Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Caught on M1 doing 105.1 mph
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Northerner
sad.gif I wish I had seen this site last night..

Anyway, on the way back home from a late one at work last night, I got pulled over by a old shape (W reg) BMW 5 series unmarked police car just north of Junc 25 M1 north. When in the car, copper in the passenger seat started to give me grief like 'I bet you think you are a good driver', 'Your driving is crap' and 'If you don't accept this, then I'll add dangerous driving' citing items like not joining the open lane through road works early enough and driving too close to a car (which had just cut me up!!).

He then proceeded to ask me what speed I thought I was going to which I replied 80-85, then pointed to the vascar box which reported 105.1mph icon_eek.gif and asked me to read the display.

He then mumbled what I think maybe a verbal nip but didn't caution me or ask me to sign anything, then handed me a notice of comtemplated proceedings. I also noticed that there was no apparent video camera in the car.

I hold my hands up to speeding but am concerned that;
1) There is 'possibly' no video evidence
2) The vascar measures the distancetime of the police car and not mine, in that he came after me at a far greater speed than I was travelling. Hence, my actual speed and my puported speed may be significantly different.
3) I was given no caution

Could any of the above give me any leverage?
chadders
When I got stopped recently, two coppers in car had vascar and showed me how it operates - they had a remote control and press a button to mark a time, and then press button again when you pass a fixed point.

This gives them the time for *you* to travel between two fixed points, and they are behind and thus have the distance hence they got your speed. Even if he comes after you faster, its *your* speed they've measured.
Northerner
Fair enough - but is there an error correction percentage like +/-5%?
DW190
Here is a good place to start

If you are told something you may remember 10-20 per cent of what you were told

If you read something you may remember 20-30 per cent of what you were told

If you write something down you will be able to refer to 100% guaranteed.
chadders
At 105 mph I wouldn't be too concerned with a +/-5% error on their speeding reading of you (I assume this is what you mean)...

http://pepipoo.com/Magistrates_guidelines.htm

I'm currently (still) awaiting summons for 107mph on M62 icon_redface.gif so I would assume you're in the same boat as me, going for damage limitation w.r.t. size of fine and length of ban.

Personally, if he's mentioned "dangerous driving" I would be *far* more concerned with that charge. If it helps here's a summary so far of the advice I've been given (all helpful):

1. Plead guilty for speeding (I am, no bones of contention with that I made a mistake and have to pay for it - sure as hell not doing it again!).

2. Take a solicitor along to show taking charge seriously, and so I don't make things worse by saying the wrong thing!

3. Act humble, make sure you say you're sorry and wear a suit, show them respect - you know you're in the wrong.

4. You'll have gone through with your solicitor beforehand any mitigating circumstances - i.e. reasons for keeping fine low (from what I've read you can arrange to make payment monthly by direct debit), and for keeping a ban as short as possible.

5. One good bit of advice was a letter from your boss/company, to act a bit as character reference and how they have seen a change in you since the event (i.e. you're worried).

6. DO NOT PICK UP ANY POINTS OR SUCH LIKE WHILST YOU WAIT TO GET THIS ONE SORTED OUT! Drive like a saint, it may be crap and really annoying but you'll look naff in court if you can't produce your licence as it's away getting endorsed already!
Northerner
Because I recieved no formal caution, does that mean that anything discussed in the police car is not admissable as evidence?
DW190
QUOTE (Northerner)
Because I recieved no formal caution, does that mean that anything discussed in the police car is not admissable as evidence?


Generally yes but some officers tell porkies.
Northerner
QUOTE (chadders)
At 105 mph I wouldn't be too concerned with a +/-5% error on their speeding reading of you (I assume this is what you mean)...


If I could successfully argue -5% correction for human error, being night-time, etc then the speed noted would correct to under 100mph and I would take 3pts and the fine without hestitation. A ban is a different matter.

QUOTE (chadders)
Personally, if he's mentioned "dangerous driving" I would be *far* more concerned with that charge.


The copper who handed me the notice of consideration didn't tick the option for dangerous driving (dd) but only for speeding. Probably 'cause the burden of proof for dd is far greater that speeding which is an absolute offence.

However, one of the angles i'm looking at is if the police did not follow the rules correctly - can I get this quashed?
BA21
QUOTE (Northerner)
If I could successfully argue -5% correction for human error, being night-time, etc then the speed noted would correct to under 100mph and I would take 3pts and the fine without hestitation. A ban is a different matter.


By design, speedo's always read fast. The DoT rules for UK/EU type approval are +0% to -10% (That is the actual speed is up to 10% less than the indicated speed). In practice, most new cars read -1% to -3% I am told. If you were clocked at 105, your speedo probably read closer to 110.

The above assumes that your car isn't modified whit non standard tyres/rims, and that it's not a grey import from the USA or Japan.

IMHO, there is no mileage in mentioning anythig like this in defence.

BA21
^Qwerty^
I thought speeding was an absolute offence, therefore they don't need to caution you?

Then again, it's probably my head getting mixed up with all the stuff I read on here smile.gif
Lance
Did the officers get any i.d. off you?
Divbad
QUOTE (^Qwerty^)
I thought speeding was an absolute offence, therefore they don't need to caution you?

Then again, it's probably my head getting mixed up with all the stuff I read on here smile.gif


icon_wink.gif "Absolute offence" means "strict liability", i.e. there is no mental element to the offence, just the act itself. So, if the car was going at limit plus 0.001 MPH, then the offence is committed. This is known as the actus reus

Most offences require an "intention" or "malice aforethought" or "recklessness" or "carelessness" - the mental bit or, as wot us posh gits would say, the mens rea

The caution aspect is highly contentious and is being hotly debated in various places on this forum. Most folks say a caution is required because the stopped driver is being asked, effectively, to incriminate themselves.

The Privy Council disagreed in Stott v Brown, but European Court had already agreed in Murray, Saunders, and Kansal.

Sadly, domestic courts appear to be ignoring Europe for the moment... but watch cases ongoing in Devizes for developments!
Divbad
QUOTE (DW190)
QUOTE (Northerner)
Because I recieved no formal caution, does that mean that anything discussed in the police car is not admissable as evidence?


Generally yes but some officers tell porkies.


Have a look at this case - it's not a guarantee but there may be some leverage here.
Northerner
QUOTE (Lance)
Did the officers get any i.d. off you?

None at all. Didn't sign anything either.

BA21 - I was reffering to the vascar operation

My view is on the caution that I should have been cautioned as anything subsequently stated by myself - could be used as evidence.

As it happens, I recieved no caution and did not admit to driving at 105.1 mph but admitted driving in excess of 70 mph.

I may be blinkered in my reasoning, but feel that I wasn't travelling in excess of 100mph but slightly under and will hold my hands to speeding. However, no error correction has been applied and that could have a major outcome of the resulting penalty.

Is it worth pursuing this angle or am I going up a dead end?
Divbad
The offence is "driving over 70mph", so 71 is "guilty"... but that rather depends exactly who can be evidentially proven in court to be the driver. Admitting the offence doesn't do you many favours though!

The difference between 71 and 99 is the size of the fine, and the difference beteen 99 and 101 is the difference between points and a ban.
cjm99
Proving identity will not be a major problem. As the magistrates will definately be considering a ban, the defendant will have to attend in person. The police man will identify him purely by his location in the court room. icon_eek.gif Recently, Collin Montgomery got off, by sending a solicitor but this will not be an option.

If he fails to respond to the summons, or alleges not to be the driver, he will be embarking on the road to purjury, and a holiday at one of her majesty's hotels.
Northerner
The identity thing was never going to be an angle.

Am I best just getting a solicitor to put forward a good set of mitigating circumstances or is there any more angles I could look at?
cjm99
The process has hardly started, and the opportunity for errors is large.

Wait untill you receive a summons, and repost. We will all know then exactly what we are dealing with.
Lance
The idea I was driving at was this. As I understand it, you are not required to attend a Magistrates' Court in England.

Of course, this idea is rather old now, so I don't know if they've figured out a way round it. It may be that they video recorded the inside of the cop car, or you getting out of your car.
Divbad
QUOTE (Lance)
Of course, this idea is rather old now, so I don't know if they've figured out a way round it.


They have, and it's called a NiP icon_evil.gif
DW190
I say this with tongue in cheek but I think cjm99 may be wrong on this point.

Unless an accused is bailed to appear at court he need not attend.

He can be represented in his absence by a solicitor. If the case gets to a point were the accused is to be found guilty (and the sentence of a ban) there would be an adjourned and the mags would issue a warrant for an appearnance next hearing.

A good solicitor like Nick Freeman (Very Expensive) gets the cases dropped on lack of identification evidence.
Lance
I may be wrong, but I don't think that you are obliged to appear even if you are banned. It's just that the courts prefer it, partially I guess because it is a fairly harsh penalty and they'd like to see you, but also because they want to make sure that you understand that you are banned. My impression is that they would be OK with a solicitor.

I seem to remember that a user here was determined not to appear (or be represented) - he didn't want to take a day off work on top of everyhting else - and I think that the court conceded that they wouldn't make him, though I forget what the final outcome was. Ah, found it, he did go in the end as he thought it would be better for him. But the thread clearly shows that he didn't have to, and I believe he could have been represented.

Divbad,
Our friend hasn't received an NIP. He should have got a verbal one in the police car, but the whole point is that the CPS would have to prove that it was our friend in the car, and unless the police got some evidence, that may not be possible.

DW190,
It is true that decent representation is not cheap. But let's think about what will happen to our friend if he gets 6 points, a fine and/or a short ban for 105 mph. He will end up paying more on his insurance for the next FIVE YEARS on every policy for which he is a named driver. This can easily mount up to a few grand. It may also affect his employment prospects. He may be unlucky and get more points and be banned under totting up for six months. In short, it could become an expensive nightmare. I say its worth fighting, particularly as you can get the costs back if you win.
DW190
QUOTE
DW190,
It is true that decent representation is not cheap. But let's think about what will happen to our friend if he gets 6 points, a fine and/or a short ban for 105 mph. He will end up paying more on his insurance for the next FIVE YEARS on every policy for which he is a named driver. This can easily mount up to a few grand. It may also affect his employment prospects. He may be unlucky and get more points and be banned under totting up for six months. In short, it could become an expensive nightmare. I say its worth fighting, particularly as you can get the costs back if you win.


I agee it would be better to fight. But fighting against two coppers is not recomended and plod is certain to be beilieved.

If he did not attend and was represented how could he be identified unless identiication has been provided at the scene.

Its the Darren Fergusson and Solicitor to the Stars Nick Freeman defence I was thinking of.
Lance
DW190,
Exactly, that was what I was thinking of too, but where I depart form you is that I don't think that you are required to attend even for sentencing.
Divbad
So there are two lines of defence: -

1. No positive id and, unless Northerner shows up in court and is pointed out by one / both officers, there may well be nothing to connect Northerner with the person that the officers spoke to.

2. Uncertain evidence of actual speed; which side of the magic ton makes a difference.

I would suggest sending a cheap solicitor along to any hearing - with very clear instructions would be a reasonable starting point.

QUOTE (Instructions for Solicitor)
Northerner does not admit being the person that the Officers say that they spoke to on <date> at <time> at <place> and it is for the Crown to prove firstly that Northerner was the person that the police spoke to, secondly that a verbal NiP was given, and thirdly that the alleged offence was committed by Northerner.
DW190
QUOTE (Lance)
DW190,
Exactly, that was what I was thinking of too, but where I depart form you is that I don't think that you are required to attend even for sentencing.


I think you may be right Lance but they do prefer you to be there if a ban is on the table to hear your plea of mitigation and to see what effect it would have on your life.

Also if you are banned, your ban starts with immediate effect, so its wise to know.

It is a good thing to send a friend along for a little chat with the solicitor and then let him sit at the back of the court. I guarantee the coppers point at him when asked to identify the driver.
Northerner
Ok, recieved my summons and read with interest.

* Copper claims he issued me with a NIP, but actually gave a notice of consideration

*Also claims I admitted the reported speed - Absolute rubbish

Engaged the services of a local solicitor who is under the impression that the vascar system is linked to a camera system and has requested a copy of the video and all evidence.

He reckons if there is no video, they have no case as they cannot confirm my indentity.

I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts on this
DW190
QUOTE
He reckons if there is no video, they have no case as they cannot confirm my indentity.  

I'd appreciate everyone's thoughts on this


I would agree.  You must not attend court, otherwise if the coppers are there ou will be identified.
andypandy
He could send a smartly dressed friend to sit in the public gallery on court day.  The copper might mistakenly point to him as the driver

Edit DW has already said this icon_redface.gif
DW190
QUOTE (andypandy)
He could send a smartly dressed friend to sit in the public gallery on court day.  The copper might mistakenly point to him as the driver

Edit DW has already said this icon_redface.gif

Smartly dressed in pin striped suit sits next to solicitor.  When pointed to in identification starts to take note for solicitor.
Northerner
Case update:

Case adjourned for 4 weeks whilst CPS try and locate the in-police car video, which they admit may not exist.
Northerner
Case update:

Have been to court after numerous adjornments and received 6 points and a £300 fine - which I thought was OK.

In the end, I thought better of arguing against the police and went for mitigating circumstances instead.
chadders
Well at least there's a little consistency here - more or less identical to what I received.

Well done anyway! I'm guessing that you'd already prepared for a harder hammering off them - so in a way a result.

There is at least one good thing out of all this, you're a hell of a lot more clued up on motoring law (and know where to come in future). We all find this site through various different ways.

Like me you probably know what you've done was a bit daft (speed wise - and I mean in respect of 'excessive')  - but that's not to say that I bet you're glad you can now get back to doing a safe 75/85 on the motorway! Just remember, that car that flies past doing the ton plus will get their day (sit back and be smug).

NB: don't want anyone misinterpreting this post - you know what I'm 'getting at' and not the scammer-$hite propoganda.
Northerner
TBH Chadders, my case has highlighted the hypocrisy of the law when dealing with speeding motorist.

It clearly shows that the police feel that they are above the law, as highlighted in the ongoing case of a pc being clocked at 159mph and state in court "I had taken the opportunity to familiarise myself with that vehicle." I'll remember to use that if I ever get pulled over again.

In my opinion, some of the police feel that they are far superior than ANY other motorist on the road and can dictate the law as they see fit. So much for being innocent before proven guilty.
chadders
You were fighting a losing battle I fear against two coppers though?

NB: I've put a reply against that 160mph copper in the news forum and am in total agreement with you.
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.