PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Intention to Prosecute, A120 Thremhall Ave
AudiWanka
post Thu, 29 Aug 2019 - 20:09
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 29 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,482



Hi

I apparently was caught doing 65 in a 50 just before it turned into a national speed limit.

The date says it was caught on 6th Aug 2019. This was by a police hand held gun, I did see him but it was too late he was hidden around a corner so I had no change of slowing. This car is a company car so my work had received the information. They needed to fill out section A of the form and return it to the police. It was received by my work office on 16/08/19, however I have not heard anything from Essex police and I am getting worried as I do not want the £1000 fine.

I don't know what fine I will get I really cant afford the fine, i am crippled by a huge amount of debt and I am trying to get out of it.

What do you think the fine will be/ could I still be offered the course?

Really need closure, is the police at fault not communicating with me for this length of time?

Many Thanks
AudiWanka
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
Advertisement
post Thu, 29 Aug 2019 - 20:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Aiden
post Thu, 29 Aug 2019 - 20:47
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 20 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,503



A Notice of Intended Prosecution must be served to the registered keeper within 14 days. In your case it arrived within 10 days and I assume it has been sent back to Essex Police by now.

I wouldn't have expected a reply by Essex to you by now but keep an eye out within the next week or so.

I reckon Essex only offer a speed awareness course up to 64MPH for breaking a 50MPH limit. You could possible be facing £100 + 3 penalty points on the basis your licence has less then 9 points.

Either way a Speed awareness course would have cost £90, so your pretty much looking at loosing £100 (again if your licence hasn't got more then 9 points)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 30 Aug 2019 - 09:50
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,443
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



There is no £1000 fine, the penalty is UP TO, in reality it’s almost impossible to get that size of fine, not least that a guilty plea carries a reduction of upto 33%.


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 21:39
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,190
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 30 Aug 2019 - 10:50) *
There is no £1000 fine, the penalty is UP TO, in reality it’s almost impossible to get that size of fine, not least that a guilty plea carries a reduction of upto 33%.

I would say it's completely impossible to get a £1,000 fine. To impose such a fine, the court would have to be satisfied that no more serious offence of speeding could ever conceivably be committed, but if an offence is that serious, you'll almost undoubtedly be looking at dangerous driving rather than speeding.


--------------------
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
The Rookie
post Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 06:49
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,443
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



RWI £800, Band C offence and no guilty plea, nominal fine £1200.....


--------------------
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
Logician
post Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 14:42
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 07:49) *
RWI £800, Band C offence and no guilty plea, nominal fine £1200.....


Guidance is that the fine for a first time offender pleading not guilty should not exceed 75% of the maximum whatever the income. To get up to £1000 fine, the offender would need a considerable number of previous offences and/or tick the aggravating features boxes.



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 15 Sep 2019 - 19:29
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,190
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Logician @ Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 15:42) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 07:49) *
RWI £800, Band C offence and no guilty plea, nominal fine £1200.....


Guidance is that the fine for a first time offender pleading not guilty should not exceed 75% of the maximum whatever the income. To get up to £1000 fine, the offender would need a considerable number of previous offences and/or tick the aggravating features boxes.

I maintain that to impose the maximum fine, the court would need to be satisfied that no worse case could ever come up (because if it did, there would be no power to impose a higher fine).


--------------------
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
The Rookie
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 03:47
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,443
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Doesn’t that fly in the face of means related fines? It’s meant to be a cap, but the standard calculations will take you to £1000 without it being the worst speeding offence imaginable.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 03:47


--------------------
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
Redivi
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 08:01
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,123
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



That was my assumption although, in practice, celebrities still appear to receive fines far below the maximum
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 14:06
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,190
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 04:47) *
Doesn’t that fly in the face of means related fines? It’s meant to be a cap, but the standard calculations will take you to £1000 without it being the worst speeding offence imaginable.

I don't profess to be a sentencing expert but I would have thought it would be quite unfair if two offenders who've committed offences of different seriousness were to receive the same fine, as it would fly in the face of "the punishment must fit the crime".


--------------------
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
666
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 16:55
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,311
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 15:06) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 04:47) *
Doesn’t that fly in the face of means related fines? It’s meant to be a cap, but the standard calculations will take you to £1000 without it being the worst speeding offence imaginable.

I don't profess to be a sentencing expert but I would have thought it would be quite unfair if two offenders who've committed offences of different seriousness were to receive the same fine, as it would fly in the face of "the punishment must fit the crime".

AFAIK that is a song from a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, rather than a principle of English law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 18:14
Post #12


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,680
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 15 Sep 2019 - 20:29) *
I maintain that to impose the maximum fine, the court would need to be satisfied that no worse case could ever come up (because if it did, there would be no power to impose a higher fine).


Drugs are bad, m'kay.

There are sentencing guidelines and there are statutory caps on the levels of the fines. Whether others might have done worse, based on whatever over-simplified metric they use to determine seriousness, is irrelevant.


--------------------
Andy

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
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: Wednesday, 18th September 2019 - 10:26
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.