PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NIP (alleged speeding (variable camera))
Ignatius
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 16:16
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 May 2014
Member No.: 70,605



Hello,
NIP received within the 14 days of alleged offence.
"Exceed a variable speed limit - automatic camera device at **:** on **/**/2017 at M62, BETWEEN JUNCTIONS 25 & 26 WESTBOUND"
"The speed of the vehicle on this occasion was recorded at 63 mph"
"For variable speed limit offences only, the speed limit at the time was 50 mph."

OK, the time of the alleged offence was in the early afternoon in a week day. From what the evidential photographs depict (not many vehicles actually in the images), traffic was free flowing. It is unknown if there was a nearby accident/breakdown. The weather appears to be clear in the images and the condition of the road's surface looks to be dry. It is also unknown if there were any pedestrians/road workers or debris in the road.

I have had a look at the photographic evidence (the images are very small and of pretty poor quality - with the web page at 100% view, the images are about 4x3cm). The Public Access System portal states: "Please note that the quality of photographs viewed on this site may differ from the originals seen within the Central Ticket Office, as we have the ability to enhance the images.". I may write a letter requesting all evidence and photographs of the vehicle.

Paragraph 4 of S172 of the RTA 1988 intrigues me:

"A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was."

Whilst I may have been driving and without admitting any guilt, I wonder if I can successfully use this paragraph as part of my defence.

The speed limits of the M62 and most other motorways are usually 70 mph. I realise that some motorways are considered to be 'smart' and that someone in a control room enforces, amongst other things, variable speed restrictions at the touch of a button. What I wonder is perhaps there was a small incident (I've tried to look this up) which required the speed to be lowered to 50 some maybe five or ten minutes earlier, but the person in the control room failed to raise the speed limit back to 70 or even 60, when it was perhaps considered safe to do so.

I still almost have the full 28 days to respond. Can I respond with a written letter stating that I do not know who was driving the vehicle at the alleged time of the offence, and that I wish to see all evidence and photographs of the vehicle so that I can help identify the driver? Is it English case law that I have to complete the reverse side of the NIP and return it?

I may scan and redact personal data from the NIP, if it helps at all to see it. Perhaps the wording of the NIP is inaccurate or there is something missing.

All advice is appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 28)
Advertisement
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 16:16
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peterguk
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:10
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,746
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:03) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 20:38) *
Do the circumstances in which you find yourself have any unusual features which might lead a court to conclude you could not name the driver at the time of an alleged offence said to have occurred less than two weeks earlier?


Yes, I think so. My mother and I share the vehicle, and I believe that she was with me at the time of the alleged offence.


Well that's good news! Only two of you that need to get together and work out who was driving. Should be easy enough with the date, time and location. And lucky for you it was only a few days ago.

Be warned, you and your mother will have a massive struggle convincing the magistrates that two adults couldn't work out who was driving a few days earlier.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:34
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37,590
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



She was with you? Very different to you genuinely believe she may have been driving.

To be honest it comes across that you know exactly who was driving and are trying to get off on what you think is a technicality, be aware that to be credible your Mum would have to be prepared to take the stand and swear on oath she could have been driving and genuinely doesn't know who wasn't, noting that getting caught lying will likely see her in jail, still sound viable?

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:36


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:46
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 May 2014
Member No.: 70,605



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:34) *
She was with you? Very different to you genuinely believe she may have been driving.

To be honest it comes across that you know exactly who was driving and are trying to get off on what you think is a technicality, be aware that to be credible your Mum would have to be prepared to take the stand and swear on oath she could have been driving and genuinely doesn't know who wasn't, noting that getting caught lying will likely see her in jail, still sound viable?


Jail!?!? If one is caught lying about a murder/manslaughter/rape/child molestation charge (serious crimes) then, for sure, I think it has to be custodial... but to put someone in jail for lying about some speeding nonsense, I think is ridiculous and wasting taxpayers' money. I know it's perjury, but it wouldn't be harming anyone. Jail ought to be only for people who actually cause harm to people/animals.

This post has been edited by Ignatius: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:50
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,746
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:46) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:34) *
She was with you? Very different to you genuinely believe she may have been driving.

To be honest it comes across that you know exactly who was driving and are trying to get off on what you think is a technicality, be aware that to be credible your Mum would have to be prepared to take the stand and swear on oath she could have been driving and genuinely doesn't know who wasn't, noting that getting caught lying will likely see her in jail, still sound viable?


Jail!?!? If one is caught lying about a murder/manslaughter charge then, for sure, it has to be custodial... but to put someone in jail for lying about some speeding nonsense, I think is ridiculous and wasting taxpayers' money. I know it's perjury, but it wouldn't be harming anyone. Jail ought to be only for people who actually cause harm to people/animals.


Plenty have been jailed for 6-12 months for lying over who was or was not driving.

Undermining the justice system is a serious offence.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:52
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 May 2014
Member No.: 70,605



QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:50) *
Plenty have been jailed for 6-12 months for lying over who was or was not driving.

Undermining the justice system is a serious offence.


I'm sorry but I think most people will agree that the BJS is BS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:55
Post #26


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,166
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



I think that most people on this forum will agree that you are asking us to conspire with you to pervert the course of justice. Whether or not you think that the British judicial system is bullsh*t is immaterial.

edit: As I suspect that this thread is likely to be locked very shortly, I will offer one final piece of advice. Contemplating committing a serious criminal offence is not itself an offence. Neither is asking for advice on doing so - unless somebody else is stupid enough to assist you or otherwise encourage you, in which case you would both be guilty of conspiracy. Whilst you have had the sense to obfuscate some of the details before posting your intentions (whether explicitly or implicitly) on a public forum, I'm sure even out famously incompetent BiB would be able to work out who you are, from what you have posted - if you go through with your cunning wheeze. They don't like people using the law to avoid paying up, but really get p*****d off when people break the law to do so.

This post has been edited by andy_foster: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 22:04


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

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 22:10
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 May 2014
Member No.: 70,605



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:55) *
I think that most people on this forum will agree that you are asking us to conspire with you to pervert the course of justice. Whether or not you think that the British judicial system is bullsh*t is immaterial.


No, that is not what I am asking for at all. To be honest, the BJS is already perversely corrupt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 22:15
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,024
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:46) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:34) *
She was with you? Very different to you genuinely believe she may have been driving.

To be honest it comes across that you know exactly who was driving and are trying to get off on what you think is a technicality, be aware that to be credible your Mum would have to be prepared to take the stand and swear on oath she could have been driving and genuinely doesn't know who wasn't, noting that getting caught lying will likely see her in jail, still sound viable?


Jail!?!? If one is caught lying about a murder/manslaughter/rape/child molestation charge (serious crimes) then, for sure, I think it has to be custodial... but to put someone in jail for lying about some speeding nonsense, I think is ridiculous and wasting taxpayers' money. I know it's perjury, but it wouldn't be harming anyone. Jail ought to be only for people who actually cause harm to people/animals.

The courts are required to rule base on what the law is, not on what you think it should be. If you think that lying about a speeding matter should never lead to a custodial sentence, this would require a change in the law and you will need to take that up with your MP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 22:27
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,700
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Bye.


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


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

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Closed 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: Friday, 23rd February 2018 - 14:39
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.