driving without due care and attention

Happychappy

Go on, what's the true speed you were doing ???? go on, tell us, we won't tell.

Yeah 40 my !!!!, the police wouldn't turn round at 40, but 40 makes a good story and gets the sympathy vote, but you forgot to add, everyone in the whole town was firmly tucked up in bed, all accounted for, and not a single car or even a rabid fox on the road, also no houses any where near, plus I was up on a mountain pass 3000000000 millions miles away from the nearest car and they picked on me, ahhhhhhhhhh tears are flowing right now, you poor thing. Still you will ge the sympathy vote, so well done and fight the !!!!!!!s as it's all a conspiracy ; ) go onto !!!!poordriverseeeooo.com you will get hugs and kisses all round.

ChristoC

The point is that two witnesses are way, way better than one, in the eyes of the law. Quite right, too. Kangaroo court has nothing to do with it.

The OP has been unwise in more ways than one.

There's no reason for AN to get all paranoid about the police or the legal system, though I notice it's one of his favourite themes.

hudsonb202

Yes there was 2 of them in the car an they have both put a statment forward

mikey72

Happychappy wrote: »

Go on, what's the true speed you were doing ???? go on, tell us, we won't tell.

Yeah 40 my !!!!, the police wouldn't turn round at 40, but 40 makes a good story and gets the sympathy vote, but you forgot to add, everyone in the whole town was firmly tucked up in bed, all accounted for, and not a single car or even a rabid fox on the road, also no houses any where near, plus I was up on a mountain pass 3000000000 millions miles away from the nearest car and they picked on me, ahhhhhhhhhh tears are flowing right now, you poor thing. Still you will ge the sympathy vote, so well done and fight the !!!!!!!s as it's all a conspiracy ; ) go onto !!!!poordriverseeeooo.com you will get hugs and kisses all round.

I'm not the op, I don't konw any details, and I wasn't there, but if you have nothing sensible to add, don't bother.

Kilty_2

Even if you were really doing 40 I hope they throw the book at you.

No excuse for doing 40 in a 30 - and if you get away with it all you're doing is making a mockery of us law abiding drivers who pay through the nose in insurance for the accident you might've caused (or will cause if you continue)

sassy_one

In no way agree with what you did but your biggest mistake here wasn't speeding, it was admitting the offence of speeding as by law, they must carry out a speed check against you for a certain distance, which sounds like they couldn't have done, therefore had you of not admitted the offence, you'd have just got a simple few words of advice and been on your way, however now, your confirmation has given them 'evidence' rather than just there say so.


Were you Cautioned or placed under Police Caution prior to admitting the speeding? If not, contact a solicitor as soon as possible as you may have a loophole.

anewman

ChristoC wrote: »

The point is that two witnesses are way, way better than one, in the eyes of the law. Quite right, too. Kangaroo court has nothing to do with it.

There's no reason for AN to get all paranoid about the police or the legal system, though I notice it's one of his favourite themes.

My point is if two police officers can say Mr X did something, there is no point in it going to court if it's a foregone conclusion and the police are effectively judge and jury by virtue of being 2 witnesses. Court time costs tax payers money so why not bypass the court system and apply the punishment regardless?! 2 witnesses are better than one yes, but I'm sure the following scenario isn't impossible.... Officer 1 - says "he's going a bit fast, he took that corner dangerously", officer 2 thinking no he's not really going all that fast and I take corners faster in Morissons car park, but this guy is my mate/a senior officer so I *HAVE* to agree with him - says "yes I agree".

I'm not paranoid, but I do believe there are standards to which the legal system, and police, should adhere to if it is to apply consequences such as fines, jail etc. Especially when evidence gathering equipment such as video recording and calibrated speedos are very common in today's police cars (see tv programs like Police Camera Action). I believe Police should adhere to some sort of standards about gathering evidence and the courts should expect some firm concrete evidence where it is reasonable to expect such evidence. You might be convinced 2 officers statements = evidence, I would say video is far better evidence and irrefutable.

sassy_one

May I add, the Police are not allowed to make judgment in a speeding offence case, even if they had 100% evidence to prove, it is down to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) to decide if to charge and what action should/will be taken against that offender.

sarahg1969

sassy-one wrote: »

May I add, the Police are not allowed to make judgment in a speeding offence case, even if they had 100% evidence to prove, it is down to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) to decide if to charge and what action should/will be taken against that offender.

Evreyone knows that the CPS may the decision as to whether or not to prosecute, but that is based on the officers' judgment that the driver was speeding/driving carelessly. At that stage, that may be the only evidence they have.

sassy_one

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Evreyone knows that the CPS may the decision as to whether or not to prosecute, but that is based on the officers' judgment that the driver was speeding/driving carelessly. At that stage, that may be the only evidence they have.

Please re-read my first post on this thread.

Fact, OP admitted the offence, if he was placed under caution, that's all the evidence the CPS require and enough to charge.

Hence the Caution, anything you say from Caution CAN and MAY be used in evidence, an admission is 'evidence' therefore, OP is in sh*t if he was cautioned, if he wasn't, then it's down to the Police to prove he did say it, although, the CPS often believe officers witness statements over a suspected offender/public.