M606 speed camera - Wife was driving court case due, Error on the police paperwork Options

[Hugh Walker]

Last November 23rd 2017 my wife was driving back from North Yorkshire to home in Shropshire and her sat nav took her via Bradford the M606. She tripped the camera on the 50 mph limit before the bend to join the M62. She genuinely thought it was a 70 mph as it was the M606 motorway, it was dark cold and she is not a great traveller of distance, single female lost in Bradford and got to the relative safety and familiarity of the Motorway network. She also has an impeccable driving record with no offences for the last 25 years. I got the letter asking for driver details as I am the registered keeper and we filled in the paper work stating that wifey was driving. We heard nothing back and thought that she may have got away with it. I checked the forum and know that West Yorkshire Police have 6 months to take the case to court. We had a letter confirming this was the case on the 21st May and paperwork came through on the 26th May with the posting date of the 25th May 2018.

I will be checking with Bradford Magistrates Court to see if they actually sent the paperwork in to court before the 23rd May within the 6 month period. or wether it has timed out.

My wife is not the sort of person to want to appear in court, shy and probably say she is disgusted by the tactics of a 50mph speed limit on a motorway.

We were in the process of pleading guilty by post and filling the mitigating circumstances, of good driving record, worried single female far from home, late night and dubious speed camera location, ie she said she genuinely did not see it the speed restrictions or camera.

Then I noticed in the paperwork that in the Certificate use of a prescribed device, the Authorised person compiling the information , CIV XXXX from West Yorkshire Police Casualty reduction Partnership has made a mistake. They state in their witness statement that that the device was installed at the M606 south bound near slip, near market post 1.0 Bradford UK. The section of the road being monitored is subject to a 76 mph limit. ( not 50 mph it is typed 76 mph) it states that the speed the device recorded was 76 mph later in the document

The speed wifey is being prosecuted for is 73 mph. in a 50mph limit Yes .... their paperwork they are relying on in court states that the road in questions was restricted to 76 mph So there is an error in their paperwork which puts doubt into the documentation and their reason for prosecution.

My question to the forum is would this be sound grounds to plead not guilty and state their error and conflict of information and would it be best to attend court to do so.

What would be the best way to make the most of this error to mitigate the offence. It seems that 73 mph in a zone subject to a 76 mph limit is not an offence.

I will first be checking to see if WYP have submitted the court papers within the prescribed time too

This post has been edited by Hugh Walker: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 21:29

[Advertisement]

[notmeatloaf]

And not say where the limit is stated? Stated limit on signs, statrd limit on HE paperwork, stated limit in witness statement?

I think it is likely the prosecution would ask for an adjournment if the OP was that vague. They may or may not get it of course.

[southpaw82]

And not say where the limit is stated? Stated limit on signs, statrd limit on HE paperwork, stated limit in witness statement?

I think it is likely the prosecution would ask for an adjournment if the OP was that vague. They may or may not get it of course.

There is no requirement in a defence statement (or elsewhere) to specify what errors of the prosecution are relied upon. The defence merely have to state what issues they take with the prosecution, which can be as bland as “the offence is not made out”. I agree that the prosecution should ask for an adjournment and I would grant them one but that is a discretionary exercise for the court on the day.

[Hugh Walker]

Given the circumstances My wife is going to plead guilty, she does not have the appetite for the argument over the errors in the statements in the paperwork the Police are putting forward. I believe they will simply skip over it in court as they process so many speeding offences and at 73 or 76 whatever they choose to use it is still over the stated 50 mph speed limit.

The error on the statement is something I would pounce on if i was caught speeding and I believe the magistrate would probably not appreciate the errors given the circumstances and may adjourn

However Bradford Court is 3 hours away and I am self employed and it is not worth the hassle of 2 or more appearances and the time wasted


The whole thing is a scam anyway like most safety partner camera schemes.

Just to confirm we did complete the Section 172 documentation right away, the WYP left it until 1 day before timeout to present the paperwork to the court prolonging the fear of prosecution my wife was worried about.

I will mention the mistakes in the paperwork, but not for claiming a miscarriage of justice, but to embarrass the prosecution and make the magistrates aware of their shoddy work which affects other people as it does call into question their operation and management of the process.

[gilan02]

Just to confirm we did complete the Section 172 documentation right away,

Was that just the one addressed to you or did your wife also complete one addressed to her?

[Hugh Walker]

Both Section 172's the one addressed to me as the keeper, then to her as the driver with the paperwork for the driving course, then nothing until the Single Justice thingy

[baggins1234]

Not quite sure why you see it as a scam?

[BaggieBoy]

I will mention the mistakes in the paperwork, but not for claiming a miscarriage of justice, but to embarrass the prosecution and make the magistrates aware of their shoddy work which affects other people as it does call into question their operation and management of the process.

Which will completely pointless, as within the SJPN process there are not magistrates (plural) or a prosecution. It's just a magistrate processing the paperwork in an office.