Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Manned Camera
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
lloydyboy123
Hi all,new user smile.gif
Recieved letter today (n i p) in my wifes name.informing me that said vehicle was exceeding limit of 40 mph - clocked at 65 (apparently).Road is named.date and time. I dont dispute it but would be interested to know: Exact location and whether i can dispute the alleged findings.Also says allegation is supported by photo and/or video.Presumably i was driving and not my wife.Any suggestions on how to go about disputing/asking for further proof etc? many thanks...ps i never saw any manned camera on said route,presume copper was snidily hiding behind a hedge or sign as is usually the case!
(also)if it comes to it and i opt to pay fine/points etc can i take 28 days to answer each stage of proccess ie: name the driver ,send at 25 days,request photo etc after next letter from them,respond just within the 28 days, in other words can this be stringed out for some period of time? thx again
southpaw82
If you're going to ask for the photo prior to pleading not guilty then you need to ask to see it before you name the driver - this i sbecause you are not entitled to any evidence (yet) but can ask for photos to help ID the driver. You might well get one or more photos from this, which should help you decide whether it's worth fighting or not.

The fact that you don't dispute the speed is a good indication that there's no defence open to you.
lloydyboy123
ok thanks for advice,i dont dispute speeding but could not honestly say what speed i was doing as i honestly didnt spot the copper.So he must have been hiding.could do with seeing where pics were taken from to justify my comments.thanks again
Hotel Oscar 87
Hi lloydyboy

NIP's must be replied to within 28 days - unless your wife is prepared the risk of 6 points and £300+ fine for failure to furnish so you should get on with the application for photos to "assist in identifying the driver". Don't forget that if the NIP is in your wife's name then she is the one that must reply (there will be a note on the NIP somewhere stating words to the effect "You must not pass this document to a third party"). In theory you will then be issued with an NIP in your own name. There is always a chance (a slim one though) that they may cock up and fail to issue yours but I'd not put any money on that eventuality.

As southpaw has stated the still photos should give you a reasonable clue as to was going on and enable you to make a fuller decision.
lloydyboy123
appreciate the comments southpaw and oscar
Zed Victor One
ps i never saw any manned camera on said route,presume copper was snidily hiding behind a hedge or sign as is usually the case!

Due to the size/weight of the equipment involved it is more likely to have been a van than somebody stood near the road side, and are you sure it was a copper? We always seem to get the blame and yet quite a lot of the vans are manned by civilians. I don't know or need to know where you are but in this neck of the woods they are manned by civilians the only copper in the system does the reviewing because the rules say we have to otherwise that would be a civvy as well.

One thing you need to be aware of is that at 25 mph over the limit you could be looking at a short period of public transport so get your request for the photo's in asap just in case there's an eror that can be picked up on.
lloydyboy123
blimey,fancy doing the polices job for them,always the way though aye,never mind, got nice photos back now,shows rear of car,cant tell who driver is though,any ideas on what course to follow next please?do i blow myself up or let the wife cop for it? thanks all.dont believe i would be banned from a clean licence to a ban as victor suggests?!? thx
southpaw82
Well, do you know who was driving or not?
lloydyboy123
to quote a common police expression " i cannot recolect at present"

should i send another letter stating above? one really cannot see from pics who driver is,letter asks for name and addresses of all persons entitled to drive. Interesting point is that anyone can drive any car nowadays as long as permission is given and as long as entitled to do so on ins. policy. (most now allow this), so in theory a long list can be given? any comments appreciated.
southpaw82
My only comment would be - "don't lie".
lloydyboy123
ok, but what about those other sites that urges you to write in stating that you dont know who was driving and to ask for police officer training and calibration records etc etc. Why cant this course be followed? ta
southpaw82
You can't say you don't know who was driving if you do (and I don't know if you do or not).

You can however ask for photos etc that may assist in identifying the driver. This may imply that you don't know who was driving but then again it might not.

You're not entitled to any evidence at this stage so requests for sundry certificates etc is liable to be refused.
lloydyboy123
like i say got the pics and you really cant tell who driver was.of course i have an idea,but in principal i would like to take this as far as poss.It interests me that members of the public are permitted to use these instruments to "entrap" fellow motorists - ok i know the car was speeding - but what special powers have these individuals to enable them to act as enforcers of the realm?!? whatever next. seriously though mr . "fix it" often challenges these cases and more often than not succeeds,so challenging the n.i.p is not impossible to do,is it? (just havent got the £££ for mr fix it) cheers...
southpaw82
QUOTE (lloydyboy123 @ Sat, 16 Aug 2008 - 18:16) *
members of the public are permitted to use these instruments to "entrap" fellow motorists - ok i know the car was speeding - but what special powers have these individuals to enable them to act as enforcers of the realm?!?


I don't know who you're talking about I'm afraid.
lloydyboy123
i meant mr "loophole" Nick freeman - google it,also see below , of relevant interest ...

Thousands of motorists could have their speeding fines refunded thanks to a landmark court case taking place this week.

A businessman will tell magistrates his penalty charge should be overturned because the hand-held camera that caught him driving over the limit was operated by a civilian and not a serving police officer.

If he is successful, there will be a flood of similar challenges that will leave police forces with the prospect of paying back millions of pounds in fines. Motorists could also see penalty points wiped off their licences.

The case, which is backed by a pressure group opposed to speed cameras, centres on what it claims is a flaw in the Police Reform Act 2002.

The Act gave chief constables the power to employ civilians in some roles. But, according to campaigners, it did not give them the legal right to catch speeding drivers.

Empowerment

Mike Morgan, who runs the anti-speed camera website www.pepipoo.com and will speak on the driver's behalf at the hearing in Devizes Magistrates' Court, Wiltshire, told The Mail on Sunday: "There is no question in our minds that the camera partnerships are acting outside of the law by using civvies instead of police officers.

"Police constables are considered to be officers of the Crown and, as such, are deemed to be able to form what is known as a prior opinion of excess speed. The camera or other device provides the secondary opinion - but one is not valid without the other.

"We have sought top legal advice and they agree that there is no Act of Parliament that gives the civilian camera operators the empowerment to give primary evidence - only a police officer can do that."

The Home Office declined to comment and referred callers to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). But there would be major consequences if the motorist wins in Devizes on Tuesday as many police forces began using former parking wardens and retired officers to man their speed traps two years ago. The businessman from Wiltshire faces a £60 fine and three points on his licence.

His defence team persuaded magistrates at a previous hearing to order the Crown Prosecution Service to show where in the statute book it says that civilians operating the camera on their own can decide someone has been speeding.

Civilian operators

If the businessman is successful, then thousands of motorists prosecuted for speeding on the same basis could also have their charges declared legally invalid. Similarly, those who have already paid a fine and incurred points on their licence could appeal.

As The Mail on Sunday's undercover expose revealed last week - courts are already struggling to cope with the sheer volume of cheques for speeding fines. The Treasury banked £17million last year after safety camera partnerships in the UK went over their targets for the number of motorists they planned to catch.

Robert Dobson, a solicitor who specialises in road traffic cases, believes the Home Office should be preparing itself for a 'rough time'.

A straw poll of the UK's 42 camera partnerships found 11, including Hampshire, and Dorset, admitted using civilian operators for their mobile devices although the Metropolitan Police in London and Thames Valley solely employed police officers.

An ACPO spokeswoman said: "A number of safety partnerships employ civilian operators for the purpose of speed enforcement. ACPO are satisfied that the position is legal and at the outset of this process obtained legal advice that supported this position


exactly what i was trying to say in above posts... hoorah .. any feedback still welcomed......
Zed Victor One
Until a decision has been made in the case your referring to you are still required by law to complete the Sec.172 requirement to name the driver or show that you have exercised reasonable diligence to identify the driver and failed.
Non compliance with the Sec.172 could result in 6 points and £200.00 instead of 3 points and £60.00, you can't base a defence on case law until that case has been decided. If the decision goes in Mr. Freeman's favour then you may have grounds to appeal against your speeding conviction.
As for taking it as far as possible that decision is yours as long as you're aware of the consequences if your unsuccessful.
The Rookie
With the new sentancing guidelines, £600-£900 fines are being seen for S172 offences......on a average £32.5K salary the fine (according to the guidelines) will be £750, so be sure that if your wife decides that she can't ID the driver, she can demonstarte she could not do so despite using reasonable dillignce, then there is the 6 points that you get as well!

Simon
telecasterisation
QUOTE (Zed Victor One @ Tue, 5 Aug 2008 - 23:19) *
ps i never saw any manned camera on said route,presume copper was snidily hiding behind a hedge or sign as is usually the case!

Due to the size/weight of the equipment involved it is more likely to have been a van than somebody stood near the road side, and are you sure it was a copper? We always seem to get the blame and yet quite a lot of the vans are manned by civilians. I don't know or need to know where you are but in this neck of the woods they are manned by civilians 'the only copper in the system does the reviewing because the rules say we have to otherwise that would be a civvy as well.'

One thing you need to be aware of is that at 25 mph over the limit you could be looking at a short period of public transport so get your request for the photo's in asap just in case there's an eror that can be picked up on.


Can you elaborate on this please 'the only copper in the system does the reviewing because the rules say we have to otherwise that would be a civvy as well'?

I know this is 100% not the case in my area - the viewers are all civilians, in fact not much more than teenagers. They simply review each alleged offence, select the obvious 'money shot' containing the asterisk etc, then a second frame if appropriate.

What rules are you quoting exactly that say a regular officer must review?
southpaw82
Only a constable can issue a fixed penalty notice. A civilian can not send one out. A civilian can send out an NIP, if authorised by the Chief Officer of Police.
telecasterisation
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 17 Aug 2008 - 17:58) *
Only a constable can issue a fixed penalty notice. A civilian can not send one out. A civilian can send out an NIP, if authorised by the Chief Officer of Police.


Whilst I acknowledge your response, it doesn't come close to addressing the question. The subject on the table is actually viewing the tapes/DVD's when they arrive at the CPU. I know that civilians do this, yet it has been stated that;

'the only copper in the system does the reviewing because the rules say we have to otherwise that would be a civvy as well'?

Perhaps 'reviewing' isn't viewing? So what exactly is reviewing? There are no regular police officers whatsoever in my CPU, they are all civilians to the last and no serving police play a hand in any part of the process from data capture at the scene to the rattle of the letter box.
southpaw82
A civilian can review the tapes and send out the NIP (if authorised). What they can not (lawfully) do is issue a conditional offer of fixed penalty because this power is reserved to constables by virtue of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Zed Victor One
QUOTE (telecasterisation @ Sun, 17 Aug 2008 - 18:27) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 17 Aug 2008 - 17:58) *
Only a constable can issue a fixed penalty notice. A civilian can not send one out. A civilian can send out an NIP, if authorised by the Chief Officer of Police.


Whilst I acknowledge your response, it doesn't come close to addressing the question. The subject on the table is actually viewing the tapes/DVD's when they arrive at the CPU. I know that civilians do this, yet it has been stated that;

'the only copper in the system does the reviewing because the rules say we have to otherwise that would be a civvy as well'?

Perhaps 'reviewing' isn't viewing? So what exactly is reviewing? There are no regular police officers whatsoever in my CPU, they are all civilians to the last and no serving police play a hand in any part of the process from data capture at the scene to the rattle of the letter box.


Perhaps southpaw knows the act and section in question but I was lead to believe there was still a requirement for a police officer within the system. Locally the one in the system here does the reviewing of the offences, perhaps it's changed but they still retain one officer here to comply with this requirement.
southpaw82
Conditional offers of fixed penalty:

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s. 75:

(1) Where in England and Wales—
(a) a constable has reason to believe that a fixed penalty offence has been committed
lloydyboy123
ok i get what you are all saying - police state -no way out-just pay up etc etc.but my point is and can someone answer this specifically please.
i have been asked to identify the driver of the vehicle,"please provide names,addresses and d.o.b "(how many peoples d.o.d. do you know!) So and this is the bit... in theory the list of names that i could in theory provide could be extensive and could include all of my family and friends because most fully comp ins policys allow people to drive other vehicles with owners consent,do you see where i am coming from? It is only what i have been asked to do in letter.

No doubt i will end up paying but if more people actually fought the system perhaps we could all make a difference to the nanny state,same with tv licence fees,road tax ,clamping fees and many other enforced "fees" and fines.They cant send us all to prison,look at the poll tax,so come on folks,dont just accept it cos you are told it cannot be fought, we would have lost the war on that ethos!

phew-got that off me chest. probab last post on subject now,off to fill in my N.I.P
southpaw82
Supplying a list of possible drivers is not naming the driver, is it? wink.gif

So the list of drivers you're required to provide is a list of one.
lloydyboy123
yes but im a busy man and my car is an old banger free for all to use ... as long as you have the relevant insurance wink.gif
feel free to ask if you need to borrow it mate
southpaw82
Ta, very much. You do follow the point though that providing a list of possible drivers is not compliance with s. 172 though? I might be missing your point mind...
wannabemedic
What happened with the magistrates court hearing due to take place today (post 15)?
lloydyboy123
"What happened with the magistrates court hearing due to take place today (post 15)?"

Yeah been trying to find outcome to no avail! it was on the daily mail web page,type in speeding fines/cases etc and lots of recent interesting cases.Lots from policemen using "loopholes" to get out of fines etc.Always the way aye? "Do as i say,not as i do" springs to mind - disgusted wiv police.
check it out... ps. it was pepipoo rep that was representing said court case,thought there would be more on this site about it?!?
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.