Speeding Court Summons

Johno100

BillJones wrote: »

Why would you hope for that? There's no suggestion that it was dangerous (it could have been an empty, straight stretch of road with no entrances or exits, on a fine and bright evening), so why hope that they are banned?

Because they are paid up members of the 'holier than thou' brigade and it gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling of superiority.

Herzlos

BillJones wrote: »

Why would you hope for that? There's no suggestion that it was dangerous (it could have been an empty, straight stretch of road with no entrances or exits, on a fine and bright evening), so why hope that they are banned?

It's a bendy 2-lane motorway section that's got a bad reputation for accidents. That doesn't mean the OP was being dangerous though.

I would go with what's said above; get a lift there, without a specialist lawyer (speak to one first though) and grovel.

iolanthe07

so why hope that they are banned?

Most of us exceed the speed limit a bit from time to time, but over 100 mph is just taking the pi$$.

Iceweasel

The OP seems a bit 'casual' or in his approach to this.

The time scale is strange too.

It depends of course on what is his idea of 'recent'.

He seems to have a court next week which is pretty quick.

And how does he think that he can get a new DL from Swansea in a few days?

I'm not happy about this concept of needing a licence for work being important either.

If that means that folks in that category can get off lighter than those who drive for pleasure or recreation then the system stinks.

AdrianC

Iceweasel wrote: »

I'm not happy about this concept of needing a licence for work being important either.

If that means that folks in that category can get off lighter than those who drive for pleasure or recreation then the system stinks.

There's an allowance for the magistrate not to impose a ban, assuming it's an offence where the ban is discretionary, if to do so would cause "extraordinary hardship" to others. So if the OP was to lose his job and thereby house, his spouse/children would suffer. Instead, a much much higher fine would be imposed. Not a "lighter" punishment. A different one.

If they were to then be caught again and try the same excuse again...

Aretnap

AdrianC wrote: »

There's an allowance for the magistrate not to impose a ban, assuming it's an offence where the ban is discretionary, if to do so would cause "extraordinary hardship" to others. So if the OP was to lose his job and thereby house, his spouse/children would suffer. Instead, a much much higher fine would be imposed. Not a "lighter" punishment. A different one.

It's "exceptional hardship" not "extraordinary hardship", and strictly speaking it's only relevant to a ban for totting up. Where a ban is discretionary, as in the case of a single speeding offence, the court can take anything it likes (within reason) into account in deciding whether to impose a ban or not - there's no requirement for hardship to be exceptional for it to be considered.

Generally (in England at least - Scotland is a whole other country) the amount of the fine would be the same whether points or a ban were imposed, or whether an exceptional hardship plea was accepted.

Iceweasel

Hopefully the OP will come back and let us know the outcome of this.

I hope he is treated fairly.

As others have said if your driving licence is essential for you you should take extra care not to put it at risk.

My licence is essential to my way of life and hobbies - I drive pretty fast - 130mph plus sometimes - but in Germany.

I really stick by the limits in the UK - even though I think they are outdated.

Hintza

The case will be held in Scotland so no magistrates or judges, it is sheriffs and justice of the peace (JPs).

The other thing is I applied for a new photo card and to change my address and it took less than a week and that was in April so probably best to get licence sorted out.

I was stopped on that section when it was the old A74 for 102mph in 1983, my argument was that the car was incapable of doing 102mph (Renault 20) and my actual speed had to be less than 95mph. Three points and a fine.

gv1977

thanks to those of you that have responded with advice.

i have contacted 3 solicitors, all of whom seemed intent on getting me off through loopholes in certificates for the speed gun. I have explained that i knew i was speeding excessively, and want to plead guilty. They charge £750 plus vat to represent me.

i am really at a loss whether to represent myself or get the solicitor involved.

Iceweasel

I wouldn't call the questioning of the radar gun 'loop-holes' as such - rather there are many aspects that need to be checked about their usage to ensure that all is completely legal.

Radar type approval.
The amount of training the officer had.
Weather
Other vehicles in the vicinity.

But the single most important one is to check that the Calibration Certificate for the particular camera/gun was in date.

The police can be very slap-dash and over confident of their actions

Problem is you appear to have less than a week to get it all together.

Only you can weigh up the risks of failure if you use a solicitor and plead not guilty.

My cousin has beaten the system several times on a combination of the above technicalities.

As you say -not cheap.

Ask the solicitors about their recent success rate.

Good luck mate.