PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Alleged speeding offence
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:57
Post #1


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868



.

This post has been edited by VulcanEssex: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 07:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:57
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:24
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,021
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



"whole version of events?" Are you having a laugh?
I'm really sorry but your entire post is very hard to follow, so I'm not even going to attempt a full analysis of your situation as far too much guesswork would be involved. I will try giving you a few pointers.

Firstly, ACPO no longer exists and it has been replaced by the NPCC, so the guidance you're looking at is out of date. If you want to cross-examine the civilian operator of the speed detection equipment (which I think is the thrust of your argument), you should have served a notice of objection to his witness statement being introduced as evidence, this should have been sent to the court officer and the prosecution within 7 days. Did you do this?
The same applies if you wish to cross-examine the "other" civilian witness.

Secondly, there is no need for a police officer to witness an offence for a prosecution to be successful, anybody can be a witness of fact. For example if a member of the public catches someone going through a red light on a dashboard camera and reports it, the matter would normally be dealt with by civilian back-office staff who would watch the video and issue a Notice of Intended Prosecution, there would be no need to waste a police officer's time as no police powers are required to prosecuted this sort of case. Speeding is different, as specialist training and equipment is needed, but the likelihood is that the civilian staff will testify that he is properly trained and the equipment was used correctly, so you would need some solid foundation to challenge this (speculation is not going to help you). You would need to cast doubt on the witness's credibility, competence, or the reliability of the equipment (there is a common law presumption that any equipment works as expected in the absence of any evidence to the contrary), which would not be easy.
Also as the guidelines are just guidelines, showing that some minor rule has not been followed to the letter will not help you, you would need to cast doubt a reasonable doubt on the reliability of the speed reading.

Thirdly there is no requirement for the van to have permission to park, or even to be parked legally. The fact that the person driving the van may or may not have committed a parking offence or contravention does not detract from the ability of someone sat in the back of the van from observing a crime being committed. To put it another way, if someone who's parked illegally witnesses a murder, should the murder walk free because the witnesses' evidence is "inadmissible"? Clearly the answer is no, so please abandon all hope of challenging this on the basis that maybe Highways England didn't give permission for the van to be there, this is utterly irrelevant and pursuing this is a waste of time.

Finally, where did you get the 24 hour deadline for a response from the CPS, is this what the Magistrate ordered? If you get a reply, your best bet would be to post the evidence on here (appropriately anonymised) and we'll take it from there.

p.s. when you say "I will be sending both of these letters via post as well,", I have no idea what letters you are talking about, if the Magistrate ordered disclosure there is no need for you to send any letters in relation to that.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:45
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,921
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



A few more comments.

Not sure where you got working days from - or the 2 days 'leeway'?

Awareness courses are discretionary and there is a time limit to complete one. (It's unlikely this assists in any way)

You don't believe you were speeding - it's your task to show the reading was incorrect and could be very expensive if they use expert witnesses. (Keeping with the flow or stating there was no 'danger' is no defence either - and seems to contradict your assertion of not speeding)

The prior opinion angle is often discussed on here but realistically isn't going to help over the speed measurement.

One presumes they have disclosed the material they intend to rely on - there isn't an automatic right to go on a 'fishing trip' for other items.

That excess is 3 points - unless you can show the reading was in error then I'd consider changing your plea to guilty. (I'm presuming they are only pursuing the speeding allegation)

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:57) *
2. They lose the NIP but not my attached letter, I'm not informed by this.
3. I get a Non-Disclosure letter saying I will appear in Court.

What did the attached letter say? (Although appears irrelevant to the current charge)

This post has been edited by Jlc: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:45


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

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
cp8759
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:55
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,021
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:45) *
One presumes they have disclosed the material they intend to rely on - there isn't an automatic right to go on a 'fishing trip' for other items.

Well there is such a right, the defendant has a right to "any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused.

It sounds like the OP has plead not guilty at a case management hearing and the Magistrate has told the CPS to provide the OP with the disclosure he requested within 24 hours, although that's just my guess at what the OP meant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 16:24
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,921
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:55) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:45) *
One presumes they have disclosed the material they intend to rely on - there isn't an automatic right to go on a 'fishing trip' for other items.

Well there is such a right, the defendant has a right to "any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused.

Indeed - but the caveat was my point.


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

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
NewJudge
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 16:44
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,237
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:55) *
It sounds like the OP has plead not guilty at a case management hearing and the Magistrate has told the CPS to provide the OP with the disclosure he requested within 24 hours, although that's just my guess at what the OP meant.

It's as good a guess as any but I'm not so sure it's correct:
QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:57) *
I said to the Magistrate:

I will have to assume that the CPS will be dropping the case if there is no acknowledgement within 24 hours to this final Notice of disclosure laid out in previous Notices.


Maybe the 24 hours was a deadline set by the OP. I think it would be unusual for the court to set a deadline of just 24 hours for disclosure.

There seems to be all sorts of misunderstandings with this. One which sticks out:

“I argued that they said within 10 days, which means working days so in theory it wasn't late, as I included the 2 days leeway I'm legally allowed.”

Why does it mean 10 working days? Ten days is surely ten calendar days, unless it specifically says working days. What is the 2 days leeway apparently legally allowed?

An uphill struggle seems to loom with this, especially where so many strings are attached to a defence, most of which rely on technical or administrative argument. The court is going to be disinterested in the ACPO guidelines (even if they were current). It will be interested in the evidence to support the allegation. If it’s simply speeding, that will be the alleged speed and its measurement; the prevailing limit and who was driving. The first NIP was apparently late due to the OP’s failure so there is no defence there. No doubt if protracted correspondence had not ensued a course may have been offered, but that’s water that passed under the bridge long ago.

Good luck for tomorrow (I think you'll need it). It will be interesting to learn the outcome.

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 16:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:02
Post #7


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868



QUOTE
"Firstly, ACPO no longer exists and it has been replaced by the NPCC, so the guidance you're looking at is out of date. If you want to cross-examine the civilian operator of the speed detection equipment (which I think is the thrust of your argument), you should have served a notice of objection to his witness statement being introduced as evidence, this should have been sent to the court officer and the prosecution within 7 days. Did you do this?
The same applies if you wish to cross-examine the "other" civilian witness."


1. ACPO - So I should go over the NPCC for the same requirements?

2. The CPS introduced the Operator as a witness just the other day, not me, so I haven't had time to object.

3. Should I adjourn the case?

-----

QUOTE
"Finally, where did you get the 24 hour deadline for a response from the CPS, is this what the Magistrate ordered? If you get a reply, your best bet would be to post the evidence on here (appropriately anonymised) and we'll take it from there."

p.s. when you say "I will be sending both of these letters via post as well,", I have no idea what letters you are talking about, if the Magistrate ordered disclosure there is no need for you to send any letters in relation to that.


1. I sent the CPS several notices for disclosure, they didn't even meet the last notice which was a 24 hour notice for disclosure or the case should be dropped - they did listen to that one. What do you want to be posted?
2. I sent them emails and the same letters via post.

------

QUOTE
". Speeding is different, as specialist training and equipment is needed, but the likelihood is that the civilian staff will testify that he is properly trained and the equipment was used correctly, so you would need some solid foundation to challenge this (speculation is not going to help you). You would need to cast doubt on the witness's credibility, competence, or the reliability of the equipment (there is a common law presumption that any equipment works as expected in the absence of any evidence to the contrary), which would not be easy.
Also as the guidelines are just guidelines, showing that some minor rule has not been followed to the letter will not help you, you would need to cast doubt a reasonable doubt on the reliability of the speed reading."


1. My argument is that if they are going to cause my person financial harm through taking points that they conduct themselves appropriately according to every guideline. The range was 75m away at least on a 45 degree angle, there is a van next to me that could have altered the reading, it was heavy traffic, it would have been impossible for me to exceed the speed limit when the road was so busy So this is not going to stand?


QUOTE
"Not sure where you got working days from - or the 2 days 'leeway'?"


1. I read within the Act that we're allowed 2 days leeway. And if someone puts 5 days and not 7 days or multiples of, it's common knowledge that 5 days are working days, so the other 2 do not count.

QUOTE
"You don't believe you were speeding - it's your task to show the reading was incorrect and could be very expensive if they use expert witnesses. (Keeping with the flow or stating there was no 'danger' is no defence either - and seems to contradict your assertion of not speeding)"


1. What do you mean? They'll pass the costs onto me if I lose in bringing the Operator into the hearing?
2. I didn't request the Operator into the hearing. I was informed just on Saturday.

QUOTE
"One presumes they have disclosed the material they intend to rely on - there isn't an automatic right to go on a 'fishing trip' for other items.

That excess is 3 points - unless you can show the reading was in error then I'd consider changing your plea to guilty. (I'm presuming they are only pursuing the speeding allegation)

What did the attached letter say? (Although appears irrelevant to the current charge) "


1. I wrote to them for a video and a response for the Operator's notes, which clearly do not exist, as their absence would form part of my defence around not detailing the alleged offence within the guidelines.
2. What would happen with my defence presently if I continued to pled not guilty and go over all of the points the Operator didn't follow and how the Police used their discretion to their advantage and didn't admit they lost the original NIP?
3. The attached letter questioned the 14 days and then said the NIP was attached to this letter.

QUOTE
"It sounds like the OP has plead not guilty at a case management hearing and the Magistrate has told the CPS to provide the OP with the disclosure he requested within 24 hours, although that's just my guess at what the OP meant."


1. What is an OP? Is that me? I didn't attend a management hearing as they said they thought I needed a court appearance to explain my mitigation. I have been badgering the CPS to provide a bunch of material to me, which they ignored. The last 24 hour notice, they also missed by 2 days. I received their response claiming there isn't a video and there is no unused material (unsigned certificate). But as I already said, they have instructed they will be bringing the Operator along with the device, 'I'm asking the Officer to bring the evidence in question to court together with any contemporaneous records she made, the certificate and any records of her training in the use of such devices.' I was only informed by this Saturday just gone.

----------

Is there anything you want to see in terms of letters and evidence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AntonyMMM
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:15
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,234
Joined: 17 May 2010
Member No.: 37,614



QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:02) *
1. My argument is that if they are going to cause my person financial harm through taking points that they conduct themselves appropriately according to every guideline. The range was 75m away at least on a 45 degree angle, there is a van next to me that could have altered the reading, it was heavy traffic, it would have been impossible for me to exceed the speed limit when the road was so busy So this is not going to stand?


Guidelines are not the law (even if they were up to date) - they will not form a defence.
75m is well within the normal operating range of a laser device ( can be many times that) and the 45 degree angle would work in your favour.
How did this van next to you alter the reading ? Saying it could have is not a defence - you would need to have evidence of HOW it altered your reading.

If that is the basis of your case, it is going to be a very expensive day - sorry.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:34
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,921
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Costs for a contested trial will likely start at £620 - more if other witnesses are attending should you lose. Figures over £2k are not unusual.

The cosine effect will reduce your measured speed versus actual. 45 degrees (this is unlikely) would be an actual speed way over 110mph. But they only have to show the limit was exceeded - the excess sets the sentence. In this case 50% of eeekly relevant earnings.

The ‘Loss’ of NIP response doesn’t seem relevant to the speeding allegation itself.

What Act are you referring to on these 2 days? I’m guessing you are referring to presumed delivery of 1st class post? (But again doesn’t seem relevant to the charge at hand)

This post has been edited by Jlc: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:32


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

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
NewJudge
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:45
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,237
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:02) *
3. Should I adjourn the case?

The matter of adjournment is not one for you. Only the court can order an adjournment. You can ask for one, but that's a different matter. What would be your reason for seeking an adjournment? What do you need time to do?
QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:02) *
1. My argument is that if they are going to cause my person financial harm through taking points that they conduct themselves appropriately according to every guideline. The range was 75m away at least on a 45 degree angle, there is a van next to me that could have altered the reading, it was heavy traffic, it would have been impossible for me to exceed the speed limit when the road was so busy So this is not going to stand?


"...could have altered the reading"
is not going to carry much weight. You will have to show how it could and the likelihood of it actually happening in your case. Can you do this?
QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:02) *
1. I read within the Act that we're allowed 2 days leeway. And if someone puts 5 days and not 7 days or multiples of, it's common knowledge that 5 days are working days, so the other 2 do not count.

What Act? Whose "common knowledge"?
QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:02) *
1. What do you mean? They'll pass the costs onto me if I lose in bringing the Operator into the hearing?

Yes. If the prosecution has to introduce additional evidence to rebut your defence their costs (which they will be awarded if you lose) will probably increase. Their standard charge for a contested matter in the Magistrates' court is £620. They may ask for less if the matter is straightforward but if you cause them extra work and they have to produce additional witnesses they could ask for more.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:02) *
2. What would happen with my defence presently if I continued to pled not guilty and go over all of the points the Operator didn't follow and how the Police used their discretion to their advantage and didn't admit they lost the original NIP?


It's my view (and only my view, based on what you've written) that you'd be convicted. I can't be sure from the information you've provided but it seems their discretion (to offer a course) was not used because it was too close to the prosecution deadline for them to do so. In any case, that is not a matter for the court tomorrow. The option of a course (should you be convicted) is not one available and you will be sentenced in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines.







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53
Post #11


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868



.

This post has been edited by VulcanEssex: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 07:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:02
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,921
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



You need to focus - speeding warning signs do not create a defence. Other vehicles aren’t going to assist - there may have been many NIPs issued.

It is far more likely the speed measurement was correct. 79mph is the starting point for enforcement but it doesn’t matter as your real speed was at least 79 so there’s no way to argue it down.

The enforcement session should include pre and post checks.


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

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
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:08
Post #13


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868



.

This post has been edited by VulcanEssex: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 07:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:23
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,237
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:08) *
... I'm better off to adjourn the case and change my plea to guilty...


You do not need to seek an adjournment to change your plea. You can do it at any time, the earlier the better.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:08) *
...and request a statuary non-conditional offer?


I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean you'd like to be sentenced at the Fixed Penalty level (£100 and 3 points) you may be disappointed. You can ask, and whilst Magistrates do have discretion to do just that, they are unlikely to do so in the circumstances you describe.

On a general note, trying to defend a speeding matter on the basis you describe is very likely to end in failure. The court is interested in evidence not maybes. There is no requirement for the prosecution to prove calibration or the accuracy of any measuring device unless you cast doubt on it and can support that doubt. Simply saying "prove it was working properly" will not do because it is assumed to be so unless you can cast doubt on it. The days of saying "I'll just ask them for the calibration certificate and if they don't have it I'll get off" are long gone (if indeed they ever existed).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:23
Post #15


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868



.

This post has been edited by VulcanEssex: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 07:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:24
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,021
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
QUOTE
"If that is the basis of your case, it is going to be a very expensive day - sorry."


All I need to do is cast doubt on the professionalism of the Operator. The basis is as follows:

This is not quite correct, it could have been the most unprofessional operator in the history of the world, but if they happened to get a correct speed reading, you can still be convicted.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
1. There are no notes, only a generic statement says she saw cars speeding. This is a requirement to do. It is a requirement that the Police Officer, having formed an opinion that a vehicle is exceeding a speed limit, then uses an approved speed detection device to corroborate his personal opinion.

The absence of notes do not invalidate the statement, after all the written statement is admissible in evidence in its own right, while as I understand it the notes would need to be introduced as an exhibit.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
2. There is limited evidence on calibration. How did she calibrate the device on the side of a dual carriageway?

Calibration is done about once a year, this will normally be proven by means of a calibration certificate.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
3. The position of van required her to take notes and record she was following Health and safety. The van was on the end of a slip road, which could have endangered public safety. Also, the position of the van was masked by the garage and its signage. "Ministers have made a commitment that enforcement within the National Safety Camera Programme will be highly visible and drivers will be made fully aware of the presence of safety cameras. The camera and speed limit signs must be clearly visible to drivers and not obscured by other street furniture or hanging branches etc. Ministers want drivers to be fully aware of the speed limit at all times, but especially where camera enforcement takes place."

The fact that the van might have endangered public safety is irrelevant. What Ministers have or haven't said is irrelevant.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
4. Heavy traffic flow at 4pm on Sunday, nobody could exceed the limit. Did she record the bikes in front of me doing at least 100mph? Did she notice and record the van next to me 100% exceeding the speed limit? Why did she choose my car? Was it because it was a noisy Skyline?

Do you have any evidence to show that the traffic flow at the material time was such that you couldn't have been speeding?
Whether other offenders were or weren't caught doesn't affect the accusation made against you.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
5. NPCC (ACPO) guidelines which is 10% + 2mph of the posted speed limit: 79mph - this was my alleged speed literally on the cusp - If there was slip or the gear was even slightly out, it would have recorded less speed. I really do not believe I was exceeding the limit, especially as I had my 1.5 year old boy in the car. Was this a speed reducing measure to protect public safety? They aren’t there to catch speeding vehicles. How does the speed have any impact on safety? Has there been crash after crash at this site?

The law says you should do 70, the guidelines have no force of law. The guidelines exist because, if you're doing 70 (as the law requires) and there was "slip or the gear was even slightly out", you might accidentally do 73 or 74 and would not be prosecuted.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
6. The request for disclosure was ignored until the last minute by the CPS. They were late in providing the disclosure certificate that is unsigned. Then they go onto say that the Operator may have notes etc - for me to fairly defend myself, I need to know the exact answers to my questions, which were not met.

It sounds like the CPS have been sloppy on the disclosure side, however it is unlikely the operator would not have notes as they wouldn't be filling in witness statements in the van at the time of the observation. If by the time of the hearing you still haven't had the notes, you could ask for an adjournment, but it's up to the court whether to grant it and ultimately you're just increasing the costs in the case, which you will pay if you lose. Whether it's worth risking further costs for the sake of seeing the notes is for you to decide, but I doubt there will be anything useful to you in the notes anyway.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
7. The Police from the outset lost my original NIP and then used their powers of discretion to remove the s172, but not to offer me the full options including the Driver Training, which would have been the fair thing to do under the circumstances. There whole approach has been to get a conviction out of me rather than to understand they lost the original NIP, which caused all the extra nonsense and the court case. They are the ones who have not behaved properly as an example of good service, if they did, they would have amongst other things understood my concerns and used their discretion and put me on the Driver Training to avoid this conflict.

Did the police ever offer you a fixed penalty notice?

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
8. Namely the mobile camera enforcement sign requirements included in Schedule 4 (also in Rule 3 of the Handbook). "For mobile enforcement, co-located camera and speed limit repeater signs, or a sign to diagram 880 where appropriate, must be placed in advance of the point of entry to the site or route (including or excluding side roads at the discretion of the partnership) in the direction being enforced. Camera signs must also be placed thereafter at intervals of around 1 km throughout the site."

- I do not believe that the camera sign is within 1km of the site.

Schedule 4 of what? Can you point to a specific section?

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
9. I’ve asked the CPS for proof of training by the The Enquiry Officer and the Operator, they didn’t send anything. I’ve also asked them for the correct notes and the other APOC guidelines (I will be amending these), but they haven’t disclosed them, when they may help my case. My point is that if they are going to take points and cost me money for the hearing and the next 5 years, they should provide me with evidence that they have 100% followed legislation and guidelines. How is it fair they do not afford me the Driving Course in light of the circumstances, yet they seem to be able to push me around and do as they wish and they are not under scrutiny?

No they don't have to show they have followed 100% of anything, the guidelines are neither here nor there unless you can show that, as a result of not following the guidelines, the evidence of speed is unreliable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:29
Post #17


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868



QUOTE
Schedule 4 of what? Can you point to a specific section?


The ones laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in TSRGD 2002 (and subsequent amendments) as set out in the Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera Programme for England and Wales 2006/07, which reflects the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002.

QUOTE
Did the police ever offer you a fixed penalty notice?


Yes
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:37
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,021
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:08) *
JLC - So basically if I go in there and start wheeling off these points, I will look like a twit? In light of all your feedback, I'm better off to adjourn the case and change my plea to guilty and request a statuary non-conditional offer?

The Professional Standards and also the Police seemed to believe I could mitigate due to how the service was so poor.

We still don't have a clear picture of what happened when, but you do not appear to have any viable defence (You are not even sure whether you were speeding or not). On that basis, you might be better off pleading guilty rather than risking hundreds of pounds in costs at a trial where you have no real dispute with the prosecutions other than a desire to put them to proof.

If you can show that, had it not been for the poor service, you would have paid a fixed penalty notice, you can ask the magistrates to sentence you at the fixed penalty level. If they are satisfied that it's purely because of police incompetence (in losing the NIP and whatever else) that you were not offered a fixed penalty, they should impose a fine at the fixed penalty level and award three points.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:29) *
QUOTE
Schedule 4 of what? Can you point to a specific section?


The ones laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in TSRGD 2002 (and subsequent amendments) as set out in the Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera Programme for England and Wales 2006/07, which reflects the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002.

The TSRGD 2002 have been repealed and replaced by TSRGD 2016, a handbook does not have force of law (and it's likely to be outdated if it's over 10 years old). The TSRGD 2016 are available online from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents/made (they are amended by http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1086/contents/made) but to my knowledge there is no requirement in law for signs to be placed in the vicinity of a mobile speed camera van.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:29) *
QUOTE
Did the police ever offer you a fixed penalty notice?


Yes

Then if you turned it down, the Magistrates will sentence you based on the standard guidelines https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offenc...g-revised-2017/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
VulcanEssex
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:38
Post #19


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,868



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:30) *
QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:08) *
JLC - So basically if I go in there and start wheeling off these points, I will look like a twit? In light of all your feedback, I'm better off to adjourn the case and change my plea to guilty and request a statuary non-conditional offer?

The Professional Standards and also the Police seemed to believe I could mitigate due to how the service was so poor.

We still don't have a clear picture of what happened when, but you do not appear to have any viable defence (You are not even sure whether you were speeding or not). On that basis, you might be better off pleading guilty rather than risking hundreds of pounds in costs at a trial where you have no real dispute with the prosecutions other than a desire to put them to proof.

If you can show that, had it not been for the poor service, you would have paid a fixed penalty notice, you can ask the magistrates to sentence you at the fixed penalty level. If they are satisfied that it's purely because of police incompetence (in losing the NIP and whatever else) that you were not offered a fixed penalty, they should impose a fine at the fixed penalty level and award three points.


This post has been edited by VulcanEssex: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 07:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:40
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,690
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:29) *
The ones laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in TSRGD 2002 (and subsequent amendments) as set out in the Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera Programme for England and Wales 2006/07, which reflects the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002.

Which have been repealed, as of 22 April 2016. In any case, the TSRGS merely says what the signs must look like; it does not impose a requirement for camera warning signs to be present.


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


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

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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, 21st February 2018 - 07:11
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.