Got flashed going through a red-light Help!

smithy163

If you know you're bang to rights then don't go to court. Magistrates don't take kindly to having their time wasted.

Marvel1

You are considering option 3 when you just admitted what you done!

Option 3 will end up being lot more than ouch than the above.

TooManyPoints

You!!!8217;re not entitled to any evidence until you opt to go to court and enter a not guilty plea.

That's not entirely correct. You are not entitled to any evidence before you opt for a court hearing. However, before that hearing (and certainly before you enter your plea) you are entitled to see the "Initial Details of the Prosecution Case". This is basically all the evidence the prosecution rely upon to secure a conviction.

However, it doesn't really matter. You would be foolish in the extreme to take this matter to court. By your own admission you jumped the lights so it is a near certainty that there is sufficient evidence to convict you. Taking it to court (with a guilty plea) will see a fine of a third of week's net income, a surcharge of 10% of the fine (Minimum £30) and £85 costs. You can see that the surcharge and costs will exceed the Fixed penalty without the fine. Take the course if you can. As far as I know the Admiral Group are the only insurers who ask about courses upon proposal or renewal.

AdrianC

ss1591ss wrote: »

they sent an initial letter to confirm it was me which I responded yes to, maybe I shouldnt have now as explained on nopenaltypoints site

www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/runningaaredlight.html

They are idiots, and you did the right thing by ignoring them.

Strangely, TPTB have thought of this as a fairly obvious weasel-out, and take it quite seriously. If you'd simply said "Nope, no idea" on the hope of it being taken at face value, then you could expect a date with a magistrate to explain why there was no way at all that you could possibly find out - and, if you couldn't convince him (and he will be VERY sceptical, so you had better make sure it's a good story), six points and a largeish fine, together with MS90 on your licence - which insurers REALLY don't like...

Anyway, now I have the 2nd letter giving me the 3 options:

1 Educational course for £85 Ouch!

Perhaps they'll explain why it's really not a smart idea to try to beat a red light. Especially since the camera isn't active the instant it turns red.

£100 + 3 points Ouch!!

Plus declaring it to your insurer for five years.

Take it to court

To plead guilty? Why would you do that? You'll get a bigger fine, costs, and potentially more points.

They havent sent any photographic evidence, can I consider option 3?

Oh, you were planning on lying to the court? Yeh, that's called perjury. People go to prison for that.

Now, why would you not go for the tea and biccies option?

Deastons

£85 is ouch? That's one tank of fuel - a cheap option for breaking the law.

Do the course and heed their advice rather than risking others just so you get to work on time.

zagubov

You should choose option No.1 and be glad of the chance to do so!

TooManyPoints

NoPenaltyPoints is actually a dangerous organisation whose material should be removed from the internet. Among the advice it gives is this:

If the photographic evidence is inconclusive it is debatable whether or not you should sign the NIP, as it is effectively an admission of guilt and could potentially be brought up against you as such if the case goes to court.

Apart from the fact that you don't respond to or sign the NIP, but respond to the S172 notice requesting driver's details, this matter was ironed out in the European Court of Human Rights in 2005, in the cases of Idris Francis and Gerard OHalloran. Both took cases to that court based on the self-incrimination principle. Both lost and it is now firmly established in England and Wales (but not in Scotland) that the recipient of a request does have an obligation to provide details of the driver by means of a signed statement.

NPP go on to talk about the photographic evidence in relation to identifying the driver. The photos are not to identify the driver, but to identify the vehicle and (sometimes) the offence. I have tried contacting them in the past to correct some of their dangerously misleading information, but was ignored. Their site should really be taken down as some of the advice given is simply outrageous. You can usually get better advice in your local pub.

Warwick_Hunt

TooManyPoints wrote: »

NoPenaltyPoints is actually a dangerous organisation whose material should be removed from the internet. Among the advice it gives is this:

If the photographic evidence is inconclusive it is debatable whether or not you should sign the NIP, as it is effectively an admission of guilt and could potentially be brought up against you as such if the case goes to court.

Apart from the fact that you don't respond to or sign the NIP, but respond to the S172 notice requesting driver's details, this matter was ironed out in the European Court of Human Rights in 2005, in the cases of Idris Francis and Gerard OHalloran. Both took cases to that court based on the self-incrimination principle. Both lost and it is now firmly established in England and Wales (but not in Scotland) that the recipient of a request does have an obligation to provide details of the driver by means of a signed statement.

NPP go on to talk about the photographic evidence in relation to identifying the driver. The photos are not to identify the driver, but to identify the vehicle and (sometimes) the offence. I have tried contacting them in the past to correct some of their dangerously misleading information, but was ignored. Their site should really be taken down as some of the advice given is simply outrageous. You can usually get better advice in your local pub.

But prior to replying to the 172 you can ask for photos to identify the driver. Advice often given out on Pepipoo.

Warwick_Hunt

TooManyPoints wrote: »

That's not entirely correct. You are not entitled to any evidence before you opt for a court hearing. However, before that hearing (and certainly before you enter your plea) you are entitled to see the "Initial Details of the Prosecution Case". This is basically all the evidence the prosecution rely upon to secure a conviction.

However, it doesn't really matter. You would be foolish in the extreme to take this matter to court. By your own admission you jumped the lights so it is a near certainty that there is sufficient evidence to convict you. Taking it to court (with a guilty plea) will see a fine of a third of week's net income, a surcharge of 10% of the fine (Minimum £30) and £85 costs. You can see that the surcharge and costs will exceed the Fixed penalty without the fine. Take the course if you can. As far as I know the Admiral Group are the only insurers who ask about courses upon proposal or renewal.

Given there’s the offer of a fixed penalty why who he opt for court and plead guilty? Even if he did why bother to get details if he’s not contesting the evidence?

Silvertabby

zagubov wrote: »

You should choose option No.1 and be glad of the chance to do so!

zagubov beat me to it. £85 is cheaper (and less painful) than having your car written off by the lorry coming through on green.