Challenge speeding offence

TooManyPoints

There’s little point in posting problems on forums like this if you’ve already made up your mind that you are correct. You’re not and the reason you got short shrift on FTLA was because of your failure to engage and discuss the issue properly (not to mention insulting the site’s owner). It is slightly less indulgent than many sites. 

The police claim their equipment is correct. I assert that the equipment was being operated incompetently during the measurement session in question.

Then, as above, the answer is simple – decline (or ignore) any out-of-court offers the police might make and plead not guilty in court. Looking at the dates, if they haven’t already made one – or you haven’t accepted it – it is too late now and you will be prosecuted anyway. 

Remember to take your cheque book and do let us know how it goes.

facade

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

The primary image ...is the field 

Again, they have sent you two still frames from a continuous video, to confirm that it is your vehicle.

Neither are a "primary image". They will have other evidence that they will rely on in Court, they will disclose this evidence when the case is going to court- you will receive details of the evidence that they will rely on, and you will have to file your defence and any evidence that you will rely on. (If you intend to use flawed maths, they need to know in advance to bring someone expensive along to disprove it)

(This is what most people complain about, you only find out what they have got or know that their case is flawed if you go to Court, when subsequently pleading guilty if you accept that they had actually got you by the short & curlies all along gets you a bigger fine than accepting the FPN in the first place)

matt_drummer

Were you actually speeding?

Are you adamant they are wrong because you were not speeding or is it that they are correct but you want to demonstrate that they cannot prove it?

Mildly_Miffed

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

That is the only choice I feel I have to be heard ..

You're right - that is your opportunity to prevent the evidence that casts reasonable doubt on the prosecution claim.

its not right that they knowingly set up extra harsh fines etc just to be heard .

It isn't.

You are simply refusing the discounted alternatives to a prosecution through the court, because those alternatives are predicated on you accepting your guilt.
Those alternatives do not have to be offered.
Some parts of the country do not run courses.
If you do not meet certain criteria, you will not be offered a fixed penalty.

Yorkshirebloke68

matt_drummer said:

Were you actually speeding?

Are you adamant they are wrong because you were not speeding or is it that they are correct but you want to demonstrate that they cannot prove it?

Definitely not speeding,  I dont speed. 

Goudy

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

The primary image ...is the field 

The primary evidence could be either image but I suspect they will use the image that is clearer.
The police don't need to use the other image/recording as their secondary evidence.

The police are only sharing what the evidence they might use in court. They have two recordings/images so they share both if they need or use them both or not.

As explained they only need one primary piece evidence and one piece of secondary evidence.

You can't really argue with either primary or secondary evidence.
One item of evidence (one recording from the device) shows the other item of evidence to be sound evidence (the officers prior opinion).


The image of the verge isn't just verge though is it? Both images together might be evidence of irresponsibility at best.

Slightly off topic I know, but take both images together and they show more than just a speeding fine.

Image one and two seem to suggest that the vehicle isn't just breaking the speed limit, it's continuing to speed up. But speeding up towards what?
If we look closely enough at the "verge" image we see it's a bend in the road.
A bend severe enough to get it's own warning sign.

facade

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

matt_drummer said:

Were you actually speeding?

Are you adamant they are wrong because you were not speeding or is it that they are correct but you want to demonstrate that they cannot prove it?

Definitely not speeding,  I dont speed. 

So, once again,

What was the speed limit for a Goods Vehicle (or were you driving a sub 3.05 tonne motor home?) on that road, and what speed were you definitely doing?

If it is a van then unless it is a dual carriageway or motorway then the limit in an NSL is 50 and the provided stills are above that.

However, I finally noticed the date, and you will be going to Court anyway as there isn't time for a COFP. Please post back with how you get on.

user1977

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

No need for arrogance is there? That's what the other site felt full of .. you seemed focused on why we must cave in to pressure and ignore the full details that create doubt.. 

No arrogance I can see - people are providing pragmatic advice, and even the best qualified defence solicitor isn't likely to advise you to try defending something based on arguments which they know are flimsy.

Goudy

TooManyPoints said:

There’s little point in posting problems on forums like this if you’ve already made up your mind that you are correct. 

I think that's not entirely true.
Not wanting to sound argumentative on a Friday afternoon (just wait until Monday morning) but I think a choice has been made and now there is a strong need to seek approval for that choice.

As others have pointed out, the dates suggest a collision course with a court has been chosen and I suspect there's more than a little nervousness when it comes to the question of making the right decision. 

If one can convince others that they have made the correct choice, then it must be the correct choice.
Maybe when they fail to do that they might need help to make an informed choice about what to do about it.

I'm not against challenging the courts, we aren't yet a totalitarian state and our past is rich in legal history that allows us to do just that.

But please, make sure you know what you are are actually challenging, then learn or employ someone to do that.
There's no point collecting evidence to disprove something the prosecution don't use or need to use.

TooManyPoints

No need for arrogance is there? That's what the other site felt full of...

I'm not being arrogant; I'm simply explaining it as it is.

I'm not focussed on anything other than the position you re in and the only details I have is what you’ve provided. And that is almost certainly not all the police will rely on in an attempt to convict you. 

You have drawn totally incorrect conclusions from the material you have (which has been provided as a courtesy only, not as evidence). Yet when that is pointed out to you, you continue to argue that it does not support your guilt.

 .. you seemed focused on why we must cave in to pressure.

Strictly speaking you are entitled to nothing at all at this stage, other than a NIP (if you are the Registered Keeper) providing you with the nature of the offence and the time and place it is alleged to have taken place. The police are entitled to ask you who was driving at that time, you have a duty to tell them, and you would receive nothing more until either they made you an out-of-court offer or prosecuted you. So you're not under any pressure at this stage as nothing you say or do will alter that process. 

Anything they have provided up to now is as a courtesy only. If you decide to reject any offers they may make and be prosecuted instead, based on any of that material, that is your decision. That is how it is. 

As above, you are going to face prosecution now anyway, so that choice has been taken from you. The only decision you have to make is whether to plead guilty or not guilty. You may be better placed to make that decision when you are served with the “Initial Details of the Prosecution Case” (i.e. the evidence the police intend to rely on) which you will receive along with your “Single Justice Procedure Notice.” It will probably include a statement from the camera operator explaining why he targeted you and how your speed was measured.