Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Speeding and other Criminal Offences _ Speeding -Single Justice Procedure Notice Stage

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 09:36
Post #1515858

So here’s the story

I apparently activated a HADECS camera on a variable speed limit motorway. Apparently a variable speed limit of 60mph was in force. This was in a late spring month this year, a weekend, late evening, road was very clear.

The alleged speed i was doing attracts a Band B sentence i.e. 4 to 6 points plus 125% weekly income fine. I have a clean licence and never had any points previously.

I requested photographic evidence, along with calibration certificates etc. which was provided.

The evidence also shows a photo of the gantry showing the illuminated 60mph sign however the photo captured is 1sec after the alleged offence.

I also requested from the highways agency a log of the variable speed limits in operation that day.

Here’s where it gets interesting, the highways agency do not have log of what the speed limit was at the time of the alleged offence. There is a data log missing for around 8 hours that day.

On the face of it appears to be a system error and I think the system was "stuck" on displaying a 60mph limit for those missing 8 hours.

This is reminiscent of a recent case where a 20mph was incorrectly displayed for 12hrs on a motorway. But not easy to prove as legally unenforceable

Have now been sent a SJPN as offer of fixed penalty timed out due to admin issues and have to respond to it my next week.

I queried whether the fixed penalty could be reinstated but the answer was no.

Options

Plead Guilty on the SJPN- with mitigating circumstances about the fixed penalty, clear road etc.

Meaning best case get £100 and 3 points. Worst case £350-£500 fine + 6 points if Magistrate is spiteful

Plead Not Guilty on the SJPN

SJPN documentation is missing the NIP initially sent to the lease company and the witness statement makes explicit reference to it, all other paper work i.e. NIP to me and fixed penalty papers have been included.

In addition the witness statement does not have the "witness to signature” box signed.

So I can base the not guilty pleas on “No evidence provided to evidence the 14 day NIP requirement has been met” but i think they have met the 14 day period based on correspondence from the lease company

Then hope some “Administrative” issues occur and the case is dropped before trial.

If trial is likely to proceed, plead guilty before trial and get 3-6 points + £350-£500 fine+ £95 prosecution costs.

Any comments/advice would be very much appreciated from members!


Posted by: Jlc Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 10:06
Post #1515872

I wouldn't want to take on the case for arguing a 60mph limit was 'unreasonable'. (The 20mph case had merits but wasn't pursued)

With HADECS3, the prevailing limit is snapped by the auxiliary camera so there's no argument over what limit was displayed. It seems the system was enforcing that prevailing limit too. (Unless you were exceeding 78mph) What was your speed?

The lack of log could be attacked but it will be difficult to argue against the clearly displayed limit. (Moreso if you were exceeding 70mph too)

You don't mention what 'admin' issues caused the CoFP to 'time out' but it may not be relevant to consider a fixed penalty equivalent sentence.

Posted by: NewJudge Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 10:16
Post #1515877

It depends how much effort you want to put in to defending the charge.

If you plead guilty the court has guidance which says they can sentence at the Fixed Penalty level if the failure to be offered or accept one was due to "administrative matters unconnected to the offence". You don't say what these are so it's difficult to say whether the guidance would be applicable. You also don't say what the speed alleged was and this is needed to give a view on potential sentencing.

As far as the charge itself goes you seem to be suggesting you might have a number of defences:


The NIP: the prosecution does not have to prove correct service. If they can prove the date of posting (which they almost certainly can) it is assumed served two working days after that. If you dispute it the onus is on you to prove it was late. The NIP does not form part of the case against you. It only comes into play if you dispute its service.


The limit: I should think that a court presented with a photograph of the "60" display, albeit one second after the offence (by which I assume you mean one second after your vehicle was photographed) will accept that the limit was on display as you passed the gantry. Cameras are not activated (to detect at the lower speed) until some time after it is displayed. To be successful you would have to convince the court that the "60" appeared in the one second between the two photographs being taken and that the camera taking a picture of your vehicle was activated immediately - a tough ask I would say.

Your "mitigation" about a clear road is not mitigation at all. Exceeding the speed limit on a congested road is aggravation, doing so on a clear road is not mitigation.

If you plead Not Guilty on the basis of the lack of NIP evidence that is a non-starter and you will lose. If you contest the matter on the basis of the limit being unenforceable for some reason I also believe you have little chance (0ther opinions may differ).

If it was me? I'd plead guilty and, provided the administrative issues you refer to are applicable, ask the court to sentence at the fixed penalty level as per their guidance. To maintain a Not Guilty plea until the day of the trial in the hope of an administrative blunder is a little foolish. You will get no discount for guilty plea, costs will probably be £620. It will cost you the thick end of £1k and you will end up with more than three points.

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 10:38
Post #1515889

Thank you for your prompt responses.

For clarification

1) The alleged speed was recorded at > 80mph but <85mph
2) The admin issues surrounding the CoFP were that the letter remained unopened until after the 28 days. I receive a lot of post so unluckily/now expensively was missed.
3) The photograph presented was 1 second after the time of the alleged offence.

So the best course of action seems to be plead guilty with mitigation re the fixed penalty admin issues?

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 10:49
Post #1515893

Let's just say you argued the limit should have been 70mph. You would still be found guilty. (That would put you in a lower sentencing band)

The 'admin' issue appears to be of your own making, although not connected with the offence itself - but it would take a generous court to use FP rate.

I don't see any relevance of the 1 second.

QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:38) *
So the best course of action seems to be plead guilty with mitigation re the fixed penalty admin issues?

You don't appear to have any actual mitigation.

You can quote the guidance around sentencing at fixed penalty equivalent sentencing. (But be careful how you explain why the offer was not accepted)

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:00
Post #1515895

If the argument succeded that the speed limit should have been 70mph.

The hadecs cameras only enforce when the variable speed limit signs are in operation and at 70mph these are turned off and therefore the HADECS do not enforce. This is a condition of the Home Office Type Approval for the device.

So in my case technically the camera should not have enforced and was in breach of the type approval and any evidence obtained from it would potentially be inadmissable in Court

Posted by: BaggieBoy Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:12
Post #1515898

It has been widely reported (and we have had cases on here) where a HADECS device has triggered when no lower limit was displayed, there has never ever been any suggestion this was against type approval. Are you sure you are looking at the right info, the type approval for the HADECS3 devices is appropriate here.

Any way, in your case it was displaying 60, so I can't see your angle here?

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:27
Post #1515907

On the camera evidence pack i received from the enforcement unit it includes a letter which explicilty states that the cameras do not enforce when the variable speed limit are not in operation which is a condition of the type approval for the device.


Posted by: Fredd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:39
Post #1515912

QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 12:27) *
On the camera evidence pack i received from the enforcement unit it includes a letter which explicilty states that the cameras do not enforce when the variable speed limit are not in operation which is a condition of the type approval for the device.

Are you sure that's what it says? Because I can't see any reference to that in the Speedmeter Handbook, and in fact it explicitly refers to enforcing the national speed limit when no variable limit is displayed.

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:50
Post #1515915

I have added a screenshot from the letter re the issue of type approval

 

Posted by: Fredd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 12:01
Post #1515921

It does say they don't enforce when no speed limit is displayed, but it doesn't actually say that not enforcing the NSL is a condition of Type Approval.

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 12:17
Post #1515926

No speed limit displayed would indicate application of NSL.

I dont recall ever seeing a NSL sign on the gantry previously but may be mistaken.

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 13:05
Post #1515935

The type approval wording is:
"...for the purpose of detection of offences ... RedFlex / Dynniq HADECS3 ... when operated with Techspan / Colas / VMS Advanced Motorway Indicator or MS4 Sign for the enforcement of displayed speed limits down to 20 miles per hour"

I wouldn't necessarily conflate the enforcement and a displayed limit.

Posted by: NewJudge Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 13:43
Post #1515941

QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 12:00) *
So in my case technically the camera should not have enforced and was in breach of the type approval and any evidence obtained from it would potentially be inadmissable in Court

Best of luck with that! biggrin.gif

In any event, as mentioned, in your case a lower speed limit was clearly displayed. You would have to successfully argue that that lower limit was imposed unlawfully.

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 13:57
Post #1515944

Challenging the displayed speed limit will be difficult.

Only possible if the Highways Agency admit an error (not going to happen)

OUTCOME - Plead guilty and swallow what ever the magistrate throws my way!

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 13:57
Post #1515945

QUOTE (NewJudge @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:16) *
The limit: I should think that a court presented with a photograph of the "60" display, albeit one second after the offence (by which I assume you mean one second after your vehicle was photographed) will accept that the limit was on display as you passed the gantry. Cameras are not activated (to detect at the lower speed) until some time after it is displayed. To be successful you would have to convince the court that the "60" appeared in the one second between the two photographs being taken and that the camera taking a picture of your vehicle was activated immediately - a tough ask I would say.


So far as I know, the variable speed limits only come into force some time after the limit is displayed on the overhead gantry (“the grace period”). A defendant could put the prosecution to proof that the limit was in force at the time of the alleged offence. Evidence of the limit being displayed would not be proof, as it is displayed for a period of time before the limit comes into effect. I would imagine this would be proved by the logs (which in this case seem to be missing) or evidence that the camera will not operate at the displayed limit if the limit is not in force (i.e. the grace period has expired).

None of this is particularly relevant if the defendant was in any case exceeding 70mph - though it could, in some cases, be relevant to sentencing.

QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 12:00) *
So in my case technically the camera should not have enforced and was in breach of the type approval and any evidence obtained from it would potentially be inadmissable in Court

Inadmissible why?

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 14:12
Post #1515950

I explored the aspect of the time delay between the variable speed limit changing and the camera enforcing " the grace period" which is by default set at 1min and confirmed by the force in question

This is technically known as the "Aspect Set Delay".

The camera evidence provided shows the " time elapsed" since speed limit changed which shows a period of several hours. So i conceded i cannot argue the " Aspect set Delay"

Inadmissable is this the wrong legal term? Would "defective" be more appropriate to describe the evidence gathered


Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 14:18
Post #1515953

QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 15:12) *
Inadmissable is this the wrong legal term? Would "defective" be more appropriate to describe the evidence gathered

I don’t know, you’re the one putting it forward - what do you mean?

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 14:35
Post #1515958

What i meant was that as the HADECS had not operated in accordance with the type approval therefore the vidence obtained through the device should not be.considered in this prosecution.

Justification being

The speed limit should have been 70 not 60
As the speed limit was 70 the variable signs should have been off
As the variable signs should have been off, the camera is not authorised to enforce under the HOTA.
Therefore disregard evidence obtained from it

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 14:38
Post #1515959

I can’t see the court disregarding relevant evidence, unless it is unreliable. In any case, your argument on type approval appears to be wrong.

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 14:51
Post #1515967

For argument sake.

If the camera enforced a speed restriction when the variable speed indicators were off.
Would this.not then constitute a infraction of the Type approval.
Which requires the camera to work in conjunction with the variable speed limit indicators.

For the avoidance of doubt, im not saying if a NSL sign is displayed on the speed indicators the camera would cease to enforce. I however have not seen a NSL sign ever displayed on the speed indicators for this particular motorway. I may however be mistaken

Posted by: NewJudge Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 15:01
Post #1515972

You're arguing a purely academic point. It seems fairly unarguable that in your case a lower speed limit was displayed. Therefore (under your contention) the camera is operating when a lower speed limit is in force and so evidence obtained from it can be used.

You may have never seen an NSL sign displayed but I think you might be wrong to conclude that one never is. It would be necessary at the end of a stretch where a lower limit is in force to return the road to NSL. But again, academic in your case.

Posted by: Fredd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 15:08
Post #1515973

It doesn't even have to be an NSL sign for the camera to enforce the NSL limit - as long as the cameras recorded that the signs displayed were correct, ie an NSL sign followed by blank signs, then I can't see anything in the Type Approval requirements that would preclude enforcing the NSL at a gantry with a blank sign.

The only Type Approval requirement I can see that might be helpful (or not) is that the cameras have to record the signs when the limit changes, as well as at the time of the alleged offence. If that's what they mean by the "logs" they've lost then they might have some difficulty showing that the signed limits were correct, and that the "grace period" had been observed. That's a fair few "ifs".

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 15:19
Post #1515976

The traffic order states a 10 second minimum grace period for falling limits. But in this case it could only fall from NSL (70) to 60 so at best it may only impact sentencing as SP has already noted.

The actual grace is far longer than this, often a minute as already stated.

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 15:21
Post #1515977



How would you then distinguish a " blank" indicator and "no speed limit" on display.


Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 15:25
Post #1515978

QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 15:51) *
For argument sake.

If the camera enforced a speed restriction when the variable speed indicators were off.
Would this.not then constitute a infraction of the Type approval.
Which requires the camera to work in conjunction with the variable speed limit indicators.

For argument’s sake, let’s say you’re correct and type approval was infringed. Why would this render the evidence inadmissible?

Posted by: TonyS Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 15:38
Post #1515983

QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 15:12) *
The camera evidence provided shows the " time elapsed" since speed limit changed which shows a period of several hours. So i conceded i cannot argue the " Aspect set Delay"

Am I missing something here because if I understand correctly you've seen a photo showing the 60 limit displayed at the time of the alleged offence, and an indication that the limit had been in place for several hours. On what basis are you arguing that the limit should have been 70?

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 15:51
Post #1515987

QUOTE (TonyS @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 16:38) *
On what basis are you arguing that the limit should have been 70?

By reference to the 20mph incident a few weeks back - see this http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=130054

But even if it could be shown that the limit was 'incorrect' there are a few more hurdles in the way...

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 15:56
Post #1515988

Evidence unadmissable as, if the camera has operated in non compliance with the HOTA. The device is in effect a non home office compliant device. Which i dont think can be used for speed enforcement

The argurment that the speed limit should have been 70 is based on

Highways agency are missing speed logs for a 8 hrs time period for when the 60mph speed limit was applied.
Roads were quite clear that day
The above would therefore indicate an error in the system especially with respect to the duration the 60mph speed limit was applied
Historic analysis of speed limits enforced on for 1 month before and after the incident that no speed limit had previously been applied for such a duration of time
The above argument is constructed with reference to the case where a 20mph speed limit was applied erroneously for a 12 hr period.

Conversely - what evidence is available that the 60mph was accurately applied as it.is a deviation from the NSL

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 16:05
Post #1515991

Is your HOTA premise correct though?

Posted by: 666 Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 16:10
Post #1515994

QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 16:56) *
Evidence unadmissable as, if the camera has operated in non compliance with the HOTA. The device is in effect a non home office compliant device. Which i dont think can be used for speed enforcement

The argurment that the speed limit should have been 70 is based on

Highways agency are missing speed logs for a 8 hrs time period for when the 60mph speed limit was applied.
Roads were quite clear that day
Highways England may well say that the roads were clear BECAUSE a lower limit was in force. That's the whole idea of 'smart' motorways.

The above would therefore indicate an error in the system especially with respect to the duration the 60mph speed limit was applied
With no logs, how do you know the duration?

Historic analysis of speed limits enforced on for 1 month before and after the incident that no speed limit had previously been applied for such a duration of time
Again, what duration?

The above argument is constructed with reference to the case where a 20mph speed limit was applied erroneously for a 12 hr period.
As was widely publicised, the fact that the limit was applied erroneously is no defence.

Conversely - what evidence is available that the 60mph was accurately applied as it.is a deviation from the NSL
Irrelevant, as it's no defence. However, HE can no doubt explain the complex algorithm which uses speed limits to manage traffic flow. That might involve expert witness testimony, which would be at your cost if found guilty.


Posted by: Jlc Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 16:14
Post #1515996

QUOTE (666 @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 17:10) *
As was widely publicised, the fact that the limit was applied erroneously is no defence.

To be fair it appears that was not challenged at court. (But as it stands that appears a fair assertion)

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 16:44
Post #1516001

I have no reason to believe the premis is deficient.

The statement surrounding non enforcement when no speed limit is displayed as a HOTA condition has been taken verbatim from the enforcement authorities own correspondence.

Critically evaluating however, the enforcement authority could be completely incorrect in its interpretation

However as the authorities current interpretation potentially assists my defence. I have not further challenged its stance on it.

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 16:46
Post #1516002

QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 16:56) *
Evidence unadmissable as, if the camera has operated in non compliance with the HOTA. The device is in effect a non home office compliant device. Which i dont think can be used for speed enforcement

A device doesn’t have to be type approved in order for evidence from it to be admissible.

Posted by: NewJudge Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 17:06
Post #1516006

Let’s summarise:

1. You passed a gantry with a “60” limit displayed (which you don’t appear to dispute).

2. You were travelling at between 80 and 85 mph at the time (which you don’t appear to dispute).

3. You are considering challenging the charge on the basis that:

(a) the lower limit may have been incorrectly applied. If this argument succeeds you will then go on to argue that
(b) since the camera was used to monitor at the NSL it cannot be relied upon because that was in breach of its “type approval”. So (you will argue) the prosecution has no reliable evidence to prove your speed.

I genuinely wish you luck. Personally I believe you will fail at 3(a). Even if you succeed there, you will have to go on to persuade the court that the evidence the prosecution has (which you suggest is “inadmissible” because it gathered information contrary to its type approval conditions) cannot be relied upon. It will not be inadmissible. The court will hear it and will have to decide how reliable it is. You may be hard pushed to persuade them that it can be relied upon when a lower speed limit is in force but cannot be relied upon when the NSL prevails.

You need to be very careful. So far we have only spoke of standard prosecution costs in the event of failure (which would normally be £620). If you put forward a defence which requires the prosecution to enlist expert witnesses, you could be looking at very much more than that as this gentleman discovered:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-49641063

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 17:26
Post #1516013

Evidence may be admitted.

But the fact that the device is non HOTA compliant and cannot be used for speed enforcement would be stressed and potentially doubts cast on the reliability of the evidence it has generated.

How many successfull speeding prosecutions have been carried out using evidence from non HOTA compliant devices and then what is the ultimate objective of the HOTA process if any speed measuring device can be used.

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 17:39
Post #1516018

I still think your assertion is wrong anyway.

But if the device is deemed accurate when displaying a VSL why would the measurement be faulty when not?

Posted by: NewJudge Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 17:39
Post #1516019

QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 18:26) *
Evidence may be admitted.

But the fact that the device is non HOTA compliant and cannot be used for speed enforcement would be stressed and potentially doubts cast on the reliability of the evidence it has generated.

How many successfull speeding prosecutions have been carried out using evidence from non HOTA compliant devices and then what is the ultimate objective of the HOTA process if any speed measuring device can be used.


If I recall correctly, the privilege enjoyed by an "approved device operated in the correct manner" is that its reliability is accepted (unquestionably) unless the contrary can be proved. Let's say that you are correct and that the device was operated in a non-compliant manner. What that does is removes that privilege. The question of its reliability (if challenged) then falls to the prosecution to prove. If you challenge the reliability of the device they will almost certainly enlist an expert witness to convince the court that it can be relied upon.


It will probably not be too difficult to show that a device that can be relied upon to measure speed when a lower speed limit is in place can also be relied upon to do so when one is not (as I doubt the measuring mechanism is any different). That, of course, assumes that you firstly convince the court that the NSL should be in force, that is.

Posted by: driverd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 17:45
Post #1516021

I agree it is a technically challenging defence but conceptually sound(i think)

I have ultimately concluded i am cornered and will have to plead guilty and foot magistrate levied fine and points and ultimately criminalised.

Fortunately i have the luxury to absorb the consequences from this( At a Band B sentence threshold)

Had i had the financial resources ( fingers crossed euromillions jackpot tonight) i would have considered pursuing to trial.

Thank you all for your critical evaluation of the proposed defences.


Posted by: Fredd Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 18:29
Post #1516031

QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 17:44) *
The statement surrounding non enforcement when no speed limit is displayed as a HOTA condition has been taken verbatim from the enforcement authorities own correspondence.

Again, it doesn't say that.

QUOTE (NewJudge @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 18:06) *
3. You are considering challenging the charge on the basis that:

(a) the lower limit may have been incorrectly applied. If this argument succeeds you will then go on to argue that
(b) since the camera was used to monitor at the NSL it cannot be relied upon because that was in breach of its “type approval”. So (you will argue) the prosecution has no reliable evidence to prove your speed.

I genuinely wish you luck. Personally I believe you will fail at 3(a).

From my reading of the Type Approval conditions, he'd fail at 3(b) as well.

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 18:37
Post #1516037

QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 18:26) *
But the fact that the device is non HOTA compliant and cannot be used for speed enforcement


No. A device does not have to be type approved in order to be used for speed enforcement. If you think it does then you’re going to have to pony up the law that says so.

QUOTE
How many successfull speeding prosecutions have been carried out using evidence from non HOTA compliant devices


Dunno but I can think of a few off the top of my head.

QUOTE
and then what is the ultimate objective of the HOTA process if any speed measuring device can be used.

It allows the evidence to be admitted via certificate, instead of being led by a witness, under s 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It makes it administratively easier to introduce the evidence.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 03:19
Post #1516150

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 19:37) *
QUOTE
How many successfull speeding prosecutions have been carried out using evidence from non HOTA compliant devices


Dunno but I can think of a few off the top of my head.

Millions I'd suggest.

Every one that used a plain follow check using a vehicle's speedo.

Almost all time/distance calculators (such as VASCAR) as only one of the three systems were ever HOTA approved.

Posted by: driverd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 07:09
Post #1516159

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 19:37) *
QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 18:26) *
But the fact that the device is non HOTA compliant and cannot be used for speed enforcement


No. A device does not have to be type approved in order to be used for speed enforcement. If you think it does then you’re going to have to pony up the law that says so.

QUOTE
How many successfull speeding prosecutions have been carried out using evidence from non HOTA compliant devices


Dunno but I can think of a few off the top of my head.

QUOTE
and then what is the ultimate objective of the HOTA process if any speed measuring device can be used.

It allows the evidence to be admitted via certificate, instead of being led by a witness, under s 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It makes it administratively easier to introduce the evidence.


Based on the below i dont this your statements are entirely accurate

• Section 20 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 “Evidence of the measurement of speed by a device designed or adapted for measuring by radar the speed of motor vehicles shall not be admissible unless the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State”

Posted by: 666 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 07:30
Post #1516164

QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 08:09) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 19:37) *
QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 18:26) *
But the fact that the device is non HOTA compliant and cannot be used for speed enforcement


No. A device does not have to be type approved in order to be used for speed enforcement. If you think it does then you’re going to have to pony up the law that says so.

QUOTE
How many successfull speeding prosecutions have been carried out using evidence from non HOTA compliant devices


Dunno but I can think of a few off the top of my head.

QUOTE
and then what is the ultimate objective of the HOTA process if any speed measuring device can be used.

It allows the evidence to be admitted via certificate, instead of being led by a witness, under s 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It makes it administratively easier to introduce the evidence.


Based on the below i dont this your statements are entirely accurate

• Section 20 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 “Evidence of the measurement of speed by a device designed or adapted for measuring by radar the speed of motor vehicles shall not be admissible unless the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State”

Section 20 applies (as Southpaw has explained) only to the admission of evidence by certificate. Read subsection 1 again.

Posted by: driverd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 08:13
Post #1516176

QUOTE (666 @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 08:30) *
QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 08:09) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 19:37) *
QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 18:26) *
But the fact that the device is non HOTA compliant and cannot be used for speed enforcement


No. A device does not have to be type approved in order to be used for speed enforcement. If you think it does then you’re going to have to pony up the law that says so.

QUOTE
How many successfull speeding prosecutions have been carried out using evidence from non HOTA compliant devices


Dunno but I can think of a few off the top of my head.

QUOTE
and then what is the ultimate objective of the HOTA process if any speed measuring device can be used.

It allows the evidence to be admitted via certificate, instead of being led by a witness, under s 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It makes it administratively easier to introduce the evidence.


Based on the below i dont this your statements are entirely accurate

• Section 20 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 “Evidence of the measurement of speed by a device designed or adapted for measuring by radar the speed of motor vehicles shall not be admissible unless the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State”

Section 20 applies (as Southpaw has explained) only to the admission of evidence by certificate. Read subsection 1 again.


For fixed camera identified offences wouldnt the default method of admission be via certificate only.

As operationally a " real time" witness wound not be available?

In addition the act makes reference to admission of evidence via

1) record via prescribed device
2) certificate

Is the inference that a prescribed device is a HOTA approved device correct? Or is there another definition for this. I have added wording from the act below.


[20F1Speeding offences etc: admissibility of certain evidence.

(1)Evidence (which in Scotland shall be sufficient evidence) of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies may be given by the production of—

(a)a record produced by a prescribed device, and

(b)(in the same or another document) a certificate as to the circumstances in which the record was produced signed by a constable or by a person authorised by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the police area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed;


Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 08:38
Post #1516190

It can still be admitted otherwise than with an S.20 cert, its just harder and will no longer be an approved device.

That aside, can you produce the document that says HADECS 3 is only approved for use when there is a VSL active (as opposed to as part of a VSL system which is clearly different and what I believed the restriction to be).

Posted by: driverd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 09:05
Post #1516192

Yes i believe so.
Please refer to the attachment in the thread.
This is a letter from the enforcement authority stating operating requirements of the HADECS3

Posted by: Fredd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 09:22
Post #1516197

So you're going to rely on a snippet from an evidence pack FAQ put together by a back-office drone who can't even get right that it's Type Approval they're talking about, and which doesn't say that the Type Approval conditions prohibit the kind of use you're talking about anyway? You need to provide some evidence from a primary document, like the actual Type Approval text, to convince anyone of your interpretation.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 09:29
Post #1516201

I see nothing in the type approval that requires the VSL to be set to a lower speed to use HADECS3, just that it has to be used in conjunction with the VSL system.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/manufacturer_and_type_approval_o#incoming-1048765

Posted by: TonyS Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 09:36
Post #1516205

QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 17:44) *
The statement surrounding non enforcement when no speed limit is displayed as a HOTA condition has been taken verbatim from the enforcement authorities own correspondence.

If your understanding is correct I think you're saying that the camera would be accepted as accurate if a 70mph or NSL speed limit sign was displayed. If that's the case then how can the absence of such a sign affect the accuracy of the camera in any way?

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 09:42
Post #1516207

QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 08:09) *
Based on the below i dont this your statements are entirely accurate

• Section 20 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 “Evidence of the measurement of speed by a device designed or adapted for measuring by radar the speed of motor vehicles shall not be admissible unless the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State”

Fine, but Mr Justice Wyn Williams in the High Court in Connell v CPS came to the same conclusion, so it doesn’t really matter what you think.

Posted by: driverd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 10:19
Post #1516217

It is the authority which has produced this interpretation and this is the body that is in effect prosecuting me.
Therefore reliance is placed on it.

For avoidance of doubt what i am stating is

The HADECS dont enforce when a VSL indicator is not showing a speed limit.

Not showing a speed would by default mean a NSL in force
I have not to my knowledge a NSL sign been displayed on the VS indicators but might be mistaken in this regard.

Posted by: Adders1974 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 10:36
Post #1516223

QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:19) *
I have not to my knowledge a NSL sign been displayed on the VS indicators but might be mistaken in this regard.

I trot up and down the motorways daily and can safely say I see the NSL sign almost every day through the VSL stretches.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 10:36
Post #1516224

Therefore youve been told why that reliance is faulty.

Youre continuing to argue against what the ACTUAL type approval states, and not addressing that flaw at all. If you can do so - given its a fairly obvious line of attack it would help.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:00
Post #1516235

If you want to play at semantics. Arguably not displaying anything specific IS displaying that the NSL still applies since there is no need for a repeater.

However the type approval is quite clear and if you think a court will acquit based on a possibly defective summary from a force I fear you'll end up disappointed.

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:02
Post #1516238

QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:19) *
It is the authority which has produced this interpretation and this is the body that is in effect prosecuting me.
Therefore reliance is placed on it.

You can place reliance on it but it will be up to the court to decide what the type approval says (if that is actually in issue) and the court isn’t bound to reach the same conclusion as the police.

Posted by: driverd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:37
Post #1516249

QUOTE (Adders1974 @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:36) *
QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:19) *
I have not to my knowledge a NSL sign been displayed on the VS indicators but might be mistaken in this regard.

I trot up and down the motorways daily and can safely say I see the NSL sign almost every day through the VSL stretches.


Yes OK
However have ever seen a VSL with no limit indicated?

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:36) *
Therefore youve been told why that reliance is faulty.

Youre continuing to argue against what the ACTUAL type approval states, and not addressing that flaw at all. If you can do so - given its a fairly obvious line of attack it would help.



Is your assertion that ultimately the HADECS will enforce even when no speed limit is indicated on the VSL?

Posted by: driverd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:48
Post #1516254

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 10:42) *
QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 08:09) *
Based on the below i dont this your statements are entirely accurate

• Section 20 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 “Evidence of the measurement of speed by a device designed or adapted for measuring by radar the speed of motor vehicles shall not be admissible unless the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State”

Fine, but Mr Justice Wyn Williams in the High Court in Connell v CPS came to the same conclusion, so it doesn’t really matter what you think.


I have quoted law. Did the judge really in your mentioned case solely rely on records from a non HOTA device.
I reckon if this is appealed to the supreme court the judgement by this high court judge would be overturned.

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 12:34
Post #1516282

QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 12:48) *
I reckon if this is appealed to the supreme court the judgement by this high court judge would be overturned.

Court of Appeal after High Court - but are you going to go that far?

Posted by: Adders1974 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 12:39
Post #1516288

QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 12:37) *
QUOTE (Adders1974 @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:36) *
QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:19) *
I have not to my knowledge a NSL sign been displayed on the VS indicators but might be mistaken in this regard.

I trot up and down the motorways daily and can safely say I see the NSL sign almost every day through the VSL stretches.


Yes OK
However have ever seen a VSL with no limit indicated?



I think if I understand the question the answer is, yes of course. They are often off. I have also seen them flash while no limit is displayed. Tends to be for those motoring along.

Posted by: I am Weasel Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 13:05
Post #1516300

Whether the device that measured your speed had Type Approval or not becomes an irrelevance if the prosecution are able to get the evidence (as measured by the device) introduced to the case. It will show that your speed exceeded the normal threshold for prosecution - and that is all that is required to secure a conviction.

The only way you can win is if you can prevent the camera evidence being admitted at all. I think you might face an uphill struggle with that

Posted by: driverd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 13:43
Post #1516307

QUOTE (I am Weasel @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 14:05) *
Whether the device that measured your speed had Type Approval or not becomes an irrelevance if the prosecution are able to get the evidence (as measured by the device) introduced to the case. It will show that your speed exceeded the normal threshold for prosecution - and that is all that is required to secure a conviction.

The only way you can win is if you can prevent the camera evidence being admitted at all. I think you might face an uphill struggle with that


Based on the below do you not think the law would endorse the non admission of evidence produced by a non hota device.

Section 20 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 “Evidence of the measurement of speed by a device designed or adapted for measuring by radar the speed of motor vehicles shall not be admissible unless the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State”

In addition section 1 of the act refers to prescribed device. Which again could be inferred as an apprved device

Posted by: Fredd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 14:23
Post #1516318

This has already been explained to you, earlier today in fact. There's no point in just reiterating the same questions in the hope of hearing the answer you want; if you think you know better then that's entirely up to uou, but going round in circles like this is just a waste of your time and everyone else's.

Posted by: driverd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 14:34
Post #1516321

QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 15:23) *
This has already been explained to you, earlier today in fact. There's no point in just reiterating the same questions in the hope of hearing the answer you want; if you think you know better then that's entirely up to uou, but going round in circles like this is just a waste of your time and everyone else's.


I am merely responding to queries raised by members.

Am i not permitted to collate differiing interpretations of the law by other members? It think it is beneficial to gauge opinion from differing sources to gain a sound view on the matter.

I beiieve my point of law on the prescribed device with reference to section 20 part 1 is still pending a response/ refutation

Posted by: I am Weasel Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 15:14
Post #1516339

I am in no way a lawyer, but post #41, #44, #46 make it clear to me that the camera evidence can be introduced without reference to S20, it may just be harder for the prosecution to do so. If you fancy a punt, why not plead not guilty and at the pre-trial hearing, you (or your legal representative) will have the opportunity to object to the introduction of the camera evidence. You will of course run the risk of much higher costs if subsequently found guilty. It's your money and your choice.

Posted by: driverd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 15:52
Post #1516362

Financial constraints do not permit me from pursuing the defence but technically the defence appears sound.

The legal system has been structured only to work in favour of individuals with significant expendable financial resource. Which currently i do not have access to.

I potentially hear comments of of the ilk " tough ti hs"

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 16:49
Post #1516398

QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 15:34) *
Am i not permitted to collate differiing interpretations of the law by other members? It think it is beneficial to gauge opinion from differing sources to gain a sound view on the matter.

I beiieve my point of law on the prescribed device with reference to section 20 part 1 is still pending a response/ refutation

What anybody here thinks of the law is only of passing interest. It has been interpreted by the High Court and, absent an appeal, that is an end to it. There is no need for a further response or refutation, particularly as you’re not going to take this matter to appeal.

Posted by: 666 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 17:24
Post #1516412

QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 16:52) *
Financial constraints do not permit me from pursuing the defence but technically the defence appears sound.

The legal system has been structured only to work in favour of individuals with significant expendable financial resource. Which currently i do not have access to.

I potentially hear comments of of the ilk " tough ti hs"

The defence does not appear sound to anyone on this forum so far.

If you could afford to engage a lawyer, I fear you would hear the same conclusion, some hundreds of pounds later.

Posted by: driverd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 17:40
Post #1516414

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 17:49) *
QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 15:34) *
Am i not permitted to collate differiing interpretations of the law by other members? It think it is beneficial to gauge opinion from differing sources to gain a sound view on the matter.

I beiieve my point of law on the prescribed device with reference to section 20 part 1 is still pending a response/ refutation

What anybody here thinks of the law is only of passing interest. It has been interpreted by the High Court and, absent an appeal, that is an end to it. There is no need for a further response or refutation, particularly as you’re not going to take this matter to appeal.


I beg to differ. Discussion on the point of law raised is particularly pertinent. I personally may be curtailed in defending the allegation due to financial constraints. However this does not prevent it from being beneficial/ relevant to another motorist in a similar predicament with suitable financial resource and appetite to challenge.

These forums as i see them are ultimately an assistive resource available to all relevant motorists to review and gather information and make informed decisions.

Isnt this the effective purpose of the forums and wider website?

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 17:44
Post #1516415

QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 18:40) *
I beg to differ.


Your view of the law is irrelevant when it comes to giving advice on it.

QUOTE
However this does not prevent it from being beneficial/ relevant to another motorist in a similar predicament with suitable financial resource and appetite to challenge.

It really does. You need to move on. You’re like a vaxatious litigant who won’t take no for an answer.

Posted by: driverd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 17:53
Post #1516423

QUOTE (666 @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 18:24) *
QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 16:52) *
Financial constraints do not permit me from pursuing the defence but technically the defence appears sound.

The legal system has been structured only to work in favour of individuals with significant expendable financial resource. Which currently i do not have access to.

I potentially hear comments of of the ilk " tough ti hs"

The defence does not appear sound to anyone on this forum so far.

If you could afford to engage a lawyer, I fear you would hear the same conclusion, some hundreds of pounds later.


I have not heard any pursuasive argument to the contrary so far, at best conjecture in my opinion.
However i am not partial at all to hearing a robust refutation of the defence presented either.

There have been over x no of contributors and xxxx no of views on this thread. Do you claim to represent them all?

Posted by: driverd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 18:11
Post #1516430

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 18:44) *
QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 18:40) *
I beg to differ.


Your view of the law is irrelevant when it comes to giving advice on it.

QUOTE
However this does not prevent it from being beneficial/ relevant to another motorist in a similar predicament with suitable financial resource and appetite to challenge.

It really does. You need to move on. You’re like a vaxatious litigant who won’t take no for an answer.


Practically anyones view of the law is irrelevant apart from an individual or collective group who have been granted the authority to pass a sentence.

I have only stated objective fact and or information in my responses and have not brought subjective opinions of members personality traits in my posts as that is complete digression from the matter being.discussed.



Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 18:11
Post #1516431

QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 18:53) *
I have not heard any pursuasive argument to the contrary so far, at best conjecture in my opinion.

If you’re referring to your s 20 argument, I directed you to the court case where your interpretation of it was rejected. If you go to court, it is bound to adopt the same interpretation - it has no choice. That’s not conjecture, it’s the law, your opinion notwithstanding. Quite frankly, I think you’re trolling now and will deal with you accordingly if you carry on.

Posted by: blackcross Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 18:16
Post #1516432

A number of very experienced members have offered advice, and directed you to caselaw. The only dissenting voice has been your own.

They, and the High Court, might be wrong. Further discussion here won’t prove that, only a contested trial and then a protracted slog through the Court of Appeal.

You don’t have the cash for such an approach, so further discussion is academic/idle speculation unless and until someone suitably wealthy decides to prefer their own interpretation of well known practice and law to that already offered.

Your choice is simple. A guilty plea and predictable costs or not guilty and prepare to remortgage your house or do a Mr Gloucestershire and squander the kids’ inheritance.

Posted by: driverd Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 18:57
Post #1516443

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 19:11) *
QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 18:53) *
I have not heard any pursuasive argument to the contrary so far, at best conjecture in my opinion.

If you’re referring to your s 20 argument, I directed you to the court case where your interpretation of it was rejected. If you go to court, it is bound to adopt the same interpretation - it has no choice. That’s not conjecture, it’s the law, your opinion notwithstanding. Quite frankly, I think you’re trolling now and will deal with you accordingly if you carry on.


Please be assured it is not my intention to troll.

In the case you make reference to ie connell vs cps.
The speed gun used ( although a non approved HOTA) device to record speed was corroborated by the police officers witness statement and because he chased the defendant at speeds exceeding 90mph and kept up with him. There is further robust corroborative evidence.

With a fixed camera case where no real time.witness would be present and neither would any other corroborative evidence be present.

Im still not fully pursuaded therefore in a fixed camera.prosecution scenario where the camera has been declared non hota compliant .magistrates would soley rely on the camera evidence to reach a guilty verdict.

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 19:07
Post #1516447

QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 19:57) *
Im still not fully pursuaded therefore in a fixed camera.prosecution scenario where the camera has been declared non hota compliant .magistrates would soley rely on the camera evidence to reach a guilty verdict.

That’s not the question. The question is whether the evidence would be admissible, which it would be, albeit not by s 20 certificate. The court is then faced by the legal presumption that a machine (e.g. a speed camera) is working correctly unless proved otherwise. Quite how a speed camera not being type approved - in fact, type approved for some speeds but not for others - is proof that it was not working correctly is a mystery. Saying “if the 60 sign was lit the camera was type approved and working properly but if it wasn’t lit then the camera was not type approved and is thus not working correctly” isn’t a very compelling argument. And that assumes that it wasn’t type approved, which it seems it was.

Posted by: NewJudge Fri, 20 Sep 2019 - 14:25
Post #1516896

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 20:07) *
Quite how a speed camera not being type approved - in fact, type approved for some speeds but not for others - is proof that it was not working correctly is a mystery. Saying “if the 60 sign was lit the camera was type approved and working properly but if it wasn’t lit then the camera was not type approved and is thus not working correctly” isn’t a very compelling argument. And that assumes that it wasn’t type approved, which it seems it was.

Indeed. Coupled with which you have this small, but by no means insignificant problem:
QUOTE (driverd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 10:36) *
I requested photographic evidence, along with calibration certificates etc. which was provided.

The evidence also shows a photo of the gantry showing the illuminated 60mph sign....

Time to call it a day, methinks.

Posted by: andy_foster Fri, 20 Sep 2019 - 19:30
Post #1516969

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 19:37) *
No. A device does not have to be type approved in order to be used for speed enforcement. If you think it does then you’re going to have to pony up the law that says so.


Where a device is prescribed by the SoS, any rational interpretation of s. 20(4) RTOA 1988 says it must be approved. However a single judge sitting in the High Court, without the benefit of hearing argument from counsel for both parties , and with no apparent regard for the judgements in Roberts v DPP, Pict and Kemlsey v DPP (or Sweet v Parsley, etc.). This does not create a binding legal precedent. However, judges who believe that the law exists to insulate the establishment from the plebs are likely to use it as an excuse not to apply the law as it is written.

That said, the admissibility of evidence from prescribed devices which are used without or in breach of the conditions of type approval is a moot point if the device is approved and there is no breach.

N.B. If a device is not prescribed for the purposes of s. 20 RTOA 1988, there is no requirement for it to be approved by the SoS - but that is an entirely separate argument.


QUOTE
• Section 20 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 “Evidence of the measurement of speed by a device designed or adapted for measuring by radar the speed of motor vehicles shall not be admissible unless the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State”


That was the original s. 20 RTOA 1988. It was carried over as subsection (4) of the new s. 20 with radar devices replaced by prescribed devices. (Pict).

N.B. For a summary case, appeal from the Magistrates is either to the Crown Court for retrial or High Court on a point of law. Appeal from the Crown Court would be to the High Court, not the Court of Appeal (still on point of law). Appeal from the High Court would be to the Supreme Court (although IIRC permission would be required from the Court of Appeal if it was a second appeal).

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 20 Sep 2019 - 19:42
Post #1516973

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Fri, 20 Sep 2019 - 20:30) *
However a single judge sitting in the High Court


It’s been a while since I had to worry about precedent in the English courts but what difference does it being a single judge make?

QUOTE
without the benefit of hearing argument from counsel for both parties


True but a bit disingenuous - Connell was a litigant in person, so the court was never given the opportunity to hear from his counsel (because he didn’t have one).

QUOTE
This does not create a binding legal precedent.


Does it not? Or does it create one that might be distinguished or against which one could argue that it was wrongly decided? See my first point.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 20 Sep 2019 - 21:38
Post #1517002

QUOTE (driverd @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 15:34) *
I beiieve my point of law on the prescribed device with reference to section 20 part 1 is still pending a response/ refutation

If you're so sure, go for it. Unlike some countries, you can represent yourself in any court in the UK, including the Supreme Court. If you represent yourself, the whole thing will cost you nothing other than your own time and maybe the odd out of pocket expense, you might even make a few quid when you sell the story of your epic legal battle to the press.

However this forum has a duty to steer people away from hopeless defences, which IMO yours clearly is. At the end of the day you do not state that you were not driving in excess of the 70 mph limit imposed by regulation 3 of The Motorways Traffic (Speed Limit) Regulations 1974 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1974/502/regulation/3/made which is binding upon you even if there were no signs whatsoever.

On your own version of events, you're guilty. I refer you to Criminal Practice Directions I: General matters para 1A.1 (my emphasis):

The presumption of innocence and an adversarial process are
essential features of English and Welsh legal tradition and of the
defendant’s right to a fair trial. But it is no part of a fair trial that
questions of guilt and innocence should be determined by
procedural manoeuvres. On the contrary, fairness is best served
when the issues between the parties are identified as early and as
clearly as possible. As Lord Justice Auld noted, a criminal trial is not
a game under which a guilty defendant should be provided with a
sporting chance.
It is a search for truth in accordance with the twin
principles that the prosecution must prove its case and that a
defendant is not obliged to inculpate himself, the object being to
convict the guilty and acquit the innocent.


https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-practice-directions-I-general-matters-2015.pdf

By your own admission you're guilty and it very much seems that you're trying to play procedural games to get out of it. Now don't get me wrong, if you have a viable procedural way out then good luck to you (a prime example being those rare cases where a first NIP is served outside the 14 day period), there's no reason for a guilty defendant to plead guilty if he can argue his way out of it. By it seems to me that you're trying to exploit a loophole that simply isn't there. As such go for it if you wish, but it would be very ill-advised for any reader of this forum to follow your lead unless and until you're successful (which IMO you won't be but you can of course try if you wish).

Posted by: driverd Tue, 8 Oct 2019 - 08:21
Post #1520873

Just to conclude on this matter

Speeding was dealt with the SJPN. Pleaded guilty. Took a week for the case to be heard.

Was sentenced 4 points + £100 fine + £95 prosection costs + £30 victim surcharge.

Mitigation letter included sentencing guideline surrounding imposing a fixed penalty equivalent sentence + clean license previously + narrative on regretful about speeding.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)