Letter From The Police!!

robby-01

bargepole wrote: »

UPDATE: This one was up in Court today, and I went along to help the OP with his defence.

He, and his girlfriend, had made statements contradicting the officer's version of events, and we were hoping that, as upright citizens, the word of two against a single civilian officer, with no physical evidence, would win the day.

As it turned out, we didn't need to go that far, because the (very) junior prosecutor from the CPS concluded her case without producing any evidence of the identity of the driver.

We pointed this out to the court, and after a brief discussion, the Clerk advised the Mags that they should dismiss the case, which they did, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

So justice was done, and the civilian officer was in court all morning instead of zapping more drivers with dodgy evidence - a great result!

good news .i have a similar thing myself and would welcome your advise.i have just recieved a "conditional offer of fixed penalty" from the lovely people over at gmp.
The claim is that i was doing 43 in a 30 zone.The offer is a fixed penalty 60quid fine and 3 points.I have a clean licence and would like to keep it that way.
The authorities used a van mounted camera parked on a pavement .If i plead not guilty and go to court what is the likelihood of the points being more than 3 if it goes against me.Is it likely that they will produce evidence .is it legal for these people who are not police to park illegally themselves whilst they go about their business.

bargepole

robby-01 wrote: »

The authorities used a van mounted camera parked on a pavement .If i plead not guilty and go to court what is the likelihood of the points being more than 3 if it goes against me.Is it likely that they will produce evidence .is it legal for these people who are not police to park illegally themselves whilst they go about their business.

For 43 in a 30, the Court is likely to issue a fine of around £300 + 4 points, plus Prosecution costs if contested.

They will only produce evidence if you don't accept the fixed penalty offer, and plead not guilty when you get a summons.

Many areas have Traffic Regulation Orders to allow "vehicles on police business" to park in illegal places, so I don't think you'll get far with that.

Best advice is to have a read of the forums at www.pepipoo.com and follow the instructions there for posting details of a new case - members can then take a look and advise of any deficiencies in the paperwork.

daveonline

Good result guys and thanks for the update bargepole, its refreshing to read that someone has gone out of their way to help when they believe wrong doing has happened.

laurz121

blue_haddock wrote: »

Wouldn't it be refreshing if one day someone actually said i was caught speeding, i was bang to rights and i'm going to take my 3 points and £60 and thats the last we hear of it.

well said. The OP admitted who was driving yet used the fact that no evidence of who was driving was presented as their defence. If they knew they weren't guilty then why use this sneaky method to get out of it?

bargepole

laurz121 wrote: »

well said. The OP admitted who was driving yet used the fact that no evidence of who was driving was presented as their defence. If they knew they weren't guilty then why use this sneaky method to get out of it?

Because knowing you aren't guilty is one thing, getting the Magistrates to believe your word against that of a civvy police officer is a bit more tricky.

So when the prosecution scored an "own goal", there was every justification in us taking advantage of it. There's nothing sneaky about it; the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 makes it quite clear how the prosecution evidence must be presented to the court, and if the CPS can't abide by that, they don't deserve to win their case.

vaio

laurz121 wrote: »

well said. The OP admitted who was driving yet used the fact that no evidence of who was driving was presented as their defence. If they knew
they weren't guilty then why use this sneaky method to get out of it?

Don’t think it’s a matter of using a sneaky method, once the CPS had completed their case without identifying the driver then the magistrates had no alternative but a not guilty verdict. The OP couldn’t present their defence because there was no case to answer.

Wig

Bargepole,

Out of interest, after the CPS had finished laying out the case, and the defense stood up to note to the magistrates that no evidence had been presented to identify the driver.

Were the CPS questioned on this and allowed to present the evidence - but when they looked for it they could not find it?

or

Were the CPS not allowed to make any further submissions due to court rules perhaps, did they actually have the evidence to hand and just forgot about it, if so, did they object to not being allowed to present the case further?

bargepole

Wig wrote: »

Bargepole,

Out of interest, after the CPS had finished laying out the case, and the defense stood up to note to the magistrates that no evidence had been presented to identify the driver.

Were the CPS questioned on this and allowed to present the evidence - but when they looked for it they could not find it?

or

Were the CPS not allowed to make any further submissions due to court rules perhaps, did they actually have the evidence to hand and just forgot about it, if so, did they object to not being allowed to present the case further?

It was the second of these, we saw the defendant's S172 response form sitting in the prosecutor's folder, but she never tried to lead it into evidence.

According to Magistrates' Court rules, once you have concluded your case you are not allowed to re-open it, unless new evidence has come to light, but not evidence that you forgot to mention originally.

The Clerk and Prosecutor did send the Magistrates out while they tried to find a legal precedent for re-opening the prosecution case, but they couldn't find one, and had to admit (through gritted teeth) that the Mags would be directed to dismiss the charge.

movilogo

Wouldn't it be refreshing if one day someone actually said i was caught speeding, i was bang to rights and i'm going to take my 3 points and £60 and thats the last we hear of it.

No it won't be refreshing at all. Speed limits have now become an extortion by police/council/govt. Because of this nuisance, people are looking on their speedos, cameras, radar guns all the time rather than actually concentrating on driving.

The truth is the Police of today are thickos who are better qualified at raising revenue than detecting and preventing crime.

Agreed. Police are rated on how many cautions they handed over, motorists they caught etc. When did you hear last time that police caught a thief?
:mad:

Stephb1986_2

I could do with a hand to be honest.

Well not me but my partners dad. He's 48 and within 2 months he has managed to get 3 speeding tickets yes he was speeding and he's a fool he is also disabled and had already 3 points so he would get banned if he gets these last 3 and he does really need his license, yes I know he should of thought about that before speeding. The thing is also that my partner is thinking of taking the points for him. I've said that he shouldn't and that his dad should face the concequenses of his actions.

He is taking this to court and pleading his case of that he needs his disability car because otherwise he wont be able to get around.

What are his chances??

Many Thanks

Steph xx