Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: M4 South Wales mobile cameras
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
I have received a Notice of Intended Prosecution from the South Wales Police. It appears to be delivered within the timeframes described on this site and does not appear to contain factual inaccuracies about car or registered keeper. It is NOT accompanied by a conditional offer or fixed penalty.

The alleged incident occurred on the M4 between junctions 34 Miskin and 35 Pencoed. There are no fixed cameras or permanent signs on that stretch so the camera device referred to on the NIP must have been a 'white van' on the motorway bridge. The alleged speed was 85mph.

I have no points or endorsements on my licence. I have used the NIP wizard and have been advised to make a PACE statement. What has been the reaction of the South Wales Police to this approach?

Thanks in advance and please forgive any errors of form - I've not used a forum before
There is often a white van on that stretch of the M4.

South Wales Police understand the implications of the PACE witness statement because one of their cases is already being appealed to the European Court of Justice. wink.gif
Thanks Mika.....I'll send the PACE statement over the weekend unsure.gif
I submitted the PACE statement on 21/7/2006 and got the following reply:

"Dear Sir,
Reference No:
I refer to recent correspondence received regarding the offence subject of the above numbered Notice of Intended Prosecution and write to inform you that the role of the Police in operating the speed camera is to record details of the vehicle and not the driver.
Having recorded the make, model, colour and registration number of the vehicle, a notice is served on the registered keeper/responsible person, whose responsibility it is to supply the name and address of the driver. Failure to supply this information renders him/her liable to prosecution.
Consequently, papers will be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service recommending prosecution for failing to supply this information and a summons will be issued in due course informing you of the time, date and venue of the hearing.
I trust that the information provided explains the position for you."

I replied with the following:

"Dear Sir or Madam,


I refer to your letter of xx August 2006 in which you acknowledge receipt of the correspondence in which the driver of the vehicle was named.

As the registered keeper of the vehicle referred to in the above numbered Notice of Intended Prosecution, it was my responsibility to supply the name, address and DVLA driver number of the driver. This was duly done in the correspondence referred to above. I enclose a copy of the correspondence in case it has been mislaid. I also have a copy of the Royal Mail special delivery receipt.

In the light of the above, it would be inappropriate to refer the papers to the Crown Prosecution Service with a recommendation to prosecute for failing to supply the name of the driver. The driver had been clearly named.

Yours faithfully,"

The SCU then replied with the following:

"Dear Sir,
Reference No:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of xx August.
You expressly exclude the use of any information contained therein in any proceedings against you whatsoever. The matter cannot therefore, proceed under the Fixed Penalty process.
The position therefore remains as stated in our letter to you of xx August. I can confirm that all correspondence will be placed in the Court file.
Yours faithfully"

Does anyone have any comments on progress to date? I assume that it is all as normal, including the ill-informed or ill-intentioned responses.
jimmy ferrari
Dave, my friend just handed me the exact same letter this morning and I feel you have now fallen into their 'trap'!
You have sent them a signed letter which is not an S9 statement and does not contain an exclusion clause!
Anyway after Wed 27th I think you may well look forward to your day in court
Hi Jimmy,
Please explain - I assume that I was not giving anything additional - merely referring to the PACE statement. There is no disclosure of driver details in the follow up letter. This appears to be supported by the SCU response. unsure.gif

I think what Jimmy meant was that if you send them any other letter admitting to having been the driver (in response to their B&B for example) without an equivalent exclusion clause they will attempt to use it in court as evidence rather than argue the admissibility of the PACE. As you do not appear to have done this you should be OK I think.

For now I would just do nothing and await the summons. If you are summonsed for failure to furnish you're laughing. If it is for speeding you may well be laughing when wednesday's little matter is resolved. I wouldn't put it past them to try and summons you for both but just wait and see for now. Post back anything you receive and do not enter into any further correspondence with them.
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 © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.