PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Lots of questions on a summons for speeding and processes, Speeding in Surrey LTI 20:20 Ultralyte 1000
Law Wannabe
post Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 15:24
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,851



Hi guys

I am looking for the answers to some questions about the processes used in issuing a court summons for speeding. This isn't mine it is my sons but even though it was accepted he was speeding I question some of the content. Now we realise he could lose his license I had noticed some things that make me feel uneasy. Offence is A30 London Road Staines/Ashford August 2017 exceeding 60 in a 30. Can anyone answer some of the points or advise on whether there is a defense.

Statement by police officer was made on 26th January 2018 – 5 months after the offence (Signed on 30th January 2018)
Mg4d postal requisition dated 30th January 2018 (Summons) this is within the 6 months but when was it actually logged in court as the Summons was posted to old address on 8th May 2018 I would like
to know when the summons was actually requested as I believe that is the 6 month deadline. Also the case is end of July and it seems a very long time if it went into court in January.
Officer statement does not contain information about their position on A30 or the extent of timings
Only 2 photographs of evidence sent and one contains no information
There is no signage restricting 30mph on that stretch of the A30 - PO says distance of lampposts signifies speed - less than 200 yards. Now I was taught metric so therefore my son was too and his test
would have contained metric answers. I have asked a driving examiner and they discussed in the office and none of them use lampposts to determine speed when they teach or examine.
The driver was on the opposite carriageway and was possibly entering a 40mph where there are signs, however the lampposts are still the same distance as the 30mph and 50mph zones. My argument is
when the speed is changed in a road do they automatically move the lampposts to make sure drivers are aware smile.gif Tongue in cheek I know they don't
The A30 is variable speed in 3 parts but the lampposts are the same distance
The road is a dual carriageway and runs for 2.5 miles as a dual carriageway both sides but PO has not given his position
The police set up the laser to monitor traffic travelling towards staines the driver was travelling on opposite carriageway and concerned at the accuracy if the laser is swiftly moved 180 degrees to catch
their car
The laser was calibrated at 35 meters before operation set up at 11.42 attended staines road and set up monitoring the driver was photographed at 12:40:25 and the PO says at the conclusion of the
checks at 12:42 the DVD was unloaded and sealed, however the checks are done in addlestone when he returns from end of duty!! so what speed was he doing to pack up equipment and get to
addlestone in less than 2 minutes? It all looks total Bull to me and the driver may lose his license and his job.

Anyone with any help and advice I am most grateful

Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 38)
Advertisement
post Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 15:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Law Wannabe
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 11:03
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,851



The main question now is can we offer up the fact that it is believed he was actually in a 40mph zone not 30mph as PO states - yes he was monitoring the 30mph in his direction but from the pic you can see -66 going away from laser so if location is correct the google view shows 30mph on PO side but 40mph on my sons side.
Yes its still point but far less likely to get a ban which would be devastating for his future.
My son would be travelling the same direction as the bikes

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4391935,-...3312!8i6656



The main question now is can we offer up the fact that it is believed he was actually in a 40mph zone not 30mph as PO states - yes he was monitoring the 30mph in his direction but from the pic you can see -66 going away from laser so if location is correct the google view shows 30mph on PO side but 40mph on my sons side.
Yes its still point but far less likely to get a ban which would be devastating for his future.
My son would be travelling the same direction as the bikes

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4391935,-...3312!8i6656

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 11:20
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,361
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



If my understanding is correct, he was pinged before entering the 40mph - so in the 30mph...?

The signs are around 370m from the camera, and he was pinged before getting there?


--------------------
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
StationCat
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 11:30
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 283
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
From: UK
Member No.: 66,671



Looking at your uploaded photo, the lamp-post has a black mark on it. The only one I can find on that part of the road is here

Given the long telephoto lens, I think the camera van may have been parked next to the bus stop - rather like this van in 2015.

and then the view looking up the road is this. Which puts the black marked post to the right of a far lamp-post with some hedges on the left - like the photo. This would be well inside the 30 mph limit close to ERS Medical.

Unfortunately, without knowing exactly where the camera van was parked you will be unable to establish exactly where the car was pinged.

This post has been edited by StationCat: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 11:37


--------------------
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things" - Isaac Newton
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baroudeur
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 11:32
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 383
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
Member No.: 73,212



QUOTE (Law Wannabe @ Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 11:52) *
I have uploaded the photograph showing a - moving away from the direction of the 30mph



Is this more likely to be the location? https://tinyurl.com/y8nht2lf

Note the lamp column, the pole on the central reservation, the rounded yellowy green bush and the building line in the background on the camera shot. This would put the camera 183m away opposite the storage depot.

edit: posts crossed. Seems Station Cat and I agree.

This post has been edited by baroudeur: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 11:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Law Wannabe
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 11:58
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,851



Thanks guys

I remember studying the photos for hours when the NIP came through last September and and even though the uploaded photo doesn't show I remember there were no little posts the car was against bushes and railings and after 2 of us compared we came up with this spot https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4431979,-...3312!8i6656 which is way down towards Heathrow

I hope this pic is clearer
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StationCat
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 12:29
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 283
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
From: UK
Member No.: 66,671



That shot is one second before, and I think the lamp-post with the white ring is the one behind the car in the original photo, and is outside ERS Medical, here.
I think that probably confirms the position of the car when it was pinged.


--------------------
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things" - Isaac Newton
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 12:33
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,430
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 11:55) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 5 Jul 2018 - 22:49) *

.............. I’m not sure I know of many (if any) without lighting where 30mph prevails (other than temporary limits for road works, etc.)............

An example

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4340514,-...3312!8i6656



Thanks. I'll scrub out the bit in brackets "(if any)"! biggrin.gif

I have not followed very closely the argument about whether the prevailing limit was 30mph or 40mph. If the prosecution insist it was 30mph and your son believes it was 40mph he will have to plead guilty and ask for a "Newton Hearing" to establish the facts. If he is convicted of 66 in a 40 limit the offence still falls (just) into the top band of seriousness but six points is the almost certain outcome rather than a ban. He will then be on 9 points until February 2020.

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 15:32
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 12:46
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,361
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (StationCat @ Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 13:29) *
That shot is one second before, and I think the lamp-post with the white ring is the one behind the car in the original photo, and is outside ERS Medical, here.
I think that probably confirms the position of the car when it was pinged.

That also matches my rough measurement...


--------------------
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
Law Wannabe
post Fri, 6 Jul 2018 - 21:58
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,851



Thanks guys

I'm not sure but I am going to request information on the position the Police took up to be sure.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 7 Jul 2018 - 07:52
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,890
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



You can request it, but they only have to supply it if the defendant pleads not guilty and puts forward a defence that needs it, or can justify it for a Newton hearing, if the former there would be a reduced discount off the fine, if the latter the bench may decide it was an attempted defence and do the same (not that likely though in my opinion).


--------------------
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
notmeatloaf
post Sat, 7 Jul 2018 - 10:46
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,165
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



As has been said, it is perhaps likely they will not supply it at this stage.

Personally I would be chancing my arm and asking if the could check if the operator checked the distance to the 40mph terminal signs.

That is because it's highly likely it was measured, and at the start of the DVD. It would also tell you, to the metre, whether your son was in the 40mph zone or not.

If you get a location you are having to rely on it being accurate rather than a guess ("where they normally park") and also exact enough for there not to be ambiguity. Plus you would the work out how to measure it in a way that will satisfy the court. Bearing in mind you will potentially be betting a lot of money on this if you plead not guilty.

As I said I don't think you'll get either, but you'd might as well try for the one that will provide you with a certain defence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StationCat
post Sat, 7 Jul 2018 - 11:11
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 283
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
From: UK
Member No.: 66,671



If the van was where we think it was then the car would be about 370 metres from the change in speed limit. The signs would probably be out of view to the operator. But no harm in asking.


--------------------
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things" - Isaac Newton
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Law Wannabe
post Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 19:55
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,851



Hi Guys

I have spoken to the police officer and he denied putting anything in his statement about lampposts said the processing department must have but he signed it.

I also requested information from the processing unit about the postal requisition: - see below

I received a postal Requisition to appear at Guildford Magistrates for a speeding offence and I would like some information before the hearing on 27th July 2018.

I would like you to provide information on the "actual" date my written charge (postal requisition) was commenced.
I did not receive notification until 10th May 2018 (I have the envelope post marked 8/5/2018). There is a 14 week gap between when the documents were said to
have been signed and the date posted to myself and the copied to the Magistrate's Court.


ANSWER:

Morning Mr XXXXXXX,

This postal requisition was prepared and laid with court on 30/01/2018 at 10:29am.
That is 1 month within the 6 month statutory time limit that cases like this must abide by.
However it was posted 3-4 months later due to force policy at time.

Regards

Coordinator - Summons & Process – Traffic Process Unit
Surrey Police

I REPLIED:

Thank you for the speedy response. Can you please explain what the force policy was and why this policy was in place.
Delaying or intentionally withholding information from the driver doesn’t seem to serve any purpose.

THEY REPLIED:

Hi XXXXXX,

No problem. The below is a matter for you to discuss in court in 2 weeks’ time.
Regards


The really annoying thing is they spelt his name wrong in the last email even though his email address and email signature was present.

Can I have thoughts on this please. I have been reading up on the legislation and even though the new method is there to in effect bypass the 6 month time limit, I have been
told by Surrey Police that resources are limited so this new method in effect allows them to start the process but just inputting details without the resources to finish the process.

I took it from reading up loads that it could be a very contentious method as the laying of information still takes place when they send the written charge and postal requisition.
29 New method of instituting proceedings
(1) A [relevant prosecutor] may institute criminal proceedings against a person by issuing a document (a “written charge”) which charges the person with an offence.
[(2) Where a relevant prosecutor issues a written charge, it must at the same time issue—
(a) a requisition, or
(3) [Where a relevant prosecutor issues a written charge and a requisition, the] written charge and requisition must be served on the person concerned,
and a copy of both must be served on the court named in the requisition.

So if the Police are just inputting details just to achieve the 6 month deadline but then not doing anything more to inform the judge or the driver is that a change in the
law albeit a loophole?

The date between the signing of the postal requisition 30th January 2018 and the court hearing 27th July 2018 calculates at 2 days short of the 6 month time limit
which I know is just a coincidence.
I was informed the time is calculated from the date of the offence which was 31st August 2017.
The offence was 11 months ago and my circumstances have changed immensely since then.
Working with courts and tribunals I haven't seen any hearings in the last couple of years (apart from employment tribunals) give a hearing date 6 months away.

Could be a coincidence but I somehow doubt it.

Thanks

This post has been edited by Law Wannabe: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 19:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 20:30
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,411
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Procedurally Surrey Police are right, the process they have used has been created by Parliament and you can't really challenge it. A delay of 3-4 months seems significant and may in some circumstances give rise to an abuse of process. However the reality is this is unlikely to fly in the Magistrates' Court and you'd probably have to go to the High Court to put this argument forward (and therefore incur the risk of High Court costs). You must remember that the bar for abuse of process is extremely high, you have to either show that the delay is such that the accused cannot achieve a fair trial, or that it would be unconscionable for the court to allow a trial to go ahead (for example if the accused were abroad, and rather than go through the proper extradition process the police just kidnapped him to bring him to the UK). To be honest a delay of less than 12 months from the date of the offence to a plea hearing wouldn't be considered to be excessive, so this seems like a non-starter.

You also have to consider that, while it is now many months since the date of the offence, a NIP would have been sent to the RK in the 14 day period prescribed by law, so your son would have known of the accusation within a short amount of time after the offence is said to have taken place.

As for the hearing being many months after the requisition was issued, this is hardly surprising, magistrates' courts tend to be extremely busy.

All in all, I understand why you've looked into these matters, but they don't really help.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 20:33
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,165
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



I think this has come up before. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 butchered the Magistrates Court Act 1980 slightly to introduce postal requisition.

The key phrase now is that they must be "issued" within six months. I seem to remember again in the previous case the police claimed that it was "issued" because they had entered the details into the computer.

Blackstones and Wilkinsons argue the toss as to whether "issued" should be issued by the police, or served on the defendant. However, I think within that there is the recognition that the "issue" process is the process of getting the requisition from the prosecutor to the defendant. It is stretching it to say that the police can issue it, file it for several months, and that is still a continuous issuing process.

With summons it was settled law that the information could be laid before the six months and served after. However, since the prosecutor has been responsible for the whole process I do not know it has ever been tested in a court of record so you are potentially uncharted territory.

For reference - S127 Magistrates Court Act
QUOTE
(1) ... a magistrates’ court shall not try an information [a written charge] unless the information [written charge and requisition] was laid [issued], within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed.


Wilkinsons
QUOTE
It would appear that the effect of this change is likely to mean that it is the date of the first issuing of the requisition that will be relevant for ascertaining whether an offence has been prosecuted within the relevant time-limits


Blackstones
QUOTE
Section 127 refers to the laying of an information but does not make it clear when time starts to run in the case of proceedings brought by the written charge and requisition procedure established by the CJA 2003, s.29. The possibilities are either the date of the issue of the written charge and requisition, or the date when they are received by the accused (or deemed to be received under the CrimPR). It is submitted that the relevant date ought to be the date when the written charge and requisition are issued. This would be consistent with the position in the case of proceedings brought by the laying of an information and issue of a summons, where time starts to run when the information is laid (not when the summons is received by the accused)


This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 20:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Law Wannabe
post Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 20:45
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,851



He was always going guilty - It's me really I decided to get into law at 50 and gave up a well paid job and enrolled at Uni to do my law degree and work full time at a solicitors because I feel strongly about abuse of process and abuse of power (mainly by employers).
I believe in access to justice but also that justice should be taken to include "all the circumstances". Most of my cases have been parking cowboys, and employers and also local councils.
I don't think this process is good enough because speeding can cause devastating consequences. Yes you get an NIP but when nothing comes for 8 months you forget.
He just thought they had forgotten because a normal speeding fine is a notice of intended prosecution but being from a different police force it never occurred to him that he was awaiting an actual charge in court. I am also sure many young
adults would be the same.
What I mean is speed should be dealt with immediately because in those 11 months no lesson has been learnt.
I am lucky because he is a sensible lad and I know the background mitigation but if you took 50 young adults all caught last August, how many of them have altered their behaviour?
Also people change and circumstances change and by banning someone 11 months after the event seems to me to be either too late or could now cause exceptional hardship.

I know I can't change things and have this idealistic view but crimes should be punished immediately and fairly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Law Wannabe
post Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 20:55
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,851



I sat studying all of that last night and yes there were lots of views and you are right I think the high court ruling on it was as you stated.

I did see some arguments that related the "information" as written charges and the "summons" as the request to attend court - the postal request and as the new legislation states
the defendant must be served at the same time as the magistrates so it is laying information in a way. It still has a 6 month time limit but the court don't actually see it until the defendant does.
We may never know and it just means that the police can make up any excuse as long as someone input the date on the Mgd4

good to do some extra research though biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 21:10
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,165
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Well if you have the bit between your teeth then go with this one. As I said personally I think the law is on your side and that you cannot take several months between issuing and service or claim it is one complete process.

The previous leniency between laying information and serving was when it was being done by two independent bodies, and only amounted to a couple of weeks anyway.

Also on your side is the fact that the requisition must contain notice of when and where the defendant is required to attend court. I am prepared to bet that they didn't set a court date when they claim the requisition was "issued". So you have to ask how you can issue a document missing one of the required and crucial pieces of information.

If you feel strongly about abuse of process - here in one on a plate for you. I wouldn't worry about what the camera office clerk says, they tend to be misinformed about the law and belligerent.

QUOTE (Law Wannabe @ Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 21:55) *
I sat studying all of that last night and yes there were lots of views and you are right I think the high court ruling on it was as you stated.

I did see some arguments that related the "information" as written charges and the "summons" as the request to attend court - the postal request and as the new legislation states
the defendant must be served at the same time as the magistrates so it is laying information in a way. It still has a 6 month time limit but the court don't actually see it until the defendant does.
We may never know and it just means that the police can make up any excuse as long as someone input the date on the Mgd4

good to do some extra research though biggrin.gif

If you are a "LawWannabe" then read S127 that I posted above. The only key phrase is "issued". Although there are customary forms that isn't in the legislation.

So you need to focus on whether their actions constituted "issuing" the information and whether that process can be complete without at least when it is printing and addressing it.

Also whether they know a court date when they "issued" it, and whether you can initiate issuing a document with a legally required piece of information missing.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 21:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Law Wannabe
post Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 21:43
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 14 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,851



Thank you

Would be great if any of this comes up in my exams rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Friday, 20th July 2018 - 12:43
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.