I have received a ticket for speeding at 85 on a dual carriageway - 70 limit. I intend to plead not guilty. Police evidence is a single policeman following for .25 mile in a car without a calibrated speedo, which was not checked until 12 days later. Will I be acquitted?

In theory they have just about enough, though, as you say its very weak and IMO well worth contesting

where are you in this, have you got a summons and evidence pack ?

Yes, I have summons and evidence pack. The evidence of the speedometer was disclosed more recently. The officer's statement arrived a while ago. I don't have details of the result of the speedometer check.

It seems this alleged offence was sometime ago, if he have summons.

Fill in the NIP and give us more details about the incident.

NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - August 2008
Date of the NIP: - 0 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 0 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): -
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known
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 - I was driving in the overtaking lane of a dual carriageway at 65mph. A police car came up very fast and close behind mine, without lights or sirens. I could not pull over because of traffic in lane 1. I overtook cars in lane 1, pulled over and slowed down to 50mph. Officer pulled in behind me. After bizarre "cat and mouse" driving for 10 miles the police car pulled me over. Officer claimed he thought I may be under influence of drugs or drink but did not test. Officer gave me a ticket for speeding. I dispute the offence.

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: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:10:17 +0100

What constabulary was he from and did he use a police pilot or any other manual distance over time speedmeter.

Sussex. He used the non-calibrated speedo in the car.

Just an observation...if police used the car speedo (which I assume is standard type), how do they measure 0.25miles? Surely that could give widely varying average speed as speedo only reads in 10ths and he would be trying to gauge at what point 0.2 becomes 0.25 and then 0.3.

What you need to question is:

1) A Police Orifice travelling at such an alleged high speed manages to take his eyes of the road for 0.25 miles and average your speed out to 85mph.

2) What exactly happened to the vehicle over the next 12 days? Was it repaired, were the tyres changed, did some other copper drive it over speed humps at 100mph?

3) I have been here before. HOW can someone use uncalibrated gauges to catch someone and then have them calibrated? Surely if this were to be the accepted method of catching speeders then NO Police vehicles would have calibrated gauges UNTIL they caught someone speeding at which point they would then go and have them checked. The clocks could've been reading out when he clocked you and then returned to normal over the period of twelve days. Calibration is an extremely technical area and requires experts. The Police are NOT experts and I would heavily question the lack of independant verification/certification that the speedo was calibrated.


There are other points to raise but I am a little brain dead at the mo.

Unfortunately the boxes have been ticked for the MINIMUM amount of evidence required to prosecute. I would continue your plea of Not Guilty though and challenge it in the courts as it IS a pretty weak pile of, er, evidence...

Are you saying the Speedo was uncalibrated because it was "certification expired" or because it merely was not of Calibrated type?
Can you recall what type of police car it was?

Think we need to have a butchers at the officers S9 statement, wash and post if possible!

It was a small van. The officer gave a further statement saying ..."contrary to the (ACPO) guidance the speedometer ... had not been calibrated and was not subject to regular checks. A even distance was maintained throughout and although the speedometer was regularly checked it was not done in relation to identifiable points."...

Just to pick up on what someone (probably) cleverer than me said....how was 0.25 miles measured, "normal" speedos have a unit of measure of 0.1 miles so he either measured you over 0.2 miles or 0.3 miles....

And an even distance on a busy DCW - think not!

Unless I'm missing something, this was on a dual carriageway so without corroboration (from pilot or calibrated speedo) a single officer CANNOT prosecute for speed.

It needs two officers unless their on a motorway or the officers opinion needs to be corroborated by an approved device..

An uncalibrated speedo is useless even if its been checked?!

I hope you are right. I was surprised the CPS wanted to continue, but they do. I have a friend who is a solicitor and he says he will represent me. He has never done traffic defences, but will be cheap! Is it sensible to go to court?

Not so. A bog standard speedo can corroborate an opinion of excess speed (as long as the excess speed is not too small, usually more than 10 mph over the limit). Nemo has the cases to hand, I do not.

The current ACPO document says (with my bold added):

"6. Speed Detection Using a Speedometer Fitted To a Patrol
Vehicle
This type of check, commonly known as the ‘follow check’ has been used by
police forces for a number of years and is readily accepted by the courts and
motoring public alike. If the speedometer is used to support the suspicion of
the officer then it must be tested as detailed below.
6.1 Means of Check
A road policing vehicle must be fitted with a certified calibrated speedometer
regularly tested in accordance with Force instructions.
The checking vehicle should be positioned to the rear of the suspected
offending vehicle so as to maintain, throughout the check, an even distance
between the vehicles.
Speedometer readings should be taken throughout, preferably related to
readily identifiable points passed.
6.2 Minimum Distance
2/10 of a mile, is the minimum distance recommended by ACPO for such a
check.
6.3 Speedometer Accuracy
The patrol vehicle speedometer should be checked for accuracy at the end of
a tour of duty after detection of an offending vehicle.
Speedometer accuracy can be checked using: a certified measured distance
with certified stopwatch or chronometer; or a rolling road type device; or
against another Type-Approved device NOT fitted to the vehicle, e.g. laser or
radar equipment.
6.4 Measured Distance
Each element of the checking procedure should withstand challenge, and
where certified distances are used these should be laid to engineering
standard. The evidence of the person creating a measured distance should be
available."

Is the ACPO guidance what the courts follow?

Guidance is just that. If not following it is not going to affect the validity of the evidence then it can be ignored. IF the evidence is compromised then it can't.

Sussex police have adopted the standards set out in the ACPO document as their policy. Why bother with policies, guidance and adopted standards if not to follow them?

Southpaw - Good to have you back!! OP - They are the guildlines that police should follow but see Southpaw's comment above. I will stand corrected on that point. It might be work sending Nemo a PM and asking him to come across to assist on this one if he has previous cases/experience.

Mr Curiosity: I sent a PM to Nemo as you suggested.

Southpaw82: The ACPO code sets standards for the type, operation and accuracy of the equipment used. As the equipment is used to corroborate the opinion of a single officer, how can it be relied upon if the standards are not followed?

Thanks to all of you for your contributions.

Quite so.

s.89(2) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides that a person 'shall not be convicted on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the defendant was driving at a speed exceeding the limit' ie some form of corroboration is required..

And whilst a court has the discretion to accept or reject (or deem insufficient to convict) any evidence which might be tendered in proceedings, in Nicholas vs Penny [1950] it was held that a person could be convicted on the evidence of one officer supported by evidence by him of the reading of a speedometer (or other mechanical means), even though there was no evidence that the speedometer had been tested for accuracy. In Nicholas, the defendant was said to be travelling at 10mph over the posted limit. The court noted that had the excess speed alleged been very low (ie 2mph-3mph over), then they might have called for evidence of accuracy of the speedometer. This principle was also applied in Swain vs Gillett [1974] and Darby vs DPP [1995] (see below):

This is not a novel argument and has been done to death here and before the courts many times before. The answer is that which I have already supplied to you: if the error is likely to affect the accuracy of the reading then the mistake is fatal. If it will not affect the accuracy of the reading then it can be ignored. It is the difference between "should be done" and "must be done".

Thanks very much for your replies. As I mentioned in a previous post the ACPO Operational code states "If the speedometer is used to support the suspicion of the officer then it must be tested as detailed below."

We all know what the ACPO code says. However, the reality is different. Face up to that reality or you could end up with a lot of egg on your face.

I tried arguing ACPO in court a number of years ago (before I was a legal eagle , er I'm still not) and I was laughed at.

What you have to remember is that the Police Officers would drive or walk around are simply WITNESSES to incidents of law breaking.

They do not decide the laws they merely enforce them. If a copper is following you and he is sure you are speeding then he forms his opinion, he will verify this opinion by any means available to him that are acceptable in a court.

Otherwise we could have most drivers driving around at excess speeds past any policecar/BiB basically sticking two fingers up on the way past. (as long as it wasnt Traffic!)

So we have here, Ocifer Opinion + Verification using Standard Speedo = Excess Speed

The 'speedo' is still open to question. Fair cop using the speedo to nail someone but it should have been checked at the end of the tour of duty NOT 12 days later... Also interesting with regards to the 0.25 miles, copper clearly got confused...

Best to wait and see what happens.

Thank you all very much for your replies. I am due to go to court tomorrow and this afternoon have received a Notice of Discontinuance from the CPS as there is not enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. I am unsure why they left it until the last minute as I have now incurred legal costs which I will apply to recover.

I suspect they knew that in court certain information would come out that would be fatal to teh case, they left it as long as possible hoping for a guilty plea, as one was not forthcoming they have folded, apply for your costs.

Oh and congrats....

My OPINION for what its worth is probably that the lack of detailed check information and the delay, plus possibly some details in the officers statement could added together cast 'reasonable doubt'?

Simon

Thanks Simon

The advice I was given on this site was excellent and authoritative. There were further points to the defence that I did not disclose here. I also feel that had the other side adhered to the ACPO guidelines they would have either not issued a ticket or had a successful prosecution.

Best regards

Further update:

The court has this morning made an award for costs in my favour, which covers all my legal expenses. Rather a waste of public funds to take this so far, but I suppose it comes out of another pot.