Speeding Summons?

Aretnap

Car_54 wrote: »

The charge the OP is likely to face is failure to furnish driver details (section 172). The law provides a defence if she can show that she could not, with reasonable diligence, identify the driver.

So far, we have seen no evidence of any diligence at all - e.g. searches of diaries, work rosters, phone or credit card records, lists of who might have keys and/or was insured, etc.

Reasonable diligence has nothing to do with it. The legal position is that if the defendant denies that it was her car then to convict her of an s172 offence the onus is on the prosecution to prove that it was indeed her car. Strictly speaking doesn't have to prove anything herself at all.

In practice I imagine that presented with a photo of a car matching her car's description and bearing its registration number the magistrates will comsider that sufficient evidence that it was her car, unless she can introduce reasonable doubt by some combination of pointing to the differences between the car in the photo and hers, giving credible testimony about where her car actually was and/or finding supporting evidence to confirm that her car was elsewhere at the time.

Whether she'll be able to introduce sufficient doubt is certainly a fair question, but it should not be confused with a reasonable diligence defence.

bod1467

Bearing in mind the nature of the offence she'd be charged with, wouldn't the court have to find "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than "on the balance of probabilities"?

From what has been said, she could quite reasonably cast doubt on the validity of the camera photos. The challenge would be in presenting that to the court in a manner that the judge/magistrate believes.

AdrianC

forgotmyname wrote: »

If that was a Fuji camera then it wouldnt surprise me, I had a 2mp one and the image quality was far superior to a Kodak 4mp one.

2Mp is 1920x1080 - full HD TV resolution. Once you get to that sort of resolution, it's all about the optics (lens), not the CCD resolution capturing the image. So, yes, a cheap and nasty 4Mp camera could very easily have worse image quality than one with half the resolution - you just have a big, blurry image.

320x240, though...? Remember old 640x480 PCs, probably running Win3 back in the '90s? One quarter of the screen of that, absolute maximum. An old-school mobile phone screen. No matter HOW good the optics are...

Herzlos

Not quite, not all pixels are equal. A "pixel" is just the sensor recording a signal, bigger sensors generally equals better quality. It's kind of like the whole "horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" thing. You can have a million pixel camera but if the optics and sensor are crap you've just stored a million pixels worth of crap.

Still, I doubt a GATSO would be high enough quality to identify screw age.

OP - If there's a cloned car in driving around in your local area, have you had a drive around looking for it? If you can find it and get the cops involved everything is sorted. Even a picture of the 2 cars together will confirm it wasn't yours.

facade

Joking aside, I fail to see why the OP isn't jumping up and down to get the Police to arrest the Wicked Cloner and get the duplicate car off the road.

Action here would surely be enough to cast Reasonable Doubt, if the CPS don't drop the case against the OP before it goes to court.

Hoof_Hearted

I wouldn't discount cloning. Years ago, the police stopped a car similar to the wife's because the number plate year did not quite match something cosmetic on the car. The traffic cop was a car nerd.

The police came round to verify that we still had the car with the original number plate so they could state that in court. That was before speed cameras, so we weren't aware of any offences, but the villain clearly didn't bother with insurance or MoT and probably got away with it for some time.

cajef

facade wrote: »

Joking aside, I fail to see why the OP isn't jumping up and down to get the Police to arrest the Wicked Cloner and get the duplicate car off the road.

When my car was cloned (see #35 in this thread) the Met police were not interested, they just said it was like looking for a needle in a haystack and they had neither the time or facilities to search for a cloned car unless it was involved in a crime.

RS2000.

cajef wrote: »

When my car was cloned (see #35 in this thread) the Met police were not interested, they just said it was like looking for a needle in a haystack and they had neither the time or facilities to search for a cloned car unless it was involved in a crime.

What a joke, but then you did say the comedy Met.

It's involved in excise offences from the day it's cloned.

What they actually meant is serious crime and not speeding like the OPs case.

Even if they did show an interest all lines of enquiry would have lead to your door.

Dr._Shoe

I have already reported it to the police as a clone which lead to me getting stopped on the way to work to confirm my identity! So at least they're doing something.

As the sergeant who stopped me said: "It's probably got different plates on it by now". Apparently they swap them around so they don't get caught. From what he was saying they'll have a huge stack of them though I'm more inclined to think it's some geezer round the corner who's spotted my car and noted the number. This is the only reason I can see why it was caught speeding locally.

Going back to the S172 offence: It is a basic fundemental of British Law that one is innocent until proven guilty. However, the prosecution could well use the "due dilligence" angle to try and say that I should have known who was driving, leaving it up to me to prove that I was acting with due dilligence. But, as soon as I claim that the car was in fact a clone it kicks the ball back in their court (I hope) and they then will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the car in the picture is in fact my car. They may have to explain how they think that I can remove a GB sticker without leaving a tell-tale dark patch where the paint has not faded (a 22 year old car remember?) and how screws could rust in just a few weeks! They could say I have the car resprayed or something but that would be a little extreme wouldn't it? LOL

Happychappy

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

I have already reported it to the police as a clone which lead to me getting stopped on the way to work to confirm my identity! So at least they're doing something.

As the sergeant who stopped me said: "It's probably got different plates on it by now". Apparently they swap them around so they don't get caught. From what he was saying they'll have a huge stack of them though I'm more inclined to think it's some geezer round the corner who's spotted my car and noted the number. This is the only reason I can see why it was caught speeding locally.

Going back to the S172 offence: It is a basic fundemental of British Law that one is innocent until proven guilty. However, the prosecution could well use the "due dilligence" angle to try and say that I should have known who was driving, leaving it up to me to prove that I was acting with due dilligence. But, as soon as I claim that the car was in fact a clone it kicks the ball back in their court (I hope) and they then will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the car in the picture is in fact my car. They may have to explain how they think that I can remove a GB sticker without leaving a tell-tale dark patch where the paint has not faded (a 22 year old car remember?) and how screws could rust in just a few weeks! They could say I have the car resprayed or something but that would be a little extreme wouldn't it? LOL

Oh dear, if you say it enough, and in different ways, you will end up believing it, best of luck.