Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: SJPN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
ice bar
So i was apparently caught speeding back in 15/7/16 and send an nip after not sending back i received a 2nd one which my wife completed for me and returned unsigned however she had crossed the box for a driver awareness course i then booked a course and failed to attend however i received a SJPN at approx 13th January just 4 days before the 6 month period dismissal period i have since pleaded not guilty on the following charges.

1. Speeding - exceed 30mph on restricted road
2. fail to give information relating to the identification of the driver

While looking at the pictures that state 1 at 576ft i was doing 35mph with cross-hairs located at bottom of car right at bottom of front bumper and 2nd 249ft 29mph just 8 seconds later i used a speed to distance and time calculator and noted that the distance between pics would show that if i travelled 99.6696 metres over 8 seconds my speed would be 27.87 mph.
i have therefore asked to see calibration records of the device and have stated on my not guilty plea that in the event the camera was calibrated that day under normal operation procedure at 79.9 80 80.1 metres i feel there would not be a discrepancy in speed or distance.

i have also raised the point that the cross hairs was not on the number plate or a flat surface as also advised in operators handbook and feel that it could also have given false reading due to a curved surface and being subject to movement over bumps or that in fact he may have aimed at the number plate but due to alignment the alignment calibration not being completed that its inconsistent evidence what are you opinions on this
Jlc
Time over distance is not relevant here. The speed measurement is virtually instantaneous.

The offence was not in Scotland (by virtue of the course offer) and you have not complied with the s172 you appear to be 'slam dunk' guilty. Given this, they have thrown you a lifeline to 'plea bargain'.

At this point they are unlikely to be able to convict you of the speeding (3 points) but instead will happily give you 6 points and a larger fine and costs of over £600 and 10% surcharge on the fine thrown on top.

For the 'bargain' you have to drop the fanciful fishing trip that the measurement was incorrect. See the prosecutor before going into court and offer to plead guilty to the speeding in exchange for dropping the s172.
peterguk
QUOTE (ice bar @ Wed, 1 Feb 2017 - 20:29) *
i received a 2nd one which my wife completed for me and returned unsigned


Any reason why

A) the S.172 was completed by someone other than it was addressed to

and

B) it was completed incorrecty?

Nothing you say constitutes anything near a defence, so best way out is plea bargain as above.
southpaw82
Where's my face palm smiley...?
ice bar
but it states here

Section 2 reads as follows:
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
There's clearly no mention of an obligation to sign or provide legal evidence.
peterguk
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 1 Feb 2017 - 20:43) *
Where's my face palm smiley...?


andy_foster
Unless the offence was in Scotland, or there was some massive defect in the s. 172 requirement (no reasonable requirement to sign the response), or unless the prosecution make some other horlicks of the case, the s. 172 prosecution is a slam dunk. The defences to the speeding that you have mentioned are utterly irrelevant - not because they are doomed to fail (which they would be if they were relevant), but because there is no admissible evidence that you were the driver (which is why you are being prosecuted for s. 172).

The silver lining is that if you ask the prosecutor nicely, he will almost certainly drop the s. 172 in return for you pleading guilty to the speeding - the only time we have heard of this being refused was when the defendant got cocky and ****** the prosecutor off. N.B. Always do the deal before pleading guilty to the speeding, otherwise you have nothing to bargain with and the prosecutor could continue with the s. 172.

If you don't want to do a deal, I'd love to know how you plan to defend the s. 172.
Jlc
QUOTE (ice bar @ Wed, 1 Feb 2017 - 20:44) *
There's clearly no mention of an obligation to sign or provide legal evidence.

Let us know when and where your trial is and we'll bring the popcorn if you want to try that defence.
ice bar
to the 172 i have a written statement that states the defendant has admitted to being the driver at the time of offence then later in the paperwork it states that during the investigation it was discovered that the admission form was not signed so no valid driver admission has been received
andy_foster
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 1 Feb 2017 - 20:40) *
QUOTE (ice bar @ Wed, 1 Feb 2017 - 20:29) *
i received a 2nd one which my wife completed for me and returned unsigned


Any reason why

A) the S.172 was completed by someone other than it was addressed to

and

B) it was completed incorrecty?

Nothing you say constitutes anything near a defence, so best way out is plea bargain as above.


Presumably the OP managed to find some advice given post Yorke and pre Francis. Quite a narrow window IIRC. Francis was in 2004, and I think Yorke (and Mawdesley) was a year or 2 earlier.
Jlc
FWIW there's no issue with the ping on your car. (Not that it matters really)
bill w
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 1 Feb 2017 - 20:43) *
Where's my face palm smiley...?



Here you go

unless you'd prefer

southpaw82
Asking for advice after committing to a course of action is a bit like jumping out of a plane before checking whether you've got hold of a parachute or the co-pilot's carry on luggage...
ice bar
lol its my last day to respond today so thought id just not guilty and try for best then ask what advice would be needed
andy_foster
Except that if the OP actually listens to the advice given (if you look carefully there is actually some advice in this thread, hidden amongst all the pointing and laughing), he is likely to come out of this only partially scathed.
Jlc
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 1 Feb 2017 - 21:04) *
Except that if the OP actually listens to the advice given (if you look carefully there is actually some advice in this thread, hidden amongst all the pointing and laughing), he is likely to come out of this only partially scathed.

Well it's a day out and a bit more cash. Still only 3 points if played right.

The SJP will adjourn for a court hearing.
ice bar
I actually said to them that as I feel the mobile camera wasn't calibrated and I will challenge on that due to the speed I've calculated that it's impossible to drop from 35 to 29 and cover that distance if it was correct and asked em to consider dropping case
southpaw82
QUOTE (ice bar @ Wed, 1 Feb 2017 - 21:22) *
I actually said to them that as I feel the mobile camera wasn't calibrated and I will challenge on that due to the speed I've calculated that it's impossible to drop from 35 to 29 and cover that distance if it was correct and asked em to consider dropping case

The speeding is irrelevant, they can't prove who the driver was anyway (well, maybe they can). They'll just hang you for the s 172.
peterguk
QUOTE (ice bar @ Wed, 1 Feb 2017 - 21:22) *
I actually said to them that as I feel the mobile camera wasn't calibrated and I will challenge on that due to the speed I've calculated that it's impossible to drop from 35 to 29 and cover that distance if it was correct and asked em to consider dropping case


And since they are happy with their evidence, they declined your request.

And your defence to the S.172 charge?
Jlc
Well at least you didn't go the full hog and name someone who wasn't driving so you could get jail time.

30mph (likely to be around your average once you noticed the van and slowed) is 44ft/s.

In around 8 seconds that's 350ft (there's no exact time). The distance between the photo's is 327ft - but as already stated your speed is measured in around 1/3 second.

All an irrelevant distraction though.
ice bar
That's all I wanted to know really is basically what grounds I can use to support the s. 172 missing signature as it seems by others it's has been dropped sometimes or has to be appealed to drop the charge however I was done for this years ago and also had a 172 dropped and 3 points removed from my licence but was 8-9 years ago now.

Also one of my points is I came round a bend and had to manouvere a cross 2 lanes was in a hire car we actually looking over shoulder as I changed lanes and mag have put foot down a little however this was not deliberate but the positioning of the device on car should be a point to raise.

Also when I spoke with Hampshire speed camera partnership they said they didn't need to calibrate daily and the device just gets set up so I feel if I can prove they haven't set the sight height and alignment up then that laser could have has slippage or have locked onto something else.
southpaw82
There is case law that says the police can impose a requirement to sign the form. If they did and you didn't you're guilty.
ice bar
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 08:02) *
There is case law that says the police can impose a requirement to sign the form. If they did and you didn't you're guilty.



After looking into this as previously said they cannot make me sign a form as I have to be cautioned for pace to be brought in effect if I had been pulled over for this by an officer and cautioned for the offence yes but not being cautioned it cannot be used as evidence under pace
Jlc
Have you read the sticky? Here.

This no longer works.
The Rookie
As noted that possible loophole was closed (and retrospectively as its case law and not a revision to the actual law so it was never actually a loophole) 7 years ago I'm afraid.

Your only recourse is the plea bargain, as your only ammunition is pleading guilty to the speeding it matters not now whether you were or weren't (and whether they could prove it or not), its possible to fight the S172, but I'd put your chances at less than 5%, probably less than 1% chance of success unless you can find an obvious error in the Police evidence you already have?
ice bar
I'll upload the statement later they have said that I admitted to being the driver in a full signed statement over the phone so technically I haven't failed to identify the driver and they have supported that what there not supporting if I failed to sign an admission so my defence is I have identified myself as being the driver and not once denied the fact but they have no admission statement I can not see they can pursue the s. 172 seeing as I haven't signed it as there is no criminal offence committed but they have kind of shot there self in foot by signing a statement supporting I have admitted being g the driver at the time also is Hampshire Police allowed to digitally sign statements
666
QUOTE (ice bar @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 11:17) *
I'll upload the statement later they have said that I admitted to being the driver in a full signed statement over the phone so technically I haven't failed to identify the driver and they have supported that what there not supporting if I failed to sign an admission so my defence is I have identified myself as being the driver and not once denied the fact but they have no admission statement I can not see they can pursue the s. 172 seeing as I haven't signed it as there is no criminal offence committed but they have kind of shot there self in foot by signing a statement supporting I have admitted being g the driver at the time also is Hampshire Police allowed to digitally sign statements


What "they" said on the phone is utterly irrelevant. You have failed to identify the driver by your own admission ("after not sending back i received a 2nd one which my wife completed for me and returned unsigned") and have no defence to the S172 charge.

Your only hope is to follow the advice above and do a plea bargain.
AntonyMMM
You have said that your wife filled out the form (not addressed to her) and didn't sign it. So you haven't responded to the legally valid s172 request you received. In fact you had already committed the offence before your wife completed the second one.

But - good luck with your defence at court. The important thing is to realise that your chance of winning are slim and the consequences very expensive if you lose ( not to mention the 6 points). But if you accept that risk, go ahead and let us know the outcome. You need to research and fully understand what you are being charged with, and the legal defences available - not just pick random out of date stuff off the internet (like the Pace argument).

They have given you an easy option by dual charging which offers you the plea bargain, but that is up to you.
peterguk
QUOTE (ice bar @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 11:17) *
I'll upload the statement later they have said that I admitted to being the driver in a full signed statement over the phone so technically I haven't failed to identify the driver and they have supported that what there not supporting if I failed to sign an admission so my defence is I have identified myself as being the driver and not once denied the fact but they have no admission statement I can not see they can pursue the s. 172 seeing as I haven't signed it as there is no criminal offence committed but they have kind of shot there self in foot by signing a statement supporting I have admitted being g the driver at the time also is Hampshire Police allowed to digitally sign statements


Oh dear...
The Rookie
QUOTE (ice bar @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 12:17) *
I'll upload the statement later they have said that I admitted to being the driver in a full signed statement over the phone so technically I haven't failed to identify the driver

Technically you have as its not signed as required, in plain English you may have identified the driver but that would be irrelevant.

QUOTE (ice bar @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 12:17) *
I failed to sign an admission so my defence is I have identified myself as being the driver and not once denied the fact but they have no admission statement

Its not admissible because its not signed which is why you committed the offence

QUOTE (ice bar @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 12:17) *
I can not see they can pursue the s. 172 seeing as I haven't signed it as there is no criminal offence committed

We can all see why, its because the appeal court in Francis threw out his appeal that unsigned was still an admissible response, that means you have committed the criminal offence

QUOTE (ice bar @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 12:17) *
also is Hampshire Police allowed to digitally sign statements

Yes
andy_foster
Perhaps the OP should read Francis v DPP (2004) - which will be in one of the stickys somewhere. The Divisional Court pretty much said the opposite of what th4e OP has stated as regards s. 172, including that signing the form was providing information.
The Rookie
Francis v DPP EWHC 591
ice bar
If I take 6 points I'll take 6 points not really worried about the points however it may effect my insurance premium but not like a speeding offence will I'll wait to see what response I get back from the court after they read my defence
The Rookie
The 6 points with the MS90 code will affect your insurance much more than the speeding offence, do some dummy quotes and see the effect, typically a 1/3 to 1/2 uplift in the first year after conviction.

A contested trial will see you fined circa 150% of your relevant weekly income plus surcharge and prosecution costs of £620, a total bill of about £1300 would be usual.

The court won't take head of your defence until the trial, by then you are in for the full penalty and costs.

Fair to say you haven't done your homework really.
Logician
QUOTE (ice bar @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 14:29) *
If I take 6 points I'll take 6 points not really worried about the points however it may effect my insurance premium but not like a speeding offence will I'll wait to see what response I get back from the court after they read my defence


The usual experience is that points for a s.172 offence are regarded more seriously than a speeding offence by insurance companies.

You cannot conduct a defence by post, you can plead guilty by post and put forward mitigation, but if you write that you intend to plead not guilty the court will not consider anything else you may say but will fix a date for you to attend court and a trial to take place.

mrtibbs1999
QUOTE (ice bar @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 14:29) *
If I take 6 points I'll take 6 points not really worried about the points however it may effect my insurance premium but not like a speeding offence will I'll wait to see what response I get back from the court after they read my defence


Having just been found not guilty on this, with a half decent defence and a good representative, I have to say you really need to think about going to trial on this. The courts do not like this offence and will take their lead from the CPS and the case law. You don't seem to have any defence as the case law is against you and if found guilty you will face a massive hike in your insurance. I spoke to a broker in anticipation of a guilty verdict and was told that an extra £300-£900 a year would be likely. That is a lot over 5 years and with the fine, it will leave you very heavily out of pocket.
Jlc
...which is why the plea bargain is most attractive. But I suspect the OP doesn't want to 'admit' to speeding.

All for the sake of a course. (Or at worst 3 points £100)
NewJudge
QUOTE (ice bar @ Wed, 1 Feb 2017 - 20:44) *
There's clearly no mention of an obligation to sign or provide legal evidence.


QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 08:02) *
There is case law that says the police can impose a requirement to sign the form. If they did and you didn't you're guilty.


If it's any help (though it’s probably too late now), I was in a Magistrates' Court only yesterday when a trial took place for a S172 offence. The defendant's argument was almost exactly the same as you are proposing – that he had provided the information required - except that he himself had provided an unsigned S172 response whereas you rely on your wife's unsigned reply. (This creates a second hurdle for you to overcome because not only did you not sign the reply, you did not complete it either).

The Magistrates were directed to look at the relevant case law and decisions of the higher courts (some of which have been provided to you on here) in particular the Appeal of Francis vs DPP. The defendant was convicted. He paid a fine of £850, a surcharge of £85, prosecution costs of £620. (The prosecutor asked for the normal maximum as the defendant had insisted on the ticket clerk coming to court instead of accepting his written evidence. Had he not insisted, a reduced sum would have probably been sought). Oh, and six penalty points.

So, £1,555 and six points in that case. Do let us know how you get on.

QUOTE (ice bar @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 14:29) *
If I take 6 points I'll take 6 points not really worried about the points however it may effect my insurance premium but not like a speeding offence…


You will find an MS90 endorsement (which is what you will get if convicted) will carry a far greater insurance penalty than speeding.



southpaw82
QUOTE (ice bar @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 08:07) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 08:02) *
There is case law that says the police can impose a requirement to sign the form. If they did and you didn't you're guilty.



After looking into this as previously said they cannot make me sign a form as I have to be cautioned for pace to be brought in effect if I had been pulled over for this by an officer and cautioned for the offence yes but not being cautioned it cannot be used as evidence under pace

I am often bemused by posters like you. I work on the reasonable assumption that you came here seeking advice because you realise you don't know what you're doing. You're then given advice by a mixture of enthusiastic amateurs and qualified lawyers (unanimous advice I might add) and feel that you know best. If you do know best, why are you here? If you don't know best, why are you arguing with people who do? It's bizarre.
thisisntme
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 15:20) *
QUOTE (ice bar @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 08:07) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 2 Feb 2017 - 08:02) *
There is case law that says the police can impose a requirement to sign the form. If they did and you didn't you're guilty.



After looking into this as previously said they cannot make me sign a form as I have to be cautioned for pace to be brought in effect if I had been pulled over for this by an officer and cautioned for the offence yes but not being cautioned it cannot be used as evidence under pace

I am often bemused by posters like you. I work on the reasonable assumption that you came here seeking advice because you realise you don't know what you're doing. You're then given advice by a mixture of enthusiastic amateurs and qualified lawyers (unanimous advice I might add) and feel that you know best. If you do know best, why are you here? If you don't know best, why are you arguing with people who do? It's bizarre.


I think its because OP values his own felt righteous indignation and feels that overrules sensible pragmatism. This one looks ripe for SD's popcorn machine. That machine has been busy recently...
The Rookie
He reminds me somewhat of captain E J Smith, he also set out on a fixed course of action and refused to modify it contrary to new information that suggested he should. It didn't end well for him or his fellow travellers.

I'm also intrigued as the information he started out from probably came from this very site, so he trusts it when he found it (without researching) but not the correction.
bm1957
There's also a real danger that if you rub the prosecutor up the wrong was you could end up with 9 points - from what you say they might fancy their chances at the speeding on top of the S172 regardless of your attempted 'non response'
ice bar
I run a busy life and are not here on forums a lot which is why I didn't get advice before filling stuff in at the end of the day i am allowed to argue my case of I wish.

But I belive I wasn't speeding the full story is i came round a bend which is approx 700ft from the van I was switching 2 lanes in early rush hour traffic and checked my blind spot accelerated a little then saw him looked in front as I switched lanes.

By this time approx 2-3 seconds had gone I look to the right of me and he's there my excuse is all I have is that I was not in my normal car I was in a hire car due to a recent accident my own car I can tell roughly what speed I am without looking but this I wasn't used too but in the event I was caught over limit I can't comment on as I honestly didn't look at my speedo while maneuvering lanes so I cannot by anyway admit to it but when you calculate the speed from first shot to 8 secs later.

Then calculate the distance to speed and speed to time it states that my speed was average of 27 mph so if that's correct I'm 2mph under the recorded speed even if I take to court and ask for calibration certificate and alignment checks.
In the event they are not there I can challenge my case on those grounds and use my speed to distance and time to fight that if in the event they can provide
.
Then I may change my plea at that stage but I'm not admitting anything before challenging those grounds I did sign and return the original latter to them and had a second letter filled by wife also called on phone and admitted it was me and booked course however I turned up a day late due to family circumstances with a member of my family being in hospital, to be insulted by one of the staff as she thought I couldn't speak English due to my surname which I raised a complaint about then I had a week extension on the course booking and they aadrivetech couldn't rebook as it would not allow em to book.

So I then ignored all following letters of accepting points before going to court i am very busy have 4 kids and run a bar so don't get a lot of time to do things as always ordering stock and doing paperwork
Jlc
Any phone call is not relevant about 'admitting' the driver. What is this form you returned, signed? (You had a second letter which would imply it was either 'lost' or unacceptable?)

Forget any arguments about the speed - it's not relevant. And as I said earlier you can use it to 'plea bargain' should you wish. You can't use the photo's to back-calculate the speed, the images supplied are not for that (the speed was read at the initial ping and counts)
The Rookie
It's now totally irrelevant what speed you were doing, they had a reasonable suspicion and issued the S172 request, you don't get to argue the speed before filling it in, you have been told that many times already.

Your busy life has just had much more time taken out of it than a simple check before putting your foot in it would have taken up, and much more time will be spend on contesting it in court even if you had filed in the form properly and contests the speeding.

Two choices, plead guilty to speeding with a plea bargain or fight the S172, the speed is irrelevant.
Jlc
What is confusing that a date seems to have been issued for the course?
Logician
QUOTE (ice bar @ Sat, 4 Feb 2017 - 02:47) *
...............at the end of the day i am allowed to argue my case of I wish.


Of course you are, you have been given the best possible advice, you have been told many times that your speed is irrelevant to the s.172 charge, but it is up to you whether you accept the advice or not.

samthecat
Just to add a thought, the OP was offered and booked onto a course although they subsequently failed to attend it. It would therefore appear that initially the Police accepted the 172 response.

Are there any grounds for this initial acceptance to offer a defence against the 172 charge?

I think I might be clutching at straws here and am happy to be corrected. I suspect the initial attention given to the paperwork when a course is offered is less than when a prosecution beckons and that if challenged the prosecution could say the course was offered in error and as it wasn't taken it's irrelevant, carry on.

To the OP - there is a lot of collective knowledge and experience on this forum, have a re-read of the thread and get your thoughts together. If you go to court telling the same as you have here you are not going to have a good day. Best of luck to you whatever you decide to do.
Jlc
Yes, my point #46... my OP is being economical with the truth and seems fixated on the time over distance.
NewJudge
QUOTE (samthecat @ Sat, 4 Feb 2017 - 13:24) *
Are there any grounds for this initial acceptance to offer a defence against the 172 charge?

I suspect the initial attention given to the paperwork when a course is offered is less than when a prosecution beckons and that if challenged the prosecution could say the course was offered in error and as it wasn't taken it's irrelevant, carry on.


I thought about that early on. But no evidence is needed to offer a course. If they were happy that the OP was the driver they may have offered the course based on that happiness. But that's a different matter to proving their case in court.

QUOTE (ice bar @ Sat, 4 Feb 2017 - 02:47) *
I run a busy life and are not here on forums a lot which is why I didn't get advice before filling stuff in...

Which was perhaps the start of your troubles. However, you are where you are and you came for advice.
QUOTE (ice bar @ Sat, 4 Feb 2017 - 02:47) *
...at the end of the day i am allowed to argue my case of I wish.

But you seem to be arguing with people on here.

In your original question you began by suggesting you would challenge the accuracy of the measurement. You asked for opinions on your view that the measurement was incorrect. Quite early on it was pointed out to you that, having been dual charged and having no realistic chance of successfully defending the S172 charge your best bet would be to seek a “plea bargain”. You were also advised that because the matter had reached that stage, the technicalities of the speed measurement were irrelevant as dealing with the S172 charge was your priority.

So we move on to today when you found the time to come back. Despite all the advice you have been given you once again start prattling on about the accuracy of the measurement. You suggest you will ask for calibration certificates and alignment checks. You would (or rather might) only get these if the prosecution seeks to go to trial on the speeding offence. There is no need for them to do so. Because of your failure to properly respond to the S172 notice they have no evidence (which would stand up in court) to show you were driving. So they will discontinue the speeding matter. So I will reiterate what others have tried to explain that the technicalities of the speeding offence are now irrelevant.

QUOTE (ice bar @ Sat, 4 Feb 2017 - 02:47) *
So I then ignored all following letters of accepting points before going to court...


So there you have it. You’ve moved from possibly disposing of this matter by doing a short course, through ignoring the offer of a fixed penalty of £100 and three points, to facing a prosecution that, if you defend and are unsuccessful (which is a near certainty) you face six points and a bill of £1,000 or even more, depending on your income.

I’m largely out now (unless anything fresh comes up). It’s not very encouraging to be part of an attempt to offer a bit of help (and my contribution has been far less in-depth than some others) only to have it summarily dismissed or ignored. Do remember that, however busy your life is, if you plead not guilty to both charges a trial date will be set. If you fail to attend on that date the matter will be heard in your absence and the court will not even hear of your somewhat flimsy defence. But I’d still be grateful if you’d let us know how you get on. dry.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.