Minimum evidence required for speeding, I need to educate a grumpy old man Options

[Judds]

Hey everyone, where can I find the wording about the minimum evidence needed for a constable to start the process for writing up a speeding or similar offence?

Lets assume a constable witnesses someone's driving but doesn't record it on a device of any kind.

My understanding is that if a constable formulates the opinion that vehicle x was being driver in excess of the speed limit/driven dangerously etc, that this is enough to convict a driver of said offence in court (should it be challenged and end up in court). Is there a wording to explain that in the RTA somewhere?

My father, who is the aforementioned grumpy old man - thinks otherwise and that you can just accuse a constable of slander and make it all go away, or if somehow proven that the constable is in error (it's not unheard of before the dashcam era for constables to "make mistakes" or be malicious) that you can just sue them willy nilly.

As far as I can recall, it's not a specific speed that needs to be proven, only that in the opinion of the constable that the vehicle was being driven in excess of the prescribed limit (i's not hard for someone experienced to tell if a vehicle is driving well over 30 mph for example), and that the magistrate will trust the police on this opinion/evidence to convict unless evidence provided proves otherwise, such as a dashcam showing the speed at the time not exceeding the speed limit.

Cheers for any knowledge and advice on how to bring a grumpy old sod up to date.

[Advertisement]

[andy_foster]

You're both wrong. Mostly you, though.

edit: You might want to start with s. 89 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. If there is anything in it that you don't understand, please feel free to read it again until you do.

This post has been edited by andy_foster: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 - 20:52

[cp8759]

The grumpy old man is partially right, see section 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1983:

A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit.

However that does not apply to special roads (motorways and a few very rare non-motorway special roads), so by process of elimination on a special road the evidence of one witness can suffice. Of course whether a court would accept the evidence of one witness over any defence evidence would turn on the fact of each case.

It's worth adding that barring extreme exceptions (say 100+ outside a school at 3 pm), the CPS sees prosecutions not backed-up by an approved device as too much of a faff and the risk of failure to high, so in practice this route to prosecution is never actually used.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 - 20:57

[Judds]

Damn?!? Well we live and learn I guess?

I remember being stopped by a constable in uniform marching out into the road instructing me to stop (of course I did) and he accused me of tearing away from the lights, which I denied - but I had a sports exhaust and blamed the noise on that (I was once a boy racer) and he pretty much said that only his word was needed to convict of exceeding the limit for the road, which was a 30. He let me off after a verbal going over though and I made sure I passed the "attitude test".

I'll look up the s.89 though, and thanks.

[cp8759]

I remember being stopped by a constable in uniform marching out into the road instructing me to stop (of course I did) and he accused me of tearing away from the lights, which I denied - but I had a sports exhaust and blamed the noise on that (I was once a boy racer) and he pretty much said that only his word was needed to convict of exceeding the limit for the road,

As above, he might have been right in theory but whether the CPS would run with it is another matter.

[andy_foster]

Unless he had something to corroborate his opinion, or the 30 limit happened to be a special; road, not so much.

[The Rookie]

where can I find the wording about the minimum evidence needed for a constable to start the process for writing up a speeding or similar offence?

Going back to basics, there is no such concept of 'writing up'.

AIUI an officer with a belief the offence was committed can issue a fixed penalty even if they have insufficient evidence to make it 'stick' in court, though most won't do so there is nothing in law preventing it (though it may well be contrary to force policy).

[DancingDad]

Twas common wisdom in the pub when I was nowt but a young lad that any cop who wasn't using appropriate kit was in for a bollocking from their sergeant if they wrote someone up for speeding.
TBH they didn't need to, other catchall charges such a dangerous driving could be used and less onerous to convince a court.

[southpaw82]

Going back to basics, there is no such concept of 'writing up'.

I’m reasonably sure that after reporting a motorist for an offence I would later write up a report for prosecution.

[andy_foster]

C'mon SP, play fair. You should know by now that there is usually some kind of link between what Simon writes and what he intended to convey - which is often close to what a literate person would have written if they had been bothered to read the post they were purporting to respond to.

In this example, the OP begs the question of whether there is some publicly accessible document which mandates the minimum amount of evidence that a constable must have before he can "write up" the accused/offence, and asks where he can find this putative document. What Simon intended to convey is that there is no such publicly available document mandating minimum evidence before a constable can "write up", presumably because there is no such concept of a formally mandated minimum requirement.

Anyone who already knew the answer ought to have realised that - which may not help the OP unless his question was rhetorical.

[Judds]

Ah the replies make a lot more sense now and thanks everyone for their input.

I have no idea what constitutes a "special road" but it's an interesting topic nonetheless. The road I was stopped on many years ago in my Renault 5 Turbo (yes I know) was here

I nearly always work under the assumption of police do a bit of a fishing expedition and will sometimes use your own answers to incriminate yourself, hence why I don't answer anything unless I really have to in regards to motoring offences.

Sadly my father who is argumentative as hell is very anti police and thinks that throwing back accusations of "oooh that's slander - I'll see you in court for that!" thinks it's a sufficient deterrent to any further police investigation when it comes to speeding and I have to remind him that it's possible to talk your way into trouble as well as out of it.

Cheers again on the RTA and info on special roads and the other replies.

[southpaw82]

Broadly speaking, special road = motorway.

[666]

Sadly my father who is argumentative as hell is very anti police and thinks that throwing back accusations of "oooh that's slander - I'll see you in court for that!" thinks it's a sufficient deterrent to any further police investigation when it comes to speeding and I have to remind him that it's possible to talk your way into trouble as well as out of it.

We have ample evidence on this forum that a traffic police officer may not be fully conversant with criminal law. let alone civil law.

However, even the dumbest PC will probably know that the 'slander' idea is complete b***ocks. And your dad will have failed the attitude test.

[Judds]

Sadly my father who is argumentative as hell is very anti police and thinks that throwing back accusations of "oooh that's slander - I'll see you in court for that!" thinks it's a sufficient deterrent to any further police investigation when it comes to speeding and I have to remind him that it's possible to talk your way into trouble as well as out of it.

We have ample evidence on this forum that a traffic police officer may not be fully conversant with criminal law. let alone civil law.

However, even the dumbest PC will probably know that the 'slander' idea is complete b***ocks. And your dad will have failed the attitude test.

On this I have to agree. There is nothing to be gained with that kind of behaviour at all. It leads at best case to a verbal hiding to nothing.


I could tell you tales of his special kind of s**thousery on the road that would of (if caught) seen him banned from the roads forever.

Gets in a car with more buttons and features like cruise control - stops looking where he's going as he fiddles with the features. I'm amazed I'm alive to tell some of the tales!

[DancingDad]

........

I nearly always work under the assumption of police do a bit of a fishing expedition and will sometimes use your own answers to incriminate yourself, hence why I don't answer anything unless I really have to in regards to motoring offences.

Sadly my father who is argumentative as hell is very anti police and thinks that throwing back accusations of "oooh that's slander - I'll see you in court for that!" thinks it's a sufficient deterrent to any further police investigation when it comes to speeding and I have to remind him that it's possible to talk your way into trouble as well as out of it..........

Attitude test.
Polite, friendly, cooperative all get you plus points with the occifer who's pulled you over.
Rude, argumentative, quoting the law, telling them what they can or can't do...all makes them more determined to find fault.

And can be the difference between a friendly warning or summat that won't go away

[The Rookie]

Going back to basics, there is no such concept of 'writing up'.

I’m reasonably sure that after reporting a motorist for an offence I would later write up a report for prosecution.

Indeed, but he could write something whether he intended to do anything or not, so I'd suggest what I said was still correct?

[southpaw82]

Going back to basics, there is no such concept of 'writing up'.

I’m reasonably sure that after reporting a motorist for an offence I would later write up a report for prosecution.

Indeed, but he could write something whether he intended to do anything or not, so I'd suggest what I said was still correct?

You may suggest that.

[andy_foster]

He usually does.