PACE it is my understanding that this information is inadmissable in court and will only be used by yourselves for information purposes only"

This has worked for a number of people although it is dubious in some cases as to whether it was the PACE letter which worked or that the proceedings just "timed out" (6 months form date of offence is "stalemate") I am not uptodate on any of this so my information could be wrong and some people may have been successfully found guilty even though they used PACE (simply because magistrates will always find you guilty) and those people will probably not have had the balls to appeal, or maybe someone has appealed and lost already, I simply don't know.

To find out the latest (inc if I have accurately remembered the details about the PACE challenge, it was all a long time ago) you would have to visit the forum at pepipoo.

Here's hoping you're some rich obstinate American who is going to be the UK motorists saviour, and fight them al the way to the House of Lords or even the ECHR! :beer:

Oh and I nearly forgot IANAL

jamescredmond

dmg24 wrote:

Of course you would question where the camera was on a road that long.

The OP is sensible enough to judge whether he needs to get further evidence or not.

Your comment is just silly and of no help to the OP or anyone else.

heh, heh! at it again, dmg24? Bull**** posts like yours don't help anyone,either. The truth is the revenue collection agency - aka police- will go a long way to avoiding specifics, most probably because they're in the business of making money and not getting bogged down in detail. evidence is grudgingly given if the motorist bothers to ask for it.
a guy I know owns a car that was speed-trapped. car shared between himself and 2 members of family. he asked for photo evidence, supplied with (inconclusive) and fined a total of £550 for having the temerity to ask. oh, and 6 points. the message should be clear. pay up. shut up. or get penalised for making a (vaild) query. AHH! UK justice, eh?
by the way, do you own a car? can't wait for you to get gunned! the rest of us will enjoy reading your whingeing.

tomstickland

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!

You missed a question:
"Did you exceed the speed limit?"
It has been known for cameras to misread.
If the OP did speed then it's best to pay up the small fine and take the points.
Check pepipoo.com and the speedtrap bible for useful info.

blindman

jamescredmond wrote:

the message should be clear. pay up. shut up. or get penalised for making a (vaild) query. AHH! UK justice, eh?
by the way, do you own a car? can't wait for you to get gunned! the rest of us will enjoy reading your whingeing.

So you're suggesting your mate got fined £550 for asking for a photo?

The message should be:

Don't speed and if you do, stop whingeing and PAY UP.

jamescredmond

just to add more to my prev. post: chap with £550 fine told court that he couldn't ( honestly ) identify driver, as neither could police. his honesty handsomely rewarded.

darbooka

Guys & Dolls, what if the speed camera in my case is a fixed one on a pole, rather than a gun one in somebody's hand? Will it have any difference?