Speeding and Driving without due care

Jenni_D

poppy12345 said:

TooManyPoints said:

[Deleted User] said:

It's a stitch up. They know it's basically impossible to prove you weren't speeding (unless you have a dashcam with speed display) and their speed guns are janky nonsense. If you want you to be speeding they just point the gun in the wrong place until it reads over the limit.

You are stuffed I'm afraid. Get a dashcam with GPS and speed display, it's the only defense against false accusations.

Hence the recommendation to post on Pepipoo.

They already did before posting here. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=141413

You're 26 hours too late with that.  

TadleyBaggie said:

ontheroad1970 said:

Best place to take this will be PePiPoo.

They posted this on Pepipoo yesterday, obviously didn't like what they heard.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=141413

shrimptiger

AdrianC said:

s59 is separate to the prosections.

It is a formal warning that your driving was antisocial, and it's logged against the plate. If your car is found to be being used antisocially again in a year from the warning, it will be confiscated. You can get it back, but it will cost you a few hundred quid plus your time and effort.

You need to decide if you wish to contest the charges.

If you don't, then you plead guilty.

If you do, then you plead not guilty. 
Normal court rules apply, including disclosure of evidence. The evidence presented by the prosecution will be weighed against the evidence presented by the defence, and the court will decide if the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.

If you plead not guilty and are found to be guilty, then it will be a LOT more expensive and you will get more points.

How good is your defence? "I don't think I did, and the other guy was worse" is not a credible defence.

72mph only needs to be your peak speed, it does not need to be an average or sustained.

"I wasn't speeding when I changed lanes to pass somebody on their left - well, not over 70 in a 50 anyway..." is pretty much a plea of guilt to both charges. Remember, 51 in a 50 is exceeding the speed limit.

Yes i think that is the problem. It would be too expensive to take it to court, and I feel like that is a disadavntage for motorists o b able to put across a defence. I would be happy to just put forward my argument and evidence to the single magistrate, with a non guilty plea and let him deide based on the evidence but it seems they will not even look at all the evidence, only look at it if it goes to court which is a bit unfair i think. 

AdrianC

shrimptiger said:

AdrianC said:

You need to decide if you wish to contest the charges.

If you don't, then you plead guilty.

If you do, then you plead not guilty. 
Normal court rules apply, including disclosure of evidence. The evidence presented by the prosecution will be weighed against the evidence presented by the defence, and the court will decide if the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.

If you plead not guilty and are found to be guilty, then it will be a LOT more expensive and you will get more points.

Yes i think that is the problem. It would be too expensive to take it to court, and I feel like that is a disadavntage for motorists o b able to put across a defence. I would be happy to just put forward my argument and evidence to the single magistrate, with a non guilty plea and let him deide based on the evidence but it seems they will not even look at all the evidence, only look at it if it goes to court which is a bit unfair i think. 

If you're in court for ANYTHING, there's benefits to pleading guilty as early as possible. As I said, the normal court rules apply. They absolutely DO look at all the evidence, from both prosecution and defence, and they judge whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.

If the evidence is going to be looked at, then it's because you are pleading not guilty - so of course that means going to court.

Fixed penalties and the like are an alternative to prosecution. If you haven't been offered a fixed penalty here, it's because they think the offences are too serious. 72 in a 50 is, believe it or not, within fixed penalty territory - so it must be the DWDC&A that's tipping it.

TooManyPoints

I would be happy to just put forward my argument and evidence to the single magistrate, with a non guilty plea and let him deide based on the evidence  but it seems they will not even look at all the evidence, only look at it if it goes to court which is a bit unfair i think. 

You seem to be under a misapprehension. When a case is dealt with by a single magistrate (or more properly a "Single Justice") the matter has gone to court. Single Justices (SJs) are part of the Magistrates' Court process. But SJs do not deal with trials (i.e..Not Guilty pleas). What you are describing, as Adrian explains, is a trial. If you plead Not Guilty a trial is needed where both sides put forward their cases. The court then decides whether the prosecution has presented evidence to convince them, beyond reasonable doubt, of the defendant's guilt. A trial in the Magistrates' Court is presided over by a Bench of three Justices though sometimes a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) sits alone.

DB1904

AdrianC said:

shrimptiger said:

AdrianC said:

You need to decide if you wish to contest the charges.

If you don't, then you plead guilty.

If you do, then you plead not guilty. 
Normal court rules apply, including disclosure of evidence. The evidence presented by the prosecution will be weighed against the evidence presented by the defence, and the court will decide if the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.

If you plead not guilty and are found to be guilty, then it will be a LOT more expensive and you will get more points.

Yes i think that is the problem. It would be too expensive to take it to court, and I feel like that is a disadavntage for motorists o b able to put across a defence. I would be happy to just put forward my argument and evidence to the single magistrate, with a non guilty plea and let him deide based on the evidence but it seems they will not even look at all the evidence, only look at it if it goes to court which is a bit unfair i think. 

If you're in court for ANYTHING, there's benefits to pleading guilty as early as possible. As I said, the normal court rules apply. They absolutely DO look at all the evidence, from both prosecution and defence, and they judge whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.

If the evidence is going to be looked at, then it's because you are pleading not guilty - so of course that means going to court.

Fixed penalties and the like are an alternative to prosecution. If you haven't been offered a fixed penalty here, it's because they think the offences are too serious. 72 in a 50 is, believe it or not, within fixed penalty territory - so it must be the DWDC&A that's tipping it.

If you plead guilty there's a quick summary of the prosecution read out, there is no looking at and evidence before moving onto sentence. 

poppy12345

Jenni_D said:

poppy12345 said:

TooManyPoints said:

[Deleted User] said:

It's a stitch up. They know it's basically impossible to prove you weren't speeding (unless you have a dashcam with speed display) and their speed guns are janky nonsense. If you want you to be speeding they just point the gun in the wrong place until it reads over the limit.

You are stuffed I'm afraid. Get a dashcam with GPS and speed display, it's the only defense against false accusations.

Hence the recommendation to post on Pepipoo.

They already did before posting here. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=141413

You're 26 hours too late with that.  

TadleyBaggie said:

ontheroad1970 said:

Best place to take this will be PePiPoo.

They posted this on Pepipoo yesterday, obviously didn't like what they heard.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=141413

Yes i know but i quoted someone's comment that said "hense the recommendation to post on Pepipoo" which made it seem like they hadn't seen that comment.

TooManyPoints

Yes i know but i quoted someone's comment that said "hense the recommendation to post on Pepipoo" which made it seem like they hadn't seen that comment.

Yes I had seen it. My comment was actually referring to it (which I thought was quite clear - "hence the [earlier] recommendation to post on Pepipoo").

Ectophile

[Deleted User] said:

It's a stitch up. They know it's basically impossible to prove you weren't speeding (unless you have a dashcam with speed display) and their speed guns are janky nonsense. If you want you to be speeding they just point the gun in the wrong place until it reads over the limit.

You are stuffed I'm afraid. Get a dashcam with GPS and speed display, it's the only defense against false accusations.

Does your dashcam come with a calibration certificate? Because I bet their speed camera does.

TooManyPoints

You are stuffed I'm afraid. Get a dashcam with GPS and speed display, it's the only defense against false accusations.

I wasn't going to get bogged down with this but since it's been mentioned:

A measurement from an approved device operated in the correct manner is assumed to be reliable unless the contrary can be proved (with the burden for that proof falling on the defendant). The prosecution will produce evidence to show that the police used an approved device and that it was operated it in the correct manner. To convince the court that the measurement cannot be relied upon, the defendant must prove ("on the balance of probabilities") that there was some deficiency either in the device itself or the way in which it was operated. Suggesting "this might have happened" or "that could have occurred" will not do. He has to prove that the individual measurement in question is unreliable. Whilst producing evidence from another device (say a dashcam speed display as suggested) may assist, if the defendant is unable to discredit the measurement provided by the police, his defence will not succeed. Producing a measurement from an unapproved and uncontrolled device will not, by itself, discredit a measurement taken by an approved one.

Whether or not the police would go to the trouble of making false accusations is somewhat moot. Catching speeding motorists is rather akin to shooting fish in a barrel, so you should ask yourself why would they bother making false accusations when there are plenty of opportunities to make reliable ones?

shrimptiger

TooManyPoints said:

I would be happy to just put forward my argument and evidence to the single magistrate, with a non guilty plea and let him deide based on the evidence  but it seems they will not even look at all the evidence, only look at it if it goes to court which is a bit unfair i think. 

You seem to be under a misapprehension. When a case is dealt with by a single magistrate (or more properly a "Single Justice") the matter has gone to court. Single Justices (SJs) are part of the Magistrates' Court process. But SJs do not deal with trials (i.e..Not Guilty pleas). What you are describing, as Adrian explains, is a trial. If you plead Not Guilty a trial is needed where both sides put forward their cases. The court then decides whether the prosecution has presented evidence to convince them, beyond reasonable doubt, of the defendant's guilt. A trial in the Magistrates' Court is presided over by a Bench of three Justices though sometimes a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) sits alone.

Yes, but even if you pleade guilty, there is no black and white punishment, there is a range. i.e for DWDCA its 3-9 points based on severity. Therefore how can the single magistrate judge the severity without looking at the evidence?