Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Dangerous Driving Charge
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
MAZI
I am in Scotland and have just received a court citation for a dangerous driving charge today.
The police are saying i was doing in excess of 70mph at one point in a 30mph zone. They have a video recording of me, and the police car was doing over 70mph at one point to catch up with me although the speed detection systen on board the patrol car could not be used as it was suffering from a technical fault.

The summary of evidence also states that " The offending car has triggered a speed camera at approximately 67 miles per hour (facing the opposite way to the direction of travel) and continued to increase its speed and the police vehicles speed showed up to 75mph prior to the blue lights flashing.

What can I do to fight this in order to minimise the damage to my license?
Also does anyone know of a good specialist motoring lawyer in Edinburgh or Scotland?
jobo
need a lot more info

did they stop you

how many coppers
what did they say

did you get anything through the post

did you see the vid

what sort of speed camera was it

( how long ago was it

what the info laid date on the summons

do the np wiz
nemo
QUOTE (MAZI @ Fri, 6 Feb 2009 - 14:43) *
Also does anyone know of a good specialist motoring lawyer in Edinburgh or Scotland?

You could try Graham Walker or Michael Lyon.
MAZI
Sorry im new to all this and thanks for the prompt reply

Yes they did stop me on 26th December 2008 and show me the vidio but they only had the police car speed not my speed in the vidio

2 coppers and they charges me with dangerous driving and i was being very apologetic and cooprative althought at first they said they were charging me with a lesser charge

Just received court date in the post today (6 March 2009)

The camera was a Gatso on the side of the road which i thought they couldnt use to record my speed as it flashed me from the front. (Gatso flash is in addition to police car videoing my)

QUOTE (nemo @ Fri, 6 Feb 2009 - 15:01) *
QUOTE (MAZI @ Fri, 6 Feb 2009 - 14:43) *
Also does anyone know of a good specialist motoring lawyer in Edinburgh or Scotland?

You could try Graham Walker or Michael Lyon.



Which one is better?
I called michal Lyon before when this first happend and his prices were very expensive
nemo
QUOTE (MAZI @ Fri, 6 Feb 2009 - 15:08) *
I called michal Lyon before when this first happend and his prices were very expensive

Then perhaps it would be an idea to give Graham Walker a call.. wink.gif
Pete D
You do not appear to question the alleged speed. If the video shows the persuit and the police cars speed whilst maintaining a relative distance form you then that is enough evidence. Add to this they have collaboration from a speed camera of your and the cop speed then you are in a very difficuly position with what appears to be no defence. Can you provide more information, the circumstances, any justification for running. Pete D
desktop_demon
I would discount the flash from a speed camera being any sort of evidence as it is only type approved for receding traffic in automatic mode. If the use of the equipment does not satisfy the conditions to which the type approval is subject then it will be very difficult to introduce that as admissible evidence in a speeding charge. Or so the theory goes.... how did the occifers know that the camera was triggerred at "appoximately 67mph". I mean where did that number come from?

However I suppose the word of two police occifers with some sort of relevant video recording of the scene will be rather difficult evidence to overcome. What is the actual evidence for dangerous driving? Was it only the allegation of the "high speed" or were there other reasons given for considering the driving to be dangerous?
Pete D
Thats why I used the word collaborate not evidence. It just strengthens there case. They will have called for the images from the camara they saw flash.
MAZI
I dont know how the officers knew the camera was triggered at 67mph but thats what it says in the summary of evidence.
The only reason for the dangerous driving charge is the alleged speed.
My speed was not 70mph. The police car hit 70 odd mph to catch up from a distance but surely this does not prove that i was doing the same speed?
jobo
QUOTE (jobo @ Fri, 6 Feb 2009 - 14:49) *
need a lot more info



how many coppers
what did they say


did you get anything through the post



what sort of speed camera was it

(



do the np wiz


heres a list of question i asked a good few hours ago

go on haVE A GO
Hotel Oscar 87
QUOTE (desktop_demon @ Fri, 6 Feb 2009 - 16:10) *
I would discount the flash from a speed camera being any sort of evidence as it is only type approved for receding traffic in automatic mode. If the use of the equipment does not satisfy the conditions to which the type approval is subject then it will be very difficult to introduce that as admissible evidence in a speeding charge. Or so the theory goes.... how did the occifers know that the camera was triggerred at "appoximately 67mph". I mean where did that number come from?

I'm having to guess as much as we all are to the degree that the details we have are being lifted from a Summary of Facts as opposed to the full version of the officer's witness statement. That having been said it is perfectly permissible, and indeed is integral to the compilation of a statement, that the officer reports what he sees, but, herein lies the danger. Two observations, it would seem, have been recorded in such a way as the inevitable impression formed in the mind of the reader is that the facts are connected when they may actually be entirely coincidental.

Whether the officer(s) have fallen victim to what may well be an unintentional conflation or have used the facts cynically is a matter that might only emerge in cross-examination. My inclination is to suggest that cynicism is abroad and that this has been used to "gild the lily" the more so if it transpires that it is being reported by experienced traffic officers. I very much doubt that the officers will attempt to introduce any evidence from the Gatso itself as, if my belief proves correct, the "stitching together" of the two observations will have far more value in terms of damaging the OP. This may well prove useful, if it can be linked with other examples of similar practice in the statements, in damaging the officers' credibility though this is always a rocky road to go down.

Again this is guesswork but one can imagine the wording in the statement itself going something like:

"...the subject vehicle continued ahead and I maintained a constant distance from it when I saw it being driven past the fixed Gatso camera at [location]. As it did so I saw the Gatso's flash activate and noted at that point that the speed recorded on the police vehicle speedometer was 67mph".

One is tempted to point out that if the police vehicle was being driven at 70mph to catch a vehicle allegedly being driven at 67mph then it would not have closed the gap very quickly. If the gap at the beginning was, say, 200yards then it would have taken the police vehicle very nearly 2.5 minutes to close that to nothing. That probably speaks for itself.
nemo
QUOTE (desktop_demon @ Fri, 6 Feb 2009 - 16:10) *
I would discount the flash from a speed camera being any sort of evidence as it is only type approved for receding traffic in automatic mode. If the use of the equipment does not satisfy the conditions to which the type approval is subject then it will be very difficult to introduce that as admissible evidence in a speeding charge.

But the OP has been charged with dangerous driving, not speeding; and s.20 RTOA 1988 (and the requirement that the device be type appoved for the evidence to be admissible) does not apply to the offence of dangerous driving.

MAZI
Quote from summary of evidence

"The vehicle passed through one junction and one pedestrian crossingat approximately 56 mphupon the calibrated speedometer. The police vehicle maintained a similar speed to keep the car in sight
(the speed- detection system on board the patrol car could not be used as it was suffering from a technical fault.)

The offending car has then triggered a speed camera at approximatly 67 mph (facing the opposite way to the direction of travel) and continued on and through another junction in excess of 70 mph just prior to the blue lightsbeing activated."

Hope this adds some more light to the picture. Can the speed camers flash (facing the wrong way)
be used as evedence?
Also is the police cars alleged speedo reading sufficient evidence.
Finally should I plead guilty in the hope of a leniant outcome or not guilty and fight the charge.
nemo
QUOTE (MAZI @ Sun, 8 Feb 2009 - 23:14) *
Can the speed camers flash (facing the wrong way)
be used as evedence?

The officers are free to add anything they so choose to their statements if they consider that it is relevant and adds weight.

QUOTE (MAZI @ Sun, 8 Feb 2009 - 23:14) *
Also is the police cars alleged speedo reading sufficient evidence.

Almost certainly. But, ultimately, the court will always have the discretion to accept or reject any 'evidence' tendered during the proceedings and, if they choose to accept, exactly how much weight they should apply to it.

QUOTE (MAZI @ Sun, 8 Feb 2009 - 23:14) *
Finally should I plead guilty in the hope of a leniant outcome or not guilty and fight the charge.

There can be no denying that successfully defending an allegation such as this following a roadside stop is likely to be very difficult, particularly when it becomes a case of your word versus that of two serving police officers.

Unless you are able to demonstrate a fundamental evidential or procedural flaw, or be able to cast reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the officers' statements, then I suspect that you would be facing an uphill battle to contest and succeed.


charybdis
If the in vehicle detection equipment had a technical defect so that it could not be used, there would be a record of the repair, which you would be entitled to. No repair means no defect.

If there was a video of the follow, this could be viewed by an expert in order to ascertain whether the police vehicle maintained distance or whether it was closing. Likewise, the video should also have in-vehicle audio of the officers and may show a discrepancy in speed stated (by officers) and speed of police vehicle displayed on the video.
An expert could also give an opinion on whether a charge of excess speed/dangerous driving could be supported by the evidence. (an example: country A road - HGV driver charged with dangerous driving for crossing solid white line at a blind crossroad. There was a BUS STOP 4mtrs past xroads - vehicles have to cross solid line to overtake bus at stop. Video obtained from HGV drivers point of view showed both side roads were fully visible to him. Charge dropped. Dangerous driving is not always dangerous).

Legal aid is available for DD at Crown Court. Get solicitor to get suitable expert (ex traffic officer type).

Charybdis
MAZI
OK im really craping it big time now! Waiting on a friend who knows an advocate/QC to get me one of his contacts that specialise in motoring charges, failing that I will call Graham Walker or Michael Lyon.
Does anyone know of any other good motoring lawyers in Edinburgh or Scotland?
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.