Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Going to Court on end of June not guilty plea... Alleged 37 on 30 M.P.H.
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Activate
On a Sunday Decemberth 2007 my vehicle speed was allegedly recorded to be 37mph on a 30mph zone.

I have driven on this particular stretch of road for numerous years and make the point to drive below the speed limit on each occasion including on that day and in fact I departed 15 minutes earlier than usual. The device used for recording the alleged offence was a LTI 20-20 TS/M Speedscope. I disputed the alleged offence immediately by letter, identified myself as the driver of the vehicle and supplied my driving licence details whilst requesting further information on:

The operator

Training and procedure certificates

Identification of actual equipment

Calibration procedures and certificate

Maintenance and calibration records

Procedures for the actual site

Exact location of equipment

Photographic evidence

Suitability of site according to legislation

Percentile of speed according to A.C.O.P guidelines

Copy of the force’s procedures

Speed awareness courses



Unfortunately, I only received photographic evidence, exact location of equipment, identification of actual device and the calibration certificate.



On examining the (so called) calibration certificate I realised (and it appears so far) that the device had not been calibrated since January 2006, recalibration was due on January 2007 circa 1 year from the alleged offence - unless they are keeping the valid certificate as actual evidence?

I wrote back and pointed out the above discrepancy whilst confirming my continued intention to dispute the alleged offence. They promptly acknowledged my correspondence; I am now awaiting the outcome.



TWO very important questions that I wish to pose to you please:


Should I now sent the completed NIP contesting the alleged offence or wait for a second reply first? The NIP is dated 12/2007 and I don’t wish to give them any excuse to further penalise me for not sending it back within the permissible time…

Is one acting within the law as long as one confirms by letter to be the driver of the vehicle?

Under the specific circumstances, it is my understanding that the NIP is the only real document which stands up in court to aid possible prosecution.

I could get out of this dilemma by paying £60 and accepting 3 points on my licence but it’s pointless, unfair and unlawful to admit to an alleged offence when one is genuinely not accountable.

I trust that someone will be able to reply to my questions and that at some point readers of this forum may also learn from this unjust experience. I will keep you posted - Thanks!

I have also learned that the LTI 20-20 TS/M Speedscope is “an American distance measurement tool which has been modified to act as a speed reading instrument, yet strangely banned in some US states because of its inaccuracy” source =
http://www.witlessandswindle.me.uk/
andy_foster
QUOTE (Activate @ Sun, 20 Jan 2008 - 02:36) *
I disputed the alleged offence immediately by letter, identified myself as the driver of the vehicle and supplied my driving licence details whilst requesting further information on:


I hope you didn't pay for that ebook...

QUOTE
On examining the (so called) calibration certificate I realised (and it appears so far) that the device had not been calibrated since 10 January 2006, recalibration was due on 10 January 2007 circa 1 year from the alleged offence - unless they are keeping the valid certificate as actual evidence?


Calibration is valid for a calendar year, so the fact that it had almost expired is of little relevance. If it subsequently needed re-calibration (and they stated that on the next certificate) that might be a different matter.

QUOTE
Should I now sent the completed NIP contesting the alleged offence or wait for a second reply first? The NIP is dated 19/12/2007 and I don’t wish to give them any excuse to further penalise me for not sending it back within the permissible time…


If you have identified yourself as the driver, in a signed and dated letter, containing all the reasonably required information, you have complied with your requirements under s. 172 RTA 1988 (Jones v DPP.

QUOTE
Is one acting within the law as long as one confirms by letter to be the driver of the vehicle?


See above.

QUOTE
Under the specific circumstances, it is my understanding that the NIP is the only real document which stands up in court to aid possible prosecution.


Then your understanding is wrong. There is nothing special in law about the s. 172 driver identifcation proforma sent with the NIP.

QUOTE
I could get out of this dilemma by paying £60 and accepting 3 points on my licence but it’s pointless, unfair and unlawful to admit to an alleged offence when one is genuinely not accountable.


I'm not sure about the 'unlawful' part, but you have a constitutional right to make them 'prove' their case.

If you are convinced that you were not speeding, you will almost certainly need to obtain the video of the enforcement session to prove your innocence. This is unlikely to be easy.
Activate
Andy wrote:

Calibration is valid for a calendar year, so the fact that it had almost expired is of little relevance. If it subsequently needed re-calibration (and they stated that on the next certificate) that might be a different matter.

Hello Andy,


Thank you for your prompt reply. Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly on the calibration certificate. The device was calibrated on January 2006; it also states that recalibration was due again January 2007. The device was used on my vehicle on December 2007, this would make the certificate obsolete my almost 11 months.

I have identified myself as the driver and given all reasonable details but did not sign the letter. Do I still need to complete the NIP?

Yes I am convinced that I was not speeding, my speedometer was clocking WELL below 30mph.

No, I did not pay for the money making scheme ebook - obtained the info for free.

I appreciate your input and feedback on the subject.


andy_foster
It is possible that they forgot to submit the device for calibration, although it seems more likely that they simply sent the old certificate by mistake.

If your letter wasn't signed, and if there was a reasonable requirement for you to sign the s. 172 response, then you have not substantially complied with the requirements - you need to do so, either in the form of another letter, or on the form provided.
saracengb
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 20 Jan 2008 - 17:03) *
It is possible that they forgot to submit the device for calibration, although it seems more likely that they simply sent the old certificate by mistake.

If your letter wasn't signed, and if there was a reasonable requirement for you to sign the s. 172 response, then you have not substantially complied with the requirements - you need to do so, either in the form of another letter, or on the form provided.


Seems like Andy is the only one picking up this thread so I thought I'd muscle in

Activate - what Andy is saying is true - you've got some possible evidence to use in court if it comes to that is all at the the moment. Your legal obligation is that you as the RK - you are the registered keeper I take it? Why not use the NIP wizard to post a completed response while you're deciding what to do? Link at the bottom of this post - then we'll pick it up from there.

Phil

Activate
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - WITHHELD BUT WILL DISCLOSE PRIVATELY TO MEMBERS OF THE FORUM
Date of the offence: - December 2007
Date of the NIP: - 3 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 5 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - WITHHELD BUT WILL DISCLOSE PRIVATELY TO MEMBERS OF THE FORUM
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - It was Sunday, I was simply driving along on a 30mph zone well below the speed limit - always do. Several days later I was astonished to receive the NIP.

NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:27:21 +0000
Activate
Thank you both kindly for spending your precious time answering my query, I am following your recommendations and also completed the NIP wizard.

I welcome any input.

saracengb
QUOTE (Activate @ Sun, 20 Jan 2008 - 20:35) *
Thank you both kindly for spending your precious time answering my query, I am following your recommendations and also completed the NIP wizard.

I welcome any input.




You're welcome Activate - you'll find many more people on here willing to help I promise you. At the moment it seems that you are yet another victim of ruthless mobile laser camera operators using the equipment without considering the consequences. What these scamera partnerships hope is that the average motorist when presented with a NIP, a couple of photos and a letter from the Chief Constable, will bend over without question and take their very generous offer of a fixed penalty comprising of £60 and three penalty points. And sadly most do.

At the moment your only real course of action and of course your legal obligation as the RK is to hold onto the NIP until just before the 28 days is up. If you admit to being the driver at the time of the offence then you must say so. Failure to provide the identity of the driver will escalate beyond a mere speeding offence to a more serious one. Penalty if found guilty is a fine and 6 points for sure. If you're the driver then fess up and say so - that way they've no way of getting you on s.172 failure to identify.

You can then ignore any offers of fixed penalties and wait and see if they decide to prosecute you. You might be offered two COFP's and a reminder - maybe even a visit from the BiB too boot. If you're lucky the offence will time out and after 6 months they can't touch you because you've said you were the driver but not admitted to any offence. If you're not lucky then you might get a summons to appear and defend your case. At this point you can ask for any evidence they intend to use to prosecute you - and there's lots of help on here if it gets that far.

So send back the NIP in time saying you were the driver and then sit tight - it's as simple as that.

Of course this is purely my opinion and what I would do in your case. I'm at the same point with a NIP at the moment.

HTH

Phil
Chas820
QUOTE
The device was calibrated on 20 January 2006; it also states that recalibration was due again 20 January 2007. The device was used on my vehicle on 16 December 2007, this would make the certificate obsolete my almost 11 months.


I bet they find a current certificate before your case comes up rolleyes.gif

While you`re waiting to find out your fate i would take the opportunity to have a good read through the various threads not forgetting the sucess stories and their links.If you decide to fight this you WILL have a struggle to get the full session video(the little clip of you isn`t sufficient)They really don`t like you seeing these and have been known to drop the prosecution rather than let you see what the operator was really aiming at(see Boriscorns thread)

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...mp;hl=boriscorn

this is what you might come up against,But you can win.
Activate
Chas820 wrote:

“this is what you might come up against, but you can win”

Thanks Chas820 for the words of encouragement… I have visited the link you suggested - I hope it does not go as far as the court/s, it appears to be a mine field, but would indeed still pursue it.

Let us presume that a valid calibration certificate did not exist, and eventually one turns up out of the blue in a court of law. The offence of perverting the course of justice would apply in this case. Surely a third party would not be ignorant enough to get involved, i.e. COMPANY (UK) LIMITED.

That is unless they have intentionally or mistakenly forwarded the expired one.

I have also requested full details of their criteria for offering speed awareness courses as an alternative to a fixed penalty or other proceedings even though the allegation is 100% wrong.

Quattro
QUOTE (Activate @ Sun, 20 Jan 2008 - 02:36) *
Unfortunately, I only received photographic evidence, exact location of equipment, identification of actual device and the calibration certificate.

On examining the (so called) calibration certificate I realised (and it appears so far) that the device had not been calibrated since January 2006, recalibration was due on January 2007 circa 1 year from the alleged offence - unless they are keeping the valid certificate as actual evidence?


Can you email me the photographic evidence please?

And don't mention the calibration certificate any more cool.gif
The Rookie
QUOTE (Activate @ Mon, 21 Jan 2008 - 18:00) *

Let us presume that a valid calibration certificate did not exist, and eventually one turns up out of the blue in a court of law. The offence of perverting the course of justice would apply in this case. Surely a third party would not be ignorant enough to get involved, i.e. TELE-TRAFFIC (UK) LIMITED.


No, if it was valid then there is no attempt to pervert, only if its faked would it be an attempt to pervert.

Simon
Activate
QUOTE (Quattro @ Tue, 22 Jan 2008 - 09:41) *
Can you email me the photographic evidence please?

And don't mention the calibration certificate any more cool.gif


--

Sure, also in terms of position between vehicle and device operator - s/he was standing circa 30 degrees below the horizontal plane - it is in effect a fairly steep hill and I was driving up towards it.

I am not certain whether such relatively acute angle would affect the reading of the device or the ability of the operator to use it according to stipulated guidelines. Additionally, on the photo/s cars can be seen parked adjacent to the moving vehicle/s.


I guess the full video would show exactly what went on.

Having revisited the area, I suspect s/he was standing on the opposite side of the road, hidden within an old field entrance - what they refer to as “Partnership’s highly conspicuous vehicles” are not so highly prominent after all.

If you are driving on the opposite lane there is no way that they can be spotted. Not when you are driving along minding your own business anyway.

Activate
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 22 Jan 2008 - 09:55) *
No, if it was valid then there is no attempt to pervert, only if its faked would it be an attempt to pervert.

Simon


Understood smile.gif
The Rookie
Uphill/downhill doesnt matter, the device measures the speed of the target towarsd the device, so if the target isn't heading directly for the device then the speed it will measure is LOWER than the actual speed of the target (so its in your favour).

Simon
Activate
A certificate of conformity has suddenly turned up which accidentally (or not) expired 5 days after the device was used. I telephoned the company who calibrated the device, they maintain that the calibration was carried out on the said date - sure they would... Hhaa by the way: the peson who tested the device is on holiday wink.gif

The partnership have apologised for sending out an expired certificate in the first instance.

What are your thoughts?.

I am prepared to go to court, at what point should I start requesting more evidence? Shall I wait for the summons to arrive?
saracengb
AIUI

You won't get a summons until you've ignored any offers of FP, reminders etc. Provided you've told them who the driver was at the time - no point in giving them an open and shut case of failure to identify!

Won't get access to any evidence until you plead not guilty to a summons.

Although you might want to wait for someone with more posting history to come along before taking this as true happy.gif

HTH

Phil
The Rookie
Phil is correct, no evidence has to be supplied until you enter a not guilty plea to the summons....

If it was recalibrated that soon after the 'ping' and you go to court you'll want to see the new cal cert and maintenance record to see what (if anything) had to be done to it.....

Simon
Activate
Thank you!
Activate
N/A
Pete D
I am surprised you have not obtained copies of the photographs extracted form the video and or viewed the the video by appointment. You appea to be going to court blind, and it if most probably too late to view it now as they will not release it as a summons has been issued. you have done the roght things in gatherering evidence but you do not know how far away you were when you were pinged i.e. the range. I assume this was a scamera van. Complete the NIP Wizard ALL questions so we can see the facts. Pete D

Activate
N/A
Activate
N/A
Pete D
The thread has been reconstructed and I responded when the thread was broken and I was not aware. Pete D
Activate
N/A
Activate
N/A
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.