Challenge speeding offence

QrizB

Does the magistrate's court have a public gallery? We could arrange a coach trip ...

Grey_Critic

*** All im hearing is opinions,  not backed up with links, facts or even legal case reasoning.  The govt website states demand non contradiction. ***

If you were to employ the Lord Chief Justice at very great expence they would do exactly as all the members have done. Express an opinion - nothing more. Obviously you are trying to do this on the cheap - why should anyone research FREE OF CHARGE your defence?

I could but I have far better things to do with my time and you are not paying me - you have not even made such an offer.

IN MY OPINION - you were caught speeding - your first offence (You Say) You could have done a speed awareness course with no points. - IN MY OPINION you will get 3 points and pay a fine plus court costs. Get your wallet out.

When you ask a question then all you get is an opinion - You drive a Red car - No idea if that is true or not except in my opinion reading what you have said you Drive a Red car, but I could be wrong 

Okell

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

RandomTourist said:

The process goes like this:

Speed gun instantaneously measures speed. 

If it's over the tolerance, police office requests driver's details from registered keeper.

Police can, if asked, supply pictures to help identify the driver: the pictures have no other purpose.

RK can ignore this - if so it's a guaranteed fine and 6 points and inflated insurance premiums for some years

Or RK can tell the police

Same for the driver (whether the same person as the RK or not)

So now the driver has responded.

Driver has potentially three choices, two of which depend on the driver being reasonably sure the offence has been committed.

1. Awareness course. Benefit: no points, no record on driving licence. Cost: about the same as (2), pplus some time.

2. Fixed penalty. £100 and 3 points; the points are unlikely to have any impact on employment or insurance (unless the driver keeps collecting them....)

The third option will arrive if the driver does nothing, or if they opt for it:

3. Court appearance. Once again there are choices:

3a Plead guilty - outcome much the same as 2 but likely to be financially worse (you are using up court time which we all pay for through our taxes)

3b Plead not guilty. Now the courts are required to accept that the speed gun (even if calibration were out of date) is functioning correctly. To demonstrate that it was not, the defendant will need to bring an expert witness to contradict the evidence of the police's expert witness. In the event of conviction, the defendant will need to pay both lots of costs as well as a fine and a victim surcharge and the court costs. The evidence will hinge on (a) identifying vehicle and driver and (b) instantaneous measurement being correct. (a) is a slam-dunk. 

Now a number of people here and on FTLA who know the process very well indeed have explained this. They see (b) as being a slam-dunk too, and are trying to save you time and money. It's too late now to save you points.

If you feel lucky, go for it. But do please let us know what the outcome is. If you are found not guilty there will be useful information for the folk on FTLA as well as elsewhere.

Totally ignored the stats AGAIN?. How can 7 seconds using even video evidence provided contains measurements 
150m covered Q: is this correct? Yes 353m - 203 m ="150m
Time 7 seconds and stating I was 55mph and trying to suggest 58mph using a field ? No? OK ignore the faulty photo ? Why provide it then ? Answer this How can a vehicle do 55mph and speed up cover, but cover only 150m when that would be 175m at least, ? How ? Because the gun is right but its measurements of distance is wrong? 
Its flawed to bits. etc etc...

Are you posting in good faith or are you just trolling?

I ask because I can't understand why you are only responding to some posts and ignoring others.

For example, you have ignored posts here (and on FTLA) which tell you this:

Rover_Driver said:

A possibility is that the pictures you were sent were 'to identify the vehicle' (especially the one of just the numberplate) which are often sent when the Police are sent a query. The Police may have other pictures of the incident which they can use as evidence...

and this:

Car_54 said:

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

Not 1 simple logical explanation.. just opinions and " plead guilty, take the hit etc..? Is this just camera operators or traffic cops comments or if you offered advice , what's your validation and experience to comment? As it feels like opinions and not one person has seen my side? It'd be great to see someone factually state how and why the issues mentioned will be tolerated by a magistrate or jury ? Its so loaded against anyone to just cave in .These camera operators are not infallible 

The simple logical explanation is that the photos you've seen are not "evidence". They're essentially provided to demonstrate that your vehicle was at the time and place of the offence. That is a fact, not an opinion. The police are not obliged to disclose evidence at this stage...

Now it's quite possible that if you've never been involved in a speeding allegation before, that you don't understand the process.  (I have been involved before, did a speed awareness course, and I think I do understand the process, thanks to posters on here and on FTLA - all of whom you stupidly think are !!!!!!).

You may think you asked the police for the "evidence" that they intend to rely on when prosecuting you (if they do) but you are not entitled to see any evidence against you until you are actually charged with an offence.

Have you been charged yet?

If you have not been charged yet then the most likely explanation of the photos the police have sent you is that they are to assist you in "identifying the driver", and they do not necessarily form any part of the evidence that they will rely on when (or if) they prosecute you.  They will likely have more video etc evidence proving you were exceeding the speed limit that you haven't seen yet. 

But they only have to disclose that evidence to you when you are charged so that you can make an informed decision as to how to plead.

So either take on board the advice being offered by others or just go away and let your case go to court.

And - of course - come back and let us know when you win.

If you lose, don't bother coming back...

paul_c123

Okell said:

The most likely explanation of the photos the police have sent you is that they are to assist you in "identifying the driver", and they do not necessarily form any part of the evidence that they will rely on when (or if) they prosecute you. 

From the first picture, and I may be wrong, I believe it is "wheat".

Let's face it, its a pretty terrible pic to send out in the circumstances. They could have selected 2 much better ones.

Okell

paul_c123 said:

Okell said:

The most likely explanation of the photos the police have sent you is that they are to assist you in "identifying the driver", and they do not necessarily form any part of the evidence that they will rely on when (or if) they prosecute you. 

From the first picture, and I may be wrong, I believe it is "wheat".

Let's face it, its a pretty terrible pic to send out in the circumstances. They could have selected 2 much better ones.

Until he's charged he's not entitled to see anything.

If he's contacted the boys in blue to see the "evidence" against him they've probably had a good laugh and looked for the most unhelpful photos to send him.

@Yorkshirebloke68 needs to be aware that the photos the police have sent him are not necessarily those that they intend to rely on when - or if - they decide to prosecute him.

But nobody here is telling him that his speed calculation is wrong and that the police have a slamdunk case against him - he is simply being made aware that unless, and until, he is actually charged, he will not necessarily see the evidence that the police intend to rely on in court.

I don't believe the OP has said he's actually been charged yet.  If he hasn't, then he won't have seen the evidence against him yet...

facade

Okell said:

<snip>

But nobody here is telling him that his speed calculation is wrong and that the police have a slamdunk case against him

<snip>

I and others have pointed out that the times on the 'photos are clock times and the difference between them is not necessarily 33-26=7 seconds, but can in the worst case be 33.000 - 26.999= 6.001 seconds, which gives a result above the limit for his average if you use the distances on the frames.

We have suggested that since the Police wouldn’t drop the allegation when confronted by the OP's calculation, that they must have reliable evidence of him speeding that they are confident will stand up in Court, which is close enough to to a slam dunk for me to suggest that £100 now is better than risking a small fortune, lots of time and considerable stress on in Court in the future.

LightFlare

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

Totally ignored the stats AGAIN?. How can 7 seconds using even video evidence provided contains measurements 
150m covered Q: is this correct? Yes 353m - 203 m ="150m
Time 7 seconds and stating I was 55mph and trying to suggest 58mph using a field ? No? OK ignore the faulty photo ? Why provide it then ? Answer this How can a vehicle do 55mph and speed up cover, but cover only 150m when that would be 175m at least, ? How ? Because the gun is right but its measurements of distance is wrong? 
Its flawed to bits.  
Who are the flta members that know so much? Traffic cops? camera operators? Driving lawyers ? As no one has suggested they are anything other than opinions.. I mentioned im a veteran as it gives credibility to understanding range and optics plus I hold a science degree and have ran tests on speed time distance. Im not claiming the gun may not be accurate , but its claimed  its milliseconds shot says I was travelling at 55mph,  which in itself is a  technicality offence , not reckless , as a much heavier campervan can shoot by at 60mph ( mines a stealth camper but not registered so technically the 50mph speed i know about) .. the whole thing causes questions that have still not been answered with the contradiction of evidence which is all I asked for to be explained without a shadow of doubts.  All im hearing is opinions,  not backed up with links, facts or even legal case reasoning.  The govt website states demand non contradiction.  
Last post as this is useless speaking to no one who offers anything but please this etc . !!!!!! I know the routine favours caving in to bullying and intimidating fine aspects .. if you all never stand up for yourself because of money ? Its basic physics.  

Traffic Cops - certainly in the past - not sure if any current
Camera Ops - dont know
Traffic Lawyers - not specifically - but for sure at least a couple of legally trained people that I am aware of

Okell

Yorkshirebloke68 said:

RandomTourist said:

The process goes like this:

Speed gun instantaneously measures speed. 

If it's over the tolerance, police office requests driver's details from registered keeper.

Police can, if asked, supply pictures to help identify the driver: the pictures have no other purpose.

RK can ignore this - if so it's a guaranteed fine and 6 points and inflated insurance premiums for some years

Or RK can tell the police

Same for the driver (whether the same person as the RK or not)

So now the driver has responded.

Driver has potentially three choices, two of which depend on the driver being reasonably sure the offence has been committed.

1. Awareness course. Benefit: no points, no record on driving licence. Cost: about the same as (2), pplus some time.

2. Fixed penalty. £100 and 3 points; the points are unlikely to have any impact on employment or insurance (unless the driver keeps collecting them....)

The third option will arrive if the driver does nothing, or if they opt for it:

3. Court appearance. Once again there are choices:

3a Plead guilty - outcome much the same as 2 but likely to be financially worse (you are using up court time which we all pay for through our taxes)

3b Plead not guilty. Now the courts are required to accept that the speed gun (even if calibration were out of date) is functioning correctly. To demonstrate that it was not, the defendant will need to bring an expert witness to contradict the evidence of the police's expert witness. In the event of conviction, the defendant will need to pay both lots of costs as well as a fine and a victim surcharge and the court costs. The evidence will hinge on (a) identifying vehicle and driver and (b) instantaneous measurement being correct. (a) is a slam-dunk. 

Now a number of people here and on FTLA who know the process very well indeed have explained this. They see (b) as being a slam-dunk too, and are trying to save you time and money. It's too late now to save you points.

If you feel lucky, go for it. But do please let us know what the outcome is. If you are found not guilty there will be useful information for the folk on FTLA as well as elsewhere.

... Who are the flta members that know so much? Traffic cops? camera operators? Driving lawyers ? As no one has suggested they are anything other than opinions...

I'm reasonably confident - on the balance of probabilities - that at least one of the posters who advised you on FTLA is a sitting magistrate.

And I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that that person has also commented here on this thread.

And I don't actually know - but I strongly suspect - that the person you reported to the moderators (of which he happens to be one) on FTLA is a practising lawyer and possibly ex-police.

On the whole, I think all the people who have advised you both on FTLA and on here have given you the best advice that they can, and that that advice has been given sincerely and in your best interests.

But you don't have to trust anybody on the interweb and when or if you are charged by the police you can just ignore what you've been told on here and simply plead "Not guilty" and put the ball in their court to prove their case and your guilt.

Okell

facade said:

Okell said:

<snip>

But nobody here is telling him that his speed calculation is wrong and that the police have a slamdunk case against him

<snip>

I and others have pointed out that the times on the 'photos are clock times and the difference between them is not necessarily 33-26=7 seconds, but can in the worst case be 33.000 - 26.999= 6.001 seconds, which gives a result above the limit for his average if you use the distances on the frames.

We have suggested that since the Police wouldn’t drop the allegation when confronted by the OP's calculation, that they must have reliable evidence of him speeding that they are confident will stand up in Court, which is close enough to to a slam dunk for me to suggest that £100 now is better than risking a small fortune, lots of time and considerable stress on in Court in the future.

I know, but 

1.  I'd be very reluctant to tell someone in the OP's position that they "must be wrong" and that it's a "slam dunk" that they will be convicted.

There have been a few rare cases on here and FTLA and pepipoo where the polis have !!!!ed up the photos and when it's been pointed out to them, they have dropped the charges.  Maybe this is another one.

2.  If you explain to the OP that the photos he has been sent are not necessarily the evidence that the polis will rely on to convict him and that therefore his calculations may be wholly irrelevant, he will just stick his fingers in his ears and go "la la la la la la" until everybody stops telling him what he doesn't want to hear


3.  He's a "veteran" (a meaningless Americanism that doesn't convey the same gravitas as "ex-armed forces") which gives "... credibility to understanding range and optics ..." plus he has a previously unmentioned science degree.


So basically whatever you think - or I or everybody else thinks - you are wrong and he is right...

Money_Grabber13579

Okell said:

facade said:

Okell said:

<snip>

But nobody here is telling him that his speed calculation is wrong and that the police have a slamdunk case against him

<snip>

I and others have pointed out that the times on the 'photos are clock times and the difference between them is not necessarily 33-26=7 seconds, but can in the worst case be 33.000 - 26.999= 6.001 seconds, which gives a result above the limit for his average if you use the distances on the frames.

We have suggested that since the Police wouldn’t drop the allegation when confronted by the OP's calculation, that they must have reliable evidence of him speeding that they are confident will stand up in Court, which is close enough to to a slam dunk for me to suggest that £100 now is better than risking a small fortune, lots of time and considerable stress on in Court in the future.

I know, but 

1.  I'd be very reluctant to tell someone in the OP's position that they "must be wrong" and that it's a "slam dunk" that they will be convicted.

I don’t think anyone is saying that the OP is definitely wrong, all they are trying to do is to point out that the OP’s view isn’t the only possible view and therefore it can’t offer the defence they might think it does. The only thing which trying to take an average based on the time stamps proves is that the vehicle was doing something between 42mph and 56mph but can’t be any more definitive than that.

Out of interest, how many police forces don’t use 10% + 2 when deciding when to prosecute? Not that I’m sure this helps in this case given there seems to be evidence of doing 58mph at some point.