Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 2 x 104 mph Offences in 6 weeks
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
i8manutd
Good Afternoon,

My situation is that 6 weeks ago i was stopped on doing 104.3mph over 3.5miles with the police using a Vascar Device. I did not receive a paper NIP, but was advised i would receive a summons. The summons arrived and i am due in court at the end of the month.

Not learning my lesson late last night i was pulled over for doing 100 using a radar device. I was issued with a NIP on the spot. I made the officers aware of my previous situation and they suggested legal advice ASAP.

The officers last night suggested 'off the record' i should have received a NIP in paper format from their colleagues for the previous offence and to get legal assiatance asap. From what i understand from this site as well as others is that they could have just verbally advised me of this, i was so nervous i cant remember to be honest.

Completely idiotic to get caught twice and am now very very worried. I work in sales and cover 40k+ miles p/a and more likely than not a ban would result in losing my job.

Any advice would be much appreciated. I have spoke to 2 x Solicitors this afternoon, one of them advised to treat the 2 offences seperatly however from what i understand i cannot use the same exceptional hardship claim twice in 3 years?

Any advice is much appreciated and thanks for your time,
MartinHP71

A verbal NIP is fine so the second officer was giving you wrong information.

Caught twice at excisive speed will probably end up in a Ban irrespective of whether you combine or treat them as well although I am sure others on here might be able to offer the best advice about how to go forward. If you want to mitigate with hardship then it needs to be how it effects others, the courts won't really care how you suffer because it was fault.
i8manutd
OK. Well thanks for the heads up on the verbal NIP.

The impression i am getting on the hardship like you said is that it is not about me.
desktop_demon
IMHO an exceptional hardship argument is either applicable or it isn't. The idea that it can only be used once before becoming somehow invalid is a difficult concept. The problem is not that the argument cannot be used more than once, it is that the magistrates may not be moved to give it so much weight if the OP is convicted a second time for driving at the (alleged) excessive speed.

Can the OP give more information about the stop with the VASCAR? A VASCAR device is a prescribed time and distance meter that currently holds no certificate of type approval and so is not admissible as evidence in a speeding case. Were there two officers in the car. Was the VASCAR used when the police car was moving or was the VASCAR used from a stationary police car? The devil is in the detail.
i8manutd
Thanks for your reply,

In terms of the initial stop i was pulled over by a marked car (2 x officers) who suggested they had tracked me over a distance of 3miles and my average speed was recorded as 104.4mph. I would assume that they had followed me from a distance to get this measurement.

I would agree about the exceptional hardship been used more than once, however i am very concerned that the 2 cases of excessive speed have occured in a short space of time.

The second stop was by a stationary marked car using a gun device (No video or picture as far as i know). Again 2 officers in the car.

Thanks.....
jobo
it isnt that you cant use ex hardship twice, you just cant use the same exception hardship case twice



it isnt that you cant use ex hardship twice, you just cant use the same exception hardship case twice

how many grand mother have you got

southpaw82
Exceptional hardship arguments under s. 35(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988:

QUOTE
(4) No account is to be taken under subsection (1) above of any of the following circumstances‚ÄĒ

(a) any circumstances that are alleged to make the offence or any of the offences not a serious one,

(b) hardship, other than exceptional hardship, or

© any circumstances which, within the three years immediately preceding the conviction, have been taken into account under that subsection in ordering the offender to be disqualified for a shorter period or not ordering him to be disqualified.


Note that it applies in relation to totting up bans under s. 35(1) only - you can use the same hardship argument as often as you like to avoid an outright ban.
desktop_demon
Statistically speaking, being stopped at the roadside by a traffic patrol car with two officers on board is a difficult thing to defend. On a motorway only the opinion evidence of one officer is needed to properly convict for speeding offences. The opinion of two officers and a supporting device (eg speedometer) is an almost bulletproof prosecution case. Even if the evidence from the VASCAR device is inadmissible then there is still sufficient evidence to convict.

The same goes for the second case. The hand held speedmeters must be calibrated and deployment checks must be done at the start/end of use. So there are some procedural matters that can be raised as an issue, but again the evidence of the officers is enough in the circumstances. It can be done but only with skill and determination (and usually money)

QUOTE
however i am very concerned that the 2 cases of excessive speed have occurred in a short space of time.

Well I suppose at least the OP, the BiB and the magistrates will be in agreement on some things! smile.gif I presume the cases will be held in different courts - so it is likely that the mitigation/hardship arguments produced for one will not be known in the other. Unfortunately the fact a previous, similar speeding conviction might exist will somewhat spoil the party at the second hearing.

Any hardship submissions should not in any way be about the hardship the OP may experience. The OP's inconvenience is part of the penalty. The hardship in question is the hardship to others. So being forced to take the bus is no real hardship for one's aged relative to get to the shops. However if the OP's dependants needed transport for dialysis 3 times a week - that might be a proper consideration for the bench. Further example might be if the OP was a fireman or a lifeboat crew, then that would definitely more in line with the hardship the court might have in mind. It would be awful if a person drowned or was burn becuase the relevant crew could not be assembled due to transport problems.

Either way, good luck. And may be slow down a little when next behind a wheel... smile.gif
CountryCousin
If your job is reliant on driving for a living and you drive the large number of miles that you say you do then you may be wise to consider paying for one of the expert firms of road traffic solicitors listed on this website at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autoco...rticle&id=3 or the ABD's website at http://www.abd.org.uk/solicitors.htm. Also someone in your position might want to consider http://www.freemankeepondriving.com much favoured by Jeremy Clarkson and other well known celebrities.

If your whole livelihood depends on it and it is worth staking £5k or whatever on trying to get a favourable outcome (you get this back from the court in costs if you are not convicted) then it is often surprising how these legal experts can succeed in court while an ordinary individual representing themselves would almost inevitably not be successful.

By the way watch out for the fact that the amount of detail you have provided about your offences and the combined speeds and locations will almost certainly allow the other side to work out who you are. In that context I can only point out that most of the leading firms of defence solicitors consider it extremely unwise to give the prosecution any advance warning on this website of your intended defence strategy, especially if it involves any clever technical loopholes as the prosecution may then have prepared for it in advance and/or bring in expert witnesses to rebut your defence argument when they may not otherwise have done so.

In my own case I was foolish enough to make clear a variety of errors and inconsistencies in the Police Officer's statement on this website only to find that the Police Officer had then prepared excuses or explanations for those errors when I questioned him in court....
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.