fight speeding ticket?

Manxman_in_exile

TooManyPoints said:

...

The game to which Lord Irvine refers can become very expensive indeed, as this chap discovered: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-49641063

I wish you well. Do let us know the outcome.

Thanks for that link - I was searching for it earlier yesterday.  Some people have more principles than sense.

Do you happen to have any more details about this case and the "complex" issues it raised?  It seems straightforward to me but that report refers to a very lengthy magistrates trial because of the arguments, and then an appeal.

(Mind you - when he returned the plea form without ticking "Not Guilty" and instead wrote "No case to answer etc etc - see over", they must have thought we've got a right one here...)

Herzlos

Is this a speed camera or a red light camera? I'm not sure the 4.6m instead of 5m thing holds any water here because it's talking about the spacing before the line and you're not defending running the red.  Does that 40cm difference have any measurable impact on the case, or are you just throwing every technicality at this?

(that's some junction to have gone through at 60mph btw)

Clive_Woody

ToxicWomble said:

Please post the time,date and location of your court appearance- I could do with a good laugh 

 Count me in...I'll bring the biscuits

TooManyPoints

Manxman_in_exile said:

.

Do you happen to have any more details about this case and the "complex" issues it raised?

Unfortunately not. Magistrates' judgements are rarely published (as I mentioned earlier) and the appeal was to the Crown Court rather than on application to the High Court. Crown Court judgements - especially appeals from the Magistrates' Court - do not usually find their way to publication.

I believe Mr Keedwell relied on his expert witness to demonstrate what "could" happen or what "might" happen. But he did not show what did happen in his case, which he had to do to prove the unreliability of the device. He launched his campaign after seeing an earlier case won on appeal where the driver was cleared of driving at 85mph in a 30mph limit. Of course it's considerably easier to show that such an excessive speed was very unlikely and thus casting doubt on the reliability of the device than it is to show that 35mph in a 30mph limit is dubious. But I can imagine such a matter taking a number of hearings particularly, as seems likely, the defendant "ambushed" the prosecution with details of his technical defence without disclosing it beforehand. In fact Mr Keedwell handled the matter incorrectly from the outset with his "No Case to Answer" response which you mentioned. But that's always a danger when unrepresented defendants embark on complex proceedings. 

Of course the defence this OP is considering is somewhat different and he is relying on the evidence from the device to be ruled inadmissible in its entirety because of a minor administrative deficiency. This strategy, as I think I've made clear, is bound to fail in my opinion.

esmerobbo

18 or 19 years? I am 63 but in my 64th year!

esmerobbo

Herzlos said:

Is this a speed camera or a red light camera? I'm not sure the 4.6m instead of 5m thing holds any water here because it's talking about the spacing before the line and you're not defending running the red.  Does that 40cm difference have any measurable impact on the case, or are you just throwing every technicality at this?

(that's some junction to have gone through at 60mph btw)

It is a dual camera red light and speed on green.

AdrianC

esmerobbo said:

Herzlos said:

Is this a speed camera or a red light camera? I'm not sure the 4.6m instead of 5m thing holds any water here because it's talking about the spacing before the line and you're not defending running the red.  Does that 40cm difference have any measurable impact on the case, or are you just throwing every technicality at this?

(that's some junction to have gone through at 60mph btw)

It is a dual camera red light and speed on green.

Is there a clue in the name "RedSpeed"?