PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

99mph M40, no photos - passed onto court?
mba_
post Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 19:36
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 22 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,562



Hi guys,

i've just had a letter stating that details have been forwarded to a Magistrates court for a speeding offence from earlier in the year - 99mph on the M40 - snapped by a mobile van (?) on an overhead gantry. I was very very stressed at that time in my life and just sent off the NIP saying I was the driver, but there were no photos included in the original letter from what I remember. The latest letter states that they included photos etc.

Is it possible to fight this with a not guilty plea or have I shot myself in the foot by already admitting to being the driver at the time? I genuinely feel there could have been a mistake..

What should I/ can I expect as an outcome - a court appearance? - I should mention that I've had a short ban (25 days) & fine fairly recently after a court appearance but otherwise no points etc.

Thanks for any help/ advice you can offer me

Oh and Merry Christmas!..


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 19:36
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Logician
post Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 20:04
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,646
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



What sort of a mistake do you suspect? Not your car, you not driving, not correct speed, not correct limit, or what?


--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 20:22
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,890
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Assuming the limit was 70mph then 6 points is the most likely outcome.

A fine of around 66% of weekly relevant earnings, costs of £85 and surcharge of 10% of the fine (min £30). Another short ban is possible but would likely be points.

There's no requirement to provide photo's so far - however, now the matter is at court the prosecution need to prove their case so evidence is available. But defending against these are notoriously difficult.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 20:22


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mba_
post Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 21:29
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 22 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,562



QUOTE (Logician @ Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 20:04) *
What sort of a mistake do you suspect? Not your car, you not driving, not correct speed, not correct limit, or what?


Not the correct speed - thinking back to the time of the event, it was a day time and there were a fair few cars around, pretty sure I didn't reach 99mph, hence wondering why there's a lack of provided evidence..

QUOTE (Jlc @ Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 20:22) *
Assuming the limit was 70mph then 6 points is the most likely outcome.

A fine of around 66% of weekly relevant earnings, costs of £85 and surcharge of 10% of the fine (min £30). Another short ban is possible but would likely be points.

There's no requirement to provide photo's so far - however, now the matter is at court the prosecution need to prove their case so evidence is available. But defending against these are notoriously difficult.



So I should sit tight and wait to hear from the court? - or can I ask for photographic evidence now?

I really don't want the stress and hassle of another court appearance, I self-represented the first time around - did pretty well I feel but definitely would have had more clout with a lawyer, was waiting for 3 hours before I was seen!

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 21:33
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45,449
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Your not entitled to see photos until after a not guilty plea has been entered at the first hearing, you can ask but doubt you’ll get and by then you’ll have lost 8% of your guilty plea discount (33-25%).


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 22:19
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,147
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (mba_ @ Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 21:29) *
wondering why there's a lack of provided evidence..

Probably because they don’t have to provide any at this stage.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 22:43
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (mba_ @ Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 21:29) *
can I ask for photographic evidence now?


You do know that photographic evidence is not a requirement for a successful conviction?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 23:04
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,912
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 22:43) *
QUOTE (mba_ @ Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 21:29) *
can I ask for photographic evidence now?


You do know that photographic evidence is not a requirement for a successful conviction?

But it would for a contested case outside of exceptional circumstances, seeing as the video is the record of the alleged offence. The CPS are not going to run with operator recall of an unremarkable offence six months ago.


--------------------
No longer posting - please do not PM for advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 23:22
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 23:04) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 22:43) *
QUOTE (mba_ @ Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 21:29) *
can I ask for photographic evidence now?


You do know that photographic evidence is not a requirement for a successful conviction?

But it would for a contested case outside of exceptional circumstances, seeing as the video is the record of the alleged offence. The CPS are not going to run with operator recall of an unremarkable offence six months ago.


Agreed.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Sun, 23 Dec 2018 - 00:47
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,646
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 23:04) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 22:43) *
QUOTE (mba_ @ Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 21:29) *
can I ask for photographic evidence now?
You do know that photographic evidence is not a requirement for a successful conviction?
But it would for a contested case outside of exceptional circumstances, seeing as the video is the record of the alleged offence. The CPS are not going to run with operator recall of an unremarkable offence six months ago.


No reason why they should not, provided the operator made a note at the time. For most offences police officers almost always give evidence in court having refreshed their memories by referring back to their pocket books or contemporaneous statements.



--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 23 Dec 2018 - 08:26
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,914
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (mba_ @ Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 21:29) *
So I should sit tight and wait to hear from the court? - or can I ask for photographic evidence now?

You can ask, under part 8 of the criminal procedure rules, for "any written witness statement or exhibit that the prosecutor then has available and considers material to plea, or to the allocation of the case for trial, or to sentence,", I'm not entirely sure why this myth that you're not entitled to any evidence until after you plea is being perpetuated.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Sun, 23 Dec 2018 - 13:10
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,630
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 23 Dec 2018 - 08:26) *
QUOTE (mba_ @ Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 21:29) *
So I should sit tight and wait to hear from the court? - or can I ask for photographic evidence now?

You can ask, under part 8 of the criminal procedure rules, for "any written witness statement or exhibit that the prosecutor then has available and considers material to plea, or to the allocation of the case for trial, or to sentence,", I'm not entirely sure why this myth that you're not entitled to any evidence until after you plea is being perpetuated.

Yes I think the issue of "initial disclosure" has been done to death a few times in the past. You are entitled to (and will almost certainly be provided with) the "Initial Details of the Prosecution Case" in order to assist you in making your plea. This has been described by cp, above.

The police will certainly have evidence to support the speed they allege you were driving at. All you have is your feeling that you were "pretty sure" you were not travelling at 99mph. In order to make the court take notice of your feelings you will need to show that the evidence provided by the police cannot be relied upon. Do you think you can do that?

Since you do not think you were travelling at 99mph, what speed do you think you were doing? Bear in mind that the allegation is that you exceeded the speed limit, not that you were travelling at a specific speed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sun, 23 Dec 2018 - 14:07
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,912
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



The charge is exceeding the speed limit.

The allegation is that the OP was driving at 99mph on the M40.

The prosecution don't need to prove the allegation to prove the charge but logically if the OP doesn't have compelling evidence they will seek to prove both. It is best for the OP to focus on the allegation first.


--------------------
No longer posting - please do not PM for advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 13th August 2020 - 00:07
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.