Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 110mph on Toll Road
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Dogg
Hi all - was caught last week doing 110mph on the M6 Toll Road where they were carrying out some sort of speed check (LTi 20/20 on top of the bridge and the cars hidden in slip road).

When I was stopped they were actually quite nice and gave me a verbal NIP - refused to give me a FPN because I was going over 95 and so they said they had to summons me. I've looked at the sentencing guidelines and can expect a 2 week (generally) ban or 6 points and a fine.

I've received the paperwork this morning and there's no photographic evidence, just the statements but they look to be in order if I'm honest.

So, I have two options:

1. Plead guilty by post
2. Plead guilty in Court

I wondered which would be better? I actually used to be a traffic cop a few years back (not motorway) but am still class one advanced trained and so don't know whether to mention this or not? On the one hand I can say that I was concentrating on driving and looking as far ahead as possible and the speed just crept up, or they may be harsher on me because I should have known better (I've dealt with accidents where speed has killed so I do know the consequences)

I am definitely going to plead exceptional circumstances because I need my license to do my job, and if I don't have my job then we will lose our house and family will break up. In fact I'm running two mortgages at the minute because we were forced out of our last house due to racist attacks (my wife is Indian) and so I was thinking of mentioning that too.

A few forums have stated that if you get a 2 week ban you don't have to retest or do anything, and I didn't know that this was the case - I was thinking that it may be worth taking two weeks holiday in that case, not driving and then carrying on as normal? Or would I get the old provisional and then have to retake test etc?

Anyone think a driver awareness course would be on the cards or am I pushing my luck (I think I already know the answer to this one)

I was a bit annoyed really, as although I was driving fast, the road was quiet and dry, and I had planned well in advance what other drivers may or may not do was was actually still driving safely - do you know what I mean?

Anyhow - plead guilty by letter or attend? Try and go for a short ban or points?

What do people think?
bargepole
Others will disagree, but I would like to run the defence that as the M6 Toll is owned by Midland Expressways, and you pay to go on it, it is effectively a private road, and therefore not subject to any speed limit restrictions. Any restrictions signposted are therefore a matter of contract between the driver and the landowner, for which the only remedy for breach is a civil claim for damages in a county court.

Since the Police are not a party to this contract, their evidence is irrelevant and should be excluded from any proceedings, your honour.

This would run and run, and the national newspapers would have a field day with it. I'm sure you'd lose in the end, but it would cause much squirming and fudging by the scammers, the CPS and the courts.
Hotel Oscar 87
Your choices are pretty limited and you've correctly identified them - in terms of options at court.

Whilst there may be a "general rule" (I'm assuming that you've looked at local courts' averages) that you'd pick up 14 days short-term ban for 110mph be mindful that the Magistrates will have up to 56 days to play with. As far as "exceptional circumstances" are concerned the exceptional hardship you are going to have to show if you are to minimise the length (or indeed imposition of) any ban will be that likely to be suffered by those around you not you yourself.

As for the actual choice I'd always recommend a personal appearance as opposed to pleading by letter. The latter do tend to get a little rubber stamped and as you are likely to face a ban in any event and may well be required to attend a second hearing I'd suggest that it is probably the best option.

I'd see no reason why you couldn't present your mitigation yourself based on the assumption that you've been to court at least a few times. There is enough advice and guidance here for you to build it up coherently IMHO and a booted, suited genuinely contrite defendant is always going to do better than another case on a sheet of paper. The day is likely to be expensive so why add to it by pushing the cost even higher by including a solicitor's appearance fee?

Without an understanding of your circumstances its a little difficult to suggest whether points or a short, short-term ban would be the most sensible option.

That having all been said it strikes me as slightly incongruous that a former Class 3 is advising a former Class 1. I always said I had no problem helping traffic out but it seemed then that they never thought they needed any!
Pete D
The RTA fully applies to the M6 Toll Road. This has been discussed on several times. Pete D
Dogg
QUOTE (Hotel Oscar 87 @ Sat, 14 Nov 2009 - 11:26) *
Your choices are pretty limited and you've correctly identified them - in terms of options at court.


That having all been said it strikes me as slightly incongruous that a former Class 3 is advising a former Class 1. I always said I had no problem helping traffic out but it seemed then that they never thought they needed any!


I was always after the drug dealers, never the speeders - always thought it was a bit hypocritical lol

Thanks for the advice though
C.T.C
QUOTE (Dogg @ Sat, 14 Nov 2009 - 10:57) *
I actually used to be a traffic cop a few years back (not motorway) but am still class one advanced trained and so don't know whether to mention this or not?


I'd say No.

You must realise that admissions like that normally add to a sentence or make the CPS try that little bit harder. dry.gif
Equalizer
QUOTE (C.T.C @ Sat, 14 Nov 2009 - 14:15) *
QUOTE (Dogg @ Sat, 14 Nov 2009 - 10:57) *
I actually used to be a traffic cop a few years back (not motorway) but am still class one advanced trained and so don't know whether to mention this or not?


I'd say No.

You must realise that admissions like that normally add to a sentence or make the CPS try that little bit harder. dry.gif


Agreed! Absolutely a no, no!! You'd be set up as an "example".
soft_lad
Definitely attend court. Also, I think a contrite demeanor, and explaining your job/mortgage situation would go a lot further than mentioning your class 1 training... I think that would raise the magistrates eyebrows and receive a 'well, then you should have known better' type response.

Best of luck
Dogg
Hi all - I thought I would give you an update on this so you can see what happens. I received my summons early November after being caught on 30th October. My court date is scheduled for 9th September.

Within the summonds there were the statements from the officer that stopped me and the officer that was using the LTi 20/20 on the bridge.

I decided that rather than just pleasd guilty straightaway it's such a serious offence I wanted to see all the evidence they held against me, so on the 20th November I sent the following letter to the court by recorded delivery:

I am in receipt of your summons regarding an alleged speeding offence committed on 30th October 2009 by my vehicle, XXXXXXX. I understand that the alleged offence was detected by a Police Officer using a laser speed detector.

I am writing to let you know I intend to contest this allegation. In accordance with the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 I am therefore writing to request a copy on DVD of the recording used by the detector be sent to me.


In accordance with the Act cited above, I will require this evidence no less than seven days prior to any hearing date.

Furthermore, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (2000) I request copies of the documents listed below:

  • Calibration and maintenance records of the equipment used;
  • The training record of the officer concerned in the use of this equipment and a copy of any certificate of competence issued to him/her;
  • Written details of the safety camera partnership's procedures for the use of mobile speed cameras and/or laser speed detectors;
  • Calibration and maintenance records of xxx vehicle xxxxxx that was used at the conclusion of the speed enforcement check.
In accordance with this Act, I will require this information within a maximum of twenty days, and prior to any hearing date.

I have received a letter which looks very standard saying that they've received the letter and noted the contents. They also say that they will action all requests after the hearing date.

In a bit of a panic I have sent them a letter today confirming that I'm going 'not guilty' because it looks from that letter that they expect me to turn up and I don't want to be found guilty in absence without them knowing I want to see all relevant information.

I think I have every right to see that all procedures and policies were followed, as it's so easy to jusyt go 'guilty' because they want you to. If everything gets supplied and it's all in order then I will plead guilty but I want to see it all first, you know?

I know that a request under FOI has to be supplied within 20 working days from their receipt (I know they got it because I sent it recorded delivery) and it's coming up close to that time so I don't know what leverage I have against them if they don't supply it within that time, nor do I know that if the generic letter they sent constitutes a response within the 20 days so I'll wait until after Christmas when I get a new court date and speak with a solicitor using the free legal advice provided by my Union.

Just thought that you all might like to see how I'm playing it and also to see how successful (if at all) I am!

Thanks




jobo
your mixing up your acts

you have a right to that stuff under the disclosure act, and not getting them under FOI wont help your case where as not getting them under disclosures might

If youve entered a plea of NG then you shouldnt have to attend, but i would if your thinking of taking it to court, as its good practise and you can get your disclosure requirement on the court record, which is useful if it comes to arguing it later

if your requesting unused evidence you may need to submit a defence statement to the cps specing why you wont it, unless you can get the court to require it disclosure at the plea hearing
Rallyman72
If this was, as you say, a stop by traffic then there will, in all likelihoode, be no video recording of t6he laser detector result as it only requires the opinion of one officer to convict for motorway offences. The laser gun only acts to confirm the officers opinion. In any case it is extremely difficult to obtain a copy of any recording when the detection is by a safety camera unit whether manned by serving officers or not.
Dogg
Jobo - thanks for the reply. The FOI is not part of the whole criminal investigation process although can be argued that the information I've requested will or may form part of the defence and so there's a justifiable leeway in getting it. The prosecution haven't yet provided me with the MG6 which shows all the disclosed and non-disclosed items so I wouldn't know which of what I have requested under FOI would be there as a matter of course. The request does form part of the defence as a whole, ie as supporting evidence that they're not following local authority guidance for the use of mobile speed cameras etc - that said they still do have a duty to provide the information within 20 working days.

Rallyman - thanks for your reply too. As far as I'm aware speeding and perjury are the only two offences that require corroboration, so you're right when you say that the guy operating the camera must have thought I was travelling at an excess speed which gives the cause to use the device and therefore obtain the necessary corroboration - but there HAS to be documented evidence of the alleged speed, because otherwise the whole prosecution rests on the cop operating the camera saying the read out was 110, which wouldn't cut it - it's not proof and how do we know he wasn't lying? If they have no video or documented evidence then as far as I can see they don't have a case?

Willing to be wrong, but I don't think I am!
southpaw82
 
QUOTE (Dogg @ Mon, 7 Dec 2009 - 18:06) *
Rallyman - thanks for your reply too. As far as I'm aware speeding and perjury are the only two offences that require corroboration, so you're right when you say that the guy operating the camera must have thought I was travelling at an excess speed which gives the cause to use the device and therefore obtain the necessary corroboration - but there HAS to be documented evidence of the alleged speed, because otherwise the whole prosecution rests on the cop operating the camera saying the read out was 110, which wouldn't cut it - it's not proof and how do we know he wasn't lying? If they have no video or documented evidence then as far as I can see they don't have a case?

Willing to be wrong, but I don't think I am!

You think wrong. The requirement for corroboration comes from s. 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The requirement for corroboration does not apply to motorways (for some reason). Hence, it is possible to be convicted on the opinion of a single witness. Furthermore, there is no requirement for documentary evidence as to what your speed was. A witness statement or live evidence from the operator that he judged your speed to be in excess of the limit and that he then used the device which gave a reading of XX mph is perfectly acceptable to the courts.

mjkerr
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 7 Dec 2009 - 19:38) *
The requirement for corroboration comes from s. 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The requirement for corroboration does not apply to motorways (for some reason)

I assume that is England and Wales only, single officers in Scotland can stop people on Motorways, but not charge for speeding (or in fact virtually most other offences you can think of!)

It is very unusual to stopped for speeding by officers in a secondary vehicle, when Ultralyte LTI 20-20 is being used
That suggests the video recording equipment was either defective or not in use
Hence the witnessing officer would be the operator of the equipment and a verbal NIP would have been issued at the roadside by a third officer
Quite messy for court trying to arrnage for all three witnesses to be present!
We have enough problems here in Scotland trying to esnure two officers turn up...
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.