Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Summonds recieved..ADVICE NEEDED!!
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
eugegall
got court speeding tonight,the police office said "i think you hit 130" seamed unsure to me. he was in a unmarked (p) reg volvo on his own. it didt look like he had a video camera on board. but i can say now that i DID NOT do 130!!

whats going to happen and where do i stand?

thanks everyone
Chas820
Hi Mate,you are a bit light on facts,did you get a producer?was the volvo flashing blues and two`s?i didn`t know that the police kept cars that old.Take us through the process a bit more.
Hotel Oscar 87
Its early days yet but by giving a more detailed account of what happened - and more particularly exactly what the officer said (to the best of your recollection) - would help in getting advice.
eugegall
well it did flash me over and kept me on the side of the rd. he didt not give me an exact speed and i did not admit going any speed. he said if i plead guilty when i get my summonds then it will all be done through the post and no need for court?? im just confused as he did not give me a speed? the only ticket i got was to produce my insurance!!
neil3841
QUOTE (eugegall @ Tue, 14 Nov 2006 - 00:04) *
he said if i plead guilty when i get my summonds then it will all be done through the post and no need for court??


He means if you plead guilty you won't have to attend court as it will be dealt with without you present. Wait for the summons plead not guilty request all evidance after disclosure if it looks bad you can always change your plea. But if you are convicted of doing 130 you will get a ban
eugegall
anyonce fancy helping
Chas820
[quote]anyonce fancy helping[quote]


At the moment their is nothing to help you with,when you get your summons post back in this thread and the people here will offer good advice.You could post the piece of paper you were given(remove id no`s/name etc) so we can see if it looks correct.

Does anybody know if police still use a "P" reg in their fleet blink.gif that would make this [police] car over 8 yrs old ????

I`m wondering if this is some wannabee,why would they ask for his ins surely the database would have given them the details. Did he use blue lights to pull you over or just headlights?Was he in uniform?
eugegall
yes he was in uniform and pulled me on blue lights.the only paperwork i got from him was this.....

Chas820
You have left your name in view
dazfoz
You may want to take off serial numbers/name etc!!
eugegall
is there anything we can tell by this? also he put that i had no passengers but i had two in there with me and he saw both
eugegall
is there anything we can tell by this? also he put that i had no passengers but i had two in there with me and he saw both

is there anything we can tell by this? also he put that i had no passengers but i had two in there with me and he saw both
weasel
When you take the producer it in to the police station ask them to confirm that the officers number matches the name, I have bought ex police cars from auctions and found blank producers under the seat before now, I would think it unlikely they would have a car that old still in service, also point out that there were 2 witnesses who were in the car at the time and ask for that to be officially recorded. Did you manage to write down the reg number of the "police"car, ? how did he say he had recorded your speed? did he ask you to get into his car to talk to you? if there are 3 of you willing to swear in court that you were not speeding and he has no actual recording of your speed it should be your word plus 2 witnesses against his(if anything actually comes of this "pull")
Bluedart
QUOTE (weasel @ Tue, 14 Nov 2006 - 12:11) *
When you take the producer it in to the police station ask them to confirm that the officers number matches the name, I have bought ex police cars from auctions and found blank producers under the seat before now, I would think it unlikely they would have a car that old still in service, also point out that there were 2 witnesses who were in the car at the time and ask for that to be officially recorded. Did you manage to write down the reg number of the "police"car, ? how did he say he had recorded your speed? did he ask you to get into his car to talk to you? if there are 3 of you willing to swear in court that you were not speeding and he has no actual recording of your speed it should be your word plus 2 witnesses against his(if anything actually comes of this "pull")


Look at the last post here.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=15956

They believe Garrett's Camera but not the motorist or Dr Clarke. Interesting to see what the fine was. Have not found anything in the locals yet.
Hotel Oscar 87
I know this is not Surrey but saw an unmarked dark purple Vauxhall Omega in *action* this morning in Avon & Somerset (fortunately it overtook me) and that was on a P plate. Surrey are not a very well off force so who knows? Hampshire, just next door, were using a light blue L-reg Senator and a dk green M-reg BMer for years before they discovered Scoobies and Skodas.
Fight it
Not accusing you of anything but does anyone else think this is a strange post?

If i were doing 130mph I would know and if I had just been pulled for it I would be bricking it nearly double the limit???? and with one man in a "P"plate car????

Yes the ticket is there shown to us all but how do we know this is for an "apparent" 130mph?

Just something not adding up here unsure.gif .

ps: why were you in such a hurry?
Bluedart
QUOTE (Fight it @ Tue, 14 Nov 2006 - 16:20) *
Not accusing you of anything but does anyone else think this is a strange post?

If i were doing 130mph I would know and if I had just been pulled for it I would be bricking it nearly double the limit???? and with one man in a "P"plate car????

Yes the ticket is there shown to us all but how do we know this is for an "apparent" 130mph?

Just something not adding up here unsure.gif .

ps: why were you in such a hurry?

ps: why were you in such a hurry?

Packet of fags and a paper I suspect.
josfabfella
If he was on is own with no camera, no problem. There needs to be two officers if there was no camera in a car. If he tailed you, he must do it over a reasonable distance and equidistance from your vehicle. You can request what marker he used at the start and finish of the pursuit. He must have a start and finish point to work out a distance. Also, at no time during the 'measured distance' must another vehicle get in the way and obscure his vision either. If he claimed you were doing that sort of speed, which would be a ban and almost certainly an extended retest, you would have been arrested for it. If it was that serious that it warranted a retest and you were doing nearly 60 OVER the limit, you would not have been free to continue your journey, you would have spent time in a cell with Ben Dover or some equally hostile person.He would have arrested you for Dangerous driving even if it wasn't dangerous, just due to the excessive speeds involved. All he can do looking at it is ask you to produce insurance within the stated time. If he was gonna do you either you will get a NIP within 14 days or he must give you a verbal NIP something along the lines of 'I am reporting you for consideration of the offence of driving at a speed inexcess of the speed limit for the road in question' he must also inform you that 'You are not obliged to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned etc etc.'
Wait 14 days for a NIP and see what it says. Then act on it. Keep us informed.
eugegall
thanks for that. well he did say the last bit. and i know for sure i was not doing 130. the distance he must have been following me for would have been less then 15 seconds. as the time my speed picked up just over the limit i think he pulled me. straight away. the police station are also confused as by his actions.
Ocelot
I wonder by how much the copper was speeding in order to prosecute you for speeding?
xantia
Strange Question from Ocelot !!!!!!

The copper must have been doing the same speed to follow & check the speed - he would have to match is speed for a minimum of 2 tenths of a mile-(see ACPO guidlines on follows) at 130 mph in 15 seconds you travel quite a distance. excl.gif
crystal
Hi

QUOTE (josfabfella @ Tue, 14 Nov 2006 - 21:53) *
Wait 14 days for a NIP and see what it says. Then act on it. Keep us informed.


The OP was given a verbal nip so he will not get one in the post. It definity seems a bit odd as I would expect a Dangerous driving or something for that speed.

QUOTE
the police station are also confused as by his actions


In what way were they confused ?

Regards
Crystal
josfabfella
QUOTE (crystal @ Tue, 21 Nov 2006 - 19:58) *
Hi

QUOTE (josfabfella @ Tue, 14 Nov 2006 - 21:53) *

Wait 14 days for a NIP and see what it says. Then act on it. Keep us informed.


The OP was given a verbal nip so he will not get one in the post. It definity seems a bit odd as I would expect a Dangerous driving or something for that speed.

QUOTE
the police station are also confused as by his actions
In what way were they confused ?

Regards
Crystal

Can you remember the wording when he said it? Have you asked what equiptment was in the vehicle to prove the speed? Does he have it on a video camera? I suspect that for exceeding the limit by that amount you would DEFINATELY have been arrested if he were going to do you for it. Otherwise it's your word against his. Give it a fortnight from the date of the ALLEGED offence and then phone the police station in question, speak to the duty Inspector and ask what, if anything, has happened. Just tell him you were given a producer and the officer mentioned that you MAY have been exceeding the speed limit and ask if anything is on file. Oh and one more thing.........SLOW DOWN FOR F**KS SAKE. Exceeding the limt by a few miles per hour is one thing, but by driving as you did, I personally hope they throw the book at you. However, if by some miracle they don't, take this as a serious ass kicking, thank God you got away with not sitting an extended retest and slow down. I had a double blow out at 70 a few years ago and I was lucky. If you had a single tyre blow out at 130, you would be flying inverted before you knew what was happening. Oh yeah, I nearly forgot to tell you.........SSSSSLLLLLLOOOOOWWWWWW DDDOOOOWNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!
defender-uk
QUOTE (josfabfella @ Tue, 14 Nov 2006 - 21:53) *
If it was that serious that it warranted a retest and you were doing nearly 60 OVER the limit, you would not have been free to continue your journey, you would have spent time in a cell with Ben Dover or some equally hostile person.He would have arrested you for Dangerous driving even if it wasn't dangerous, just due to the excessive speeds involved.


I'm not sure about that advice (see my case notes)

I got stopped after 10 miles of Excess 70 miles an hour, the police gave me a producer (which was done within the 5 days) and I now have a summons for 'driving a motor vehicle on a dual carriageway, at a speed exceeding 70 miles an hour' contary to Article 2 of the 70mph, 60mph, 50mph (tempory speed limit) Order 1977, section 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The statement of the Police is that I was doing 127 miles an hour.
g_attrill
QUOTE (josfabfella @ Thu, 23 Nov 2006 - 16:42) *
I suspect that for exceeding the limit by that amount you would DEFINATELY have been arrested if he were going to do you for it.


An officer can only arrest if there is grounds under the SOCAP legislation. A compliant speeder is unlikely to provide grounds for arrest. If the person doesn't provide their details or is likely to flee then an arrest would be justified. Indeed before SOCAP it was not an arrestable offence.

QUOTE (josfabfella @ Thu, 23 Nov 2006 - 16:42) *
Otherwise it's your word against his.


Unless the defendant manages to seriously damage the officer's reliability or has other evidence then the magistrates will almost always believe the officer.
eugegall
i posted a while ago sayinng id been done for speeding at 130.mph. when i wast doing that much,. i today recieved the summonds. WHAT DO I DO NEXT?
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=15947&hl=


THE SUMMONDS:


PART 2 OF THE SUMMONDS:


THE POLICEMAN'S STATEMENT:


THE PLEED LETTER:


THE PLEED FORM:


THE ORIGINAL THING:



I have noticed a few things on his statement that arnt right.

1) he said i was the sole occupant of the car. there were 3 in total
2) He said he followed me at a constant speed for 2/3 miles. i measured the distance from where he came on to where i stopped and it was 0.7 of a mile. when he saw me it obviously took him that long to catch up as i was on the motorway and he was driving up the slip rd.
3)it looks like its his word against mine as the only evidence he has is him and his speedo.
4) he was on his own.
5)no video evidence.

I have also had a holiday booked for the past 3 months and the court summonds id for the day after we go away.

what can i do about it?
Peter_D
Good news it they did bnot do you for Undue care and Dangerous Driving. But 130 is a ban. Interesting though that the officer noted no passengers on two documents yet you say there was 3 have you got signed staements form from. If not then you have been treating this a bit lightly. Regards Peter
eugegall
what do you mean mate. he even asked me who they were. and they heard him say this!
eugegall
can no one help?
andy_foster
You've started a duplicate thread!

How many "D"s are there in the word summons?
eugegall
this is pathetic. i need advice. where is everyone
eugegall
bump
eugegall
i have been summoned to court and the only evidence the policeman has is that he looked at his speedo. he was not behind me for a certain distance. he caught up and pulled me over. whats the ruleing on this?
eugegall
zdfshvuntyr
eugegall
no one
Hotel Oscar 87
eugegall

Firstly, constantly bumping your thread will not endear you and nor will the tone of your previous posts.

That having been said and contrary to some of the guff already posted the situation is this: All that is required at law to prove an offence of excess speed is the opinion of an officer and a form of independent corroboration of that. This can be provided, for example, by another officer (although this is now rare) a laser/radar gun, VASCAR or Police Pilot, a stopwatch or a calibrated speedometer. There is no requirement that a second officer is present.

I suggest that you go back and re-read the officer's statement. Where on earth did you get the idea that all he did was catch you up and pull you? The officer has been quite specific in his statement about where he first saw your vehicle, the fact that you overtook him as he joined the motorway and where he pulled you over. He also specifies that he maintained "an even distance" from your vehicle - in other words, followed you, for a distance of 2 miles. This would appear to be a classic "clocking" and the distance he followed you for is considerably in excess of the minimum laid down in the ACPO guidelines. The greater the distance the greater the likelihood of accuracy in the reading of your speed. He has bracketed your speed between 112 and 130mph. Is this incorrect?

A quick check on Multimap suggests that his estimation of distance is pretty accurate. He is also specific about you being the sole occupant. If this incorrect then IMHO it is unlikely, on its own, to make a significant dent in his credibility sufficient for you to succeed in getting the matter thrown out. Also, in your first post you suggested that he was driving a "P" reg Volvo and yet this isn't borne out in his statement. Is this another alleged mistake he has made?

To be frank, given the officer's statement, if I were you I would be spending my time at the moment putting together the most amazing plea of mitigation rather than concerning myself with what is essentially irrelevant detail. I would also be thanking whichever God you choose for the fact that you are only getting done for the excess speed. This is going to be expensive both in terms of lost time (as a result of what is an inevitable ban) and financially because the fine will be large and although it will be dependent on your means it will be designed to hurt.

But hey, look at it this way, you and your mates are still around to talk about it because at those speeds even with an HR tyre a blow-out was only a hair's breadth away (the rating is only good for 10 minutes). More to the point, at that time of night on the A3 a stray deer would, sadly, have wiped you out. Seriously, take this as a severe wake up call, take the beating at Court and then move on.
The Rookie
QUOTE (eugegall @ Wed, 28 Feb 2007 - 15:42) *
what do you mean mate. he even asked me who they were. and they heard him say this!

This highlights your problem, an obtuse answer to a sensible question, if we can't get the correct info from you, we can't give sensible advice. HO is correct, all bits you have told us add up to a sure fire guilty, especially as we can hazard a guess at your attitude in court, so start on your mitigation plea now.

The fact you had occupants on board when he said you did not will not be sufficient to disprove the speeding charge unless you can PROVE evidentially other errors in his statement. You will only disprove the occupant part if you have itness statements from the others you say were in the car and they are prepared to give evidence from the stand.

His statement for the follow check is at 120 for significantly further than the 0.2mile in ACPO guidelines, then he clearly states the other speeds as HIS vehicle speed when following you, hence the summons for the follow check speed at 120 down to his lowest of 112.

Other than the specific speeds, and occupancy, what other errors do you believe he has made in his statement? Is it reasonable to assume their is a chance you were doing well in excess of 100mph? In which case you are guilty of the absolute offence of speeding, and at over 100 will be banned and have a heavy fine, don't drive to court!

Simon
eugegall
i hope this helps. im sorry for being rude but i just needed advice ans noone was around. im a little worried..thats all
  • He said i was usein all three lanes to straighten the road out. as you can see from the picture the road is very straight. so there was no need for that comment
  • again he said i was the sole occupant of the car. there were three of us
  • he said he followed me for a further 2 miles at 120mph. i measured the distance from where he said he noticed me and where he stoped me and its 0.91 of 1 mile.
  • i believe that distance was him playing catch up. i admit to overtaking him speeding but not over 100mph. if he was just comeing on and was driving at 50/60mph it would have taken him the 0.91 miles to catch up. my point is that he was not behind me for a consistant amount of time.
im not trying to get outa anything. but i know i was not driving that fast. so im not going to get dont for it.there is a big diff between 130and 90 mph which is what i was doing!!

i have a meeting with a lawyer tomorrow to see what can be done.
MAGOO
AA route map give the distance between the M25 Junct 10 and the Painshill roundabout as 1.25 miles.

In the police statement he says he followed you past the northbound slip at the Painshill roundabout before pulling you. Assuming he started to clock your speed just after the m25 intersection and followed you quite a way past the Painshill roundabout (in his statement he doesn’t actually state how far past) the distance could have been “approximately” 2 miles

Therefore I think it might be difficult to put up an argument to discredit his statement and at the end of the day he doesn’t have to clock your speed for anywhere near that distance to prove the speed at which you were travelling

Whether or not you were using all 3 lanes is probably irrelevant

Surely the best way to defend the claim of the speed you were travelling is if you can get witness statements from the other occupants in the car saying first of all they were in the car and secondly what speed they thought you were travelling at. Because the police say on the producer that they weren’t in the car they need to be ready for some stiff questioning about the events surrounding the journey so to avoid committing perjury (and possible prison) they will have to be accurate with their accounts. Then it will be down to the magistrates to decide who is telling the truth.

Good luck mate and make sure you don’t do anything that might add to your troubles!
The Rookie
OK sorry, when I looked on the map (Painshill not named) it looked like he pulled you over at the next overpass, which is 4 miles further up.

Your best bet would be a 'newton' hearing, you plead guilty to speeding, but claim to have been doing a lower speed (say 95) and point out the erors in his statement.

By pleading guilty your evidence (essential its mitigation) becomes more credable, the other passengers will be needed as witnesses to the three key errors, that they WERE in the car (thus creating an element of doubt), that in their opinion you were going less than 120, that you were in one lane, and that his statemnet can't be right as there is less than two miles from the on slip to the alleged stopping place.

One question, did he actually stop you where he describes, or has he made a mistake, stopped you later on, but put the wrong description in the statemnet as their are some curves later on someoone may straight line.

Simon
eugegall
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 5 Mar 2007 - 01:37) *
OK sorry, when I looked on the map (Painshill not named) it looked like he pulled you over at the next overpass, which is 4 miles further up.

Your best bet would be a 'newton' hearing, you plead guilty to speeding, but claim to have been doing a lower speed (say 95) and point out the erors in his statement.

By pleading guilty your evidence (essential its mitigation) becomes more credable, the other passengers will be needed as witnesses to the three key errors, that they WERE in the car (thus creating an element of doubt), that in their opinion you were going less than 120, that you were in one lane, and that his statemnet can't be right as there is less than two miles from the on slip to the alleged stopping place.

One question, did he actually stop you where he describes, or has he made a mistake, stopped you later on, but put the wrong description in the statemnet as their are some curves later on someoone may straight line.

Simon



just finished with my lawyer. he said that i do have a case to say and that we should use the "newton hearing" so you were bang on the head mate. well done. what am i to expect?
giblets46
If he claims to have been joining the carriageway, he would have had to accelerate from 60-70mph (we can safely assume he won't claim to have been breaking the speed limit) to well in excess of 120mph in order to catch you (shall we say 150mph),which would have taken a good distance one would assume before he even caught you.

At about 70mph you are going about 1mile/ minute, so we could probably assume it would take at least 15secs to accelerate from 60/70mph to 120 mph, and much longer to reach 150mph (as a reference, the volvo v70 can do 50-70mph in 8.6 secs, so 70-mph to...120mph in what? let alone the speed required to catch you). How long would that have taken in terms of distance? (at 120 mph you are travelling nearly 2miles/ minute!)


(ignore the next bit as have re-read the statement which claims to have switched on his blues at that point, not the stopping point)
Also breaking from this distance to stop, presumably, you did not slam on the anchors as soon as you saw the lights, but would have slowed prgressively (and safely!), from motorway experience it would take a good 300m to stop comfortably from 70mph, if you were going 120mph as he claims, we could assume it would take about 1/2 mile.

What does that give him in terms of distance to follwoing you at a 'steady distance'? Not nearly the distance he states ( if you use the points you reference).
I think the newtons defence is a good one, you can probably claim the 120-130mph he states is the speed he required in order to catch up.
Hotel Oscar 87
Giblets

If you re-read the statement again you will see that these are the speeds that he says were recorded on the police vehicle's speedometer. In addition, as he joined the A3 NB the Golf was behind him but overtook him as he accelerated. This considerably reduces the distance that would have been opened up between the two cars. As has been posted before, if read carefully and correctly the officer's statement will be seen to set out a bracket within which the speed being reached by eugegall sits viz 112 - 130mph. The problem is that this tends to show that the Golf was exceeding the limit and that is all the officer has to show. The Newton defence is probably the route to go and is likely to get far more sympathy than a NG.
eugegall
QUOTE (Hotel Oscar 87 @ Thu, 8 Mar 2007 - 15:23) *
Giblets

If you re-read the statement again you will see that these are the speeds that he says were recorded on the police vehicle's speedometer. In addition, as he joined the A3 NB the Golf was behind him but overtook him as he accelerated. This considerably reduces the distance that would have been opened up between the two cars. As has been posted before, if read carefully and correctly the officer's statement will be seen to set out a bracket within which the speed being reached by eugegall sits viz 112 - 130mph. The problem is that this tends to show that the Golf was exceeding the limit and that is all the officer has to show. The Newton defence is probably the route to go and is likely to get far more sympathy than a NG.



what do you think will happen then? i think i have a very good lawyer. im admiting to speeding but no where near what he said.
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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.