Hello all.

Im on here to seek advice, and i will post the outcome of my court case for other to see and read and learn from.
Im new to this site, and just replied on another topic the same as whats written here - BUT its an old topic and probably/most likely wont be seen.


It was around 10pm at night, just dropped my friend off at his friends after working on my other car.
I was travelling along a dual carraige way with a speed limit of 40. in the police mans words the conditions were: 'The weather conditions at the time of the incident were fine and dry, however the temperature gauge in the patrol vehicle showed a temperature of 0 degrees centigrade. it was dark however street lamps were present and lit.'

I thought i was doing around 40mph or so. There were cars on the inside lanes that i estimated were doing 30 mph, so i over took on outside lane. After i pulled off that road, he stopped me in a bus stop, i got in his car. asked me a few questions: 'Do you know the speed limit of this road?' i correctly answered 40mph. he asked 'How fast do you think you were going?' i replied 'around 40, possibly 45.' In his statement its down that i said: 'I THOUGHT I WAS DOING 45 MPH' which is completely un-true. I rang up to ask if there was video evidence, there is none. there's no speedo gun. He used his Calibrated Speedometer which was calibrated 4 hours and 20 minutes afterwards.

It was a single police officer in an unmarked bmw 330. On his witness statement it says im Over 18. At the time of the incident i was 17, it was 3 days before my birthday. 4th december, 7th december.

He states 'I took up a position approximately 80 yards behind this vehicle and whilst maintaining this constant distance, followed it from a point adjaicent to XXXX to "a point just Prior to Tescos which was on the offside." A distance of over 3 tenths of a mile.

The speedometer showed a speed of 60-62 mph. the weather conditions at the time were fine and dry, however the temperature gauge in the patrol vehicle showed a temperature of 0 degrees centigrade. it was dark however street lamps were present and lit.

I signalled the defendant to stop on the Gabalfa interchange offslip which he did (*at this point may i add it was a bus stop*)

The driver identified himself as XXXX XXXX XXXX.
At 22:08 that day i said to him, "I will be reporting you for the consideration of the question of prosecuting you for exceeding the 40 mph speed limit" cantioned he replied, "I THOUGHT I WAS DOING 45 MPH".

I issued him with an Endorsable fixed penalty fine.... blah blah blah.

The Speedometer was checked at 02:25 hours the following day at the A4232 Northbound over a measured half mile using a robotib stopwatch and was found to be accurate.'

Now, I dont agree with what he said i said. I also dont agree even remotely with the speed. I reckon I was actually doing around 40mph. Now, having a difference of opinion of 20 mph is pretty extreme in this case. but im unsure of my speed, and the only thing he has proof of is that HIS SPEEDO WAS CORRECT AND ACCURTE 4 HOURS AND 20 MINUTES AFTER THE INCIDENT. (sorry for caps).


Other than that, its his word against mine. I've never had a bad word against me from police, i've appeared as a witness FOR prosecution before, which i won. I've had assault cases dropped against other people because it was two witnesses againt two. I dont see how his word can be better than mine. In a perfect world it'd never go to court and even if it did i'd never be prosecuted, but this isnt a perfect world, its 21st century UK. totally un-fair, biased in almost every way.

I will love any help for my defence. All comments welcome - even if they are telling me im a C**T.

Thanks all,

Eifion.

The officers statement says over 18 because its his statement and he is over 18..

the road weather and temperature is preamble to the offence but sets the scene. It does not put you in a particularly bad light even with the reference to 0 degrees so i would not get hung up about it.

You did reply 40 45 mph so the reply is not particularly contradictory if not word for word accurate. its a point you can raise but it is not going to strengthen your case much.

The evidence needed to convict is his opinion of excess speed and corroborated by his speedometer that has been confirmed correct 4:20 miins later. I would assume there was no adjustment made to the speedo which means the magistrates can assume it was correct at the time he paced you. Even if not calibrated a RPU office will be able to give evidence that his perception made it obvious that you ere not doing 40mph even if the argument was only 41 or 42 mph its still speeding. the grater the speed the more obvious the perception.

The request and act of you stopping in the bus stop is lawful and of no issue. If you bring that up in court the magistrates will think your a teenage whining C&*T (There I said it for you)....

You never assisted the police in these previous court appearances, you assisted the victim get justice ( I hope). The police are just the investigators and don't give a personal S%!t if you help out or not. Stop being a whining C^&T and get on with it... if a speeding ticket means you wont help a victim of crime get justice then you have no right to be asking anyone for help here!

Why did you not accept the FPN??? for the record a roadside stop by a RPU officer is VERY VERY difficult to defend.
I assume your in the new driver scheme and if so how many points do you already have??

Nothing you have said constitutes a hopeful line of defence. You say that you overtook the other traffic that you estimate were doing 30, which seems very unlikely for cars on a clear dual carriageway with a 40 limit. more likely they were doing about 45 and you were going 15 mph faster than they were, rather than 10 mph, and that is why you were measured at 60 mph.

The magistrates are more likely to believe the policeman than you because he has nothing to gain by lying about following you and reading his calibrated speedometer, whereas you were a) not particularly looking at your speedo, and b) you have a lot to gain by playing down your speed.

A roadside stop is very difficult to defend against, I'm afraid. You would have done better to have taken the fixed penalty, as it is likely that you will convicted and get 5 points, 4 if the bench are in a good mood, and fine plus costs which will amount to much more than £60.

Having admitted speeding all be it at 45), a not guilty verdict is realistically an impossibility.

Broadly I concur with others, your account doesn't ring true, the officer has no reason to lie, he'd have found another speeder in 5 minutes if you hadn't been, he'll give credable evidence and you'll be convicted.

Based on what the officers statement I don't think you have a chance of a Newton plea either.

Simon

Unless you've some covincing reason as to why his speedometer would give a drastically different reading four and a bit hours later, then that part of the evidence doesn't help you one bit.

Hi guys,

The reason im taking this to court is that im adament that i wasnt doing a speed exceeding 40mph. i measured the route in my car today, and it is a questionable 0.3 mile. On google maps, it shows up as 0.2 miles.

I am a new driver with 0 points on my licence, and i never admitted to speeding. He's twisted my words around to suit his case.

I spoke to my step-dad who's an ex-copper, who asked if i had a NIP? i said i didnt have anything through the post, and i read him the part where it says 'I will be reporting you for the consideration of the question of prosecuting you for exceeding the 40 mph speed limit'. I know for a fact that he never said this sentence. Does that mean they havent actually given me a NIP?

How do i get the evidence that will be used against me in court in order for me to prepare myself? do i phone them or send a letter/e-mail? I've been told to get this to decide what im going to do.

The police officer didnt clearly explain everything too me, i spoke to him over the phone afterwards to enquire about any video evidence, he said there wasnt any. Whether there was a recording of our conversation in the car? i dont know. but i would like to find out. Also if there is a recording, could i get it?

Cheers all.

PS Yes i know, im a whiny teen age C**T. and for the record, i was on the prosecition for a friend who got assaulted as a witness. They pleaded guilty due to CCTV evidence. and if i do get prosecuted, it wouldnt stop me testifying to help prosecute a real criminal. Im not that petty.

The NIP does not have to be in those exact words - stated cases have previously been made and it is accepted by the Courts that as long as the Officer has made it clear that you will be Reported then the use of the exact NIP is not necessary.

If you are defending yourself then you can apply for disclosure from the Police, (normally this would be done for you by a Solicitor), but there is no reason why you can't also have it. You should then get all of the evidence that the Police are relying on.

The bit about him stopping you in a bus stop is irrelevant - whilst you may feel this is not professional it has absolutely no bearing on the alleged offence. I have heard other stories about people who try to claim that they should be acquitted because the Officer must have been speeding in order to catch them - it won't work and the Magistrates will not be impressed if you try that one.

I would be careful - if you are saying that you WERE doing 40 mph then plead not guilty. If, on the other hand, you believe you were doing between 40 and 45 then that will demonstrate to the Court 2 things;

1) You are not sure about what speed you were doing and therefore can also be unsure about what speed you 'weren't' doing (does this make sense?)
2) You WERE exceeding the speed limit.

The offence is exceeding a speed limit - so far as your guilt or innocence is concerned it is irrelevant what speed you were doing, this only comes into play for sentencing. If you accept that you were or may have been doing 45 then you could plead guilty and there would be what they call a Newton Hearing. This is where the defendant accepts guilt but disputes the facts - in this case the precise speed. This would then be taken into consideration when sentencing. Of course, you could say that 45 mph wasn't far over the speed limit but your problem is that the Summons will say 'exceeding a speed limit', NOT 'doing 60 in a 40'.

My advice is simple - if you really believe you were doing 40 then plead not guilty and fight it. If however you THINK you were going over the 40 mph limit then plead guilty and dispute the facts.

Good luck - hope this helps.

You're not entitled to see any evidence until you've entered a formal "not guilty" plea in court. Saying "let me see what you've got on me, then i'll plea" is not how it works.

Once a "not guilty" plea has been entered, full disclosure of the evidence on which the CPS will be relying on will (or should) be made to you shortly before the trial.

If thinking of going not guilty, you need a defence, and so far, not much you've said so far constitutes a relaible defence.

I've now spoken to a few law firms that have said they will take my case. Yeah yeah they want the money but im sure they wouldnt take a case that they're likely to lose would they?

The main part they would focus on is the NIP not being given to me, he did state that i will have a FPN, but at no point did he say 'im reporting you for the consideration of the question of prosecuting you..' or anything even along those lines. Which makes me think whether to question being given NIP at all. i never recieved one in the post, and i didnt get a verbal one off him at the time. We ended up talking about bikes and his 17 yr old son too.

I do know that even 41mph is an offence, which is why im saying i did not exceed 40mph. i cant say exactly that i was doing 39.81mph because its not possible.

The law firm 'Keep on driving' have told me that is is the prosecutions job the provide evidence that i am guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I know that live evidence of the police officer in court is evidence, but its a professional opinion not a fact. Without having a calibration record of the car's speedometer test, the time it took, the exact distance (which has to be provided by an independant source like the highways agency- ive been told) which is set out by markers, a witness to say the calibration was done correctly. If he does have all that then yes, he has checked the speedometer and found it to be accurate over 4 hours after the incident. Anything could happen in that amount of time.

Also the distance that he followed me for, as i said, is a VERY questionable 3 tenths of a mile. The starting point is outside a rugby club, and about 0.25 miles down the road is a bridge. This bridge is just before a tesco extra. as he stated, to a point prior to tesco's on the off side. 1) how can he proove that he followed me for that amount of distance? not just approached me at 60mph and said that was my speed, 2) shouldnt he be more accurate when saying the finishing point? especially if the distance following was ONLY JUST 0.3 of a mile, if that distance at all.

Once i was at that bridge 0.25 mile away i pulled back into my lane in front of the other 2 cars i over took, which means he couldnt have been directly behind me, again, with the other car behind me, i dont see how he could have been following me in the way he said.

sharky12345, thank you, all info and opinions i get are taken into account.

Regards all,
Eifion

You may wish to consider the following points.

1. The officer probably will be an experienced officer and the Magistrates may lend higher credence to his evidence as this is a bread and butter everyday incident for him. The officer has no reason to lie and equally nor do you if you werent speeding. However in your own words it is his "professional opinion" which will in all probability carry more weight than your point of view. Sorry if this sounds harsh, its not meant to be, but its a fact of life in Court.


2. The measured mile/half mile DOES NOT have to be measured by an independant agency. Whoever told you this is wrong. It can and normally is done by the Police

3. It does however have to be properly measured and marked. By properly measured that means measured with a callibrated device (usually provided by trading standards). e.g. a callibrated tape measure. There should be a witness statement proving the "provenance" of the distance i.e how and when it was measured and by whom. If there is not then you can raise this in Court.

4. He needs no second witness to confirm that speedometer has been callibrated correctly

5. Any device used for speed detection purposes should be checked and it would appear the officer has done this. It matters not how long after the event it was done as long as it is done prior to the officers duty finishing.

6. For a speeding offence on any road OTHER than a motorway a solo officers evidence must be corroborated by another means. in this case his speedometer.

I admire your eloquence and tenacity in your posts but I fear you may be getting into a situation that will cost you far more than £60

But good luck whatever you decide

As long as you pay they will take the case, they get their money win or lose.

Classic case of putting the cart before the horse.

You could ring 1000 law firms, and they would all take your case. It's what law firms do. The couldn't care less about the merits of the case, because as you have rightly pointed out, YOU ARE PAYING THEM!

A few points:

1) The minimum distance for a 'following check' is 2/10ths of a mile, (352 yards, 320 metres). If you are saying that it is at least this, then you can't dispute the distance of the following check was not valid.

2) You are now saying "I do know that even 41mph is an offence, which is why im saying i did not exceed 40mph" however you earlier said you used these words "around 40, possibly 45" when you was asked how fast you was going? If so, this appears to be contradictory and appears you are changing your story to suit the circumstances - you are demonstrating that you do not know your speed, and can not confirm it was 40 or below with the earlier of the two statements.

3) Was you at any time told that you would be summonsed to court? I presume you must have been because the officer would have probably have said something like "Because your speed is so high, I can't give you a ticket, you will have to go to court and a summons will be sent to you in due course". If you wasn't told this, what did you think would happen next when the officer let you go, and why did you think it. Did the officer say anything to suggest that there would be no further action?

4) Be careful with arguments surrounding calibration. You could go to the far end of a fart asking 'who calibrated the tape measure which calibrated the half mile and so on'. I would personally choose one line of defence and argue it well, rather than throwing into doubt several issues, and have them all dismissed. Even a calibrated speedo will have a margin of error, and even if your argument calls into question the validity of it, there is a big difference between 40 mph and 60 mph. For a police car to have a speedo which is recording a speed which is 50% over what you say is what you was doing, is implausible, even if you do successfully argue that the half mile was not correctly measured. This would mean that the 'half mile' would also have to be out by 50% to both record the same inaccurate speed. Magistrates just won't buy that...

Are you saying you got offered the chance for an FPN? (I got one for 60 in a 40.) If you did, then it'll definitely be held that you'd have been aware of the possibility of prosecution. If you didn't, then he clearly said something which didn't lead you to believe that you weren't getting any sanction at all, which is the same result really.




You can't just say 'anything could have happened' and expect that to be enough.

Otherwise they could easily turn around and ask what makes you so sure the 40mph on your never-calibrated-since-the-factory speedo was correct.

The NIP issue is a trap many fall into. Its a roadside stop. Can you remember everything said to you. especially a garble of question consideration load of nonsense. The magistrates tend to agree that not many people would notice if they did or didn't.

your step dad can and rightly will give some good advice but compare it to the advice you get here and reults form other people who have been in your situation.

Any law firm in the world will take your case. You pay win or lose so don't be fooled. Solicitors of which some are here will take your last penny, house and car off you if you ask them nicely enough.

Did you get a Fixed penalty notice on the night?

Anything could happen in 4:20 to upset the calibration but beyond all reasonable doubt What?

The 3 tenths of a mile could be 3 tenths segments on his speedo which demonstrates it more than 2 but may not be quite 3 in total. if it was the exact moment the odometer showed sat xx0.1 and stopped you at xx.4 that's 3 tenth.
But if it was already xx.1 and he stopped you exactly xx.4 That 3 tenths registered but not 3 travelled. It could be easily say 0.22 of a mile.

Finally the measured distance: It is a measured distance usually by the local authority or highways agency for the sole purpose of calibration checks of the police cars speedometer to confirm the distances are accurate and the time to travel a set distance is correct thus the speedo is correct. It is NOT a measured distance that you get followed otherwise there would only be a few placed in every county were you could be paced.... And we all know that is not the case.

For what its worth I am saying this because firstly i don't honestly think you have a cat in hells chance to defend this but am aware of the wonders of magistrates courts were Anything can happen.
And secondly if you do go into this I would hate you to go in blind So be ready for some smart arse prosecutor to throw back every surmised, assumed possibility and permutation you voice because if your not you will find that they rip you apart and nail you to the box...

If you go for it than Good luck...



Did you get this??? If so forget the NIP argument right away as this removes any requirement for the NIP either verbal or written.



I assume that this is the measured half mile as measured and deemed accurate by the local authority. There will be paperwork at the police station and the highways to confirm its existence,.
Normally indicated by white squares 1/2 a mile apart on a straight piece of road.

Eifion,

There is some sound advice that has been posted above and it's good that you're taking all of this into account but I just wanted to add a couple more points which may help you make a clear decision based on the advice that has been give;

1) Suggesting that just because the device was working correctly 4 hours later does not mean that there wasn't something wrong with it at the time of your check - you are technically right, because no one really knows, however the Magistrates won't buy the argument of 'IT WAS WORKING BEFORE THE CHECK, THEN STOPPED WORKING PROPERLY AND THEN STARTED WORKING CORRECTLY LATER' unless you have evidence to support your theory. It that argument were to be accepted then the Courts would be full of motorists pleading not guilty. In any event - in Darby v DPP 1995 the Court ruled that whilst it may be preferable to prove the accuracy of the equipment being used, it is not NECESSARY. If you have evidence that the device may have been faulty then produce it, but a suggestion that the Police need to prove it was working correctly is clearly incorrect, although most RPU Officers are professional and efficient so will do so anyway.

2) Be careful about spending money on 'specialist' Solicitors who promise you they can definetley get you off. I know someone who spent £5000 on one of these so-called specialists, only to find himself in the uncomfrotable position of asking the Court if they would accept a Guilty plea to 99 instead of the 128 he was clocked at. He lost because the evidence of the Officer was sound and his Solicitor could not find a weakness in the case. Bad advice you may say - but the Solicitor still got his £5000 fee and walked out of Court with the attitude 'you win some you lose some - I can't win them all'!

3) CuriousOrange is right as far as the NIP is concerned - the bottom line is did you know when you got out of the Police car that you were not being 'let off'? If the answer is YES then drop your argument about the NIP. The whole point about the NIP is that you are aware that proceedings MAY be taken against you - it is largely irrelevant how it is explained to you, indeed in some cases the Police are expected to NOT use the official wording because most of the Public don't have a clue what it means. As long as the officer made it clear to you that proceedings may be taken against you then you are on to a loser if you try to argue that the official wording was not used. You must have been aware of imminent proceedings because you started this thread!

4) Don't go to Court saying 'I wouldn't lie because I have given evidence on behalf of the Police before'. Everyone who gives evidence in the witness box is assumed to be telling the truth - your point about previous cases you have been involved in are completely irrelevant and will not have any bearing on the outcome of your case. (If it did, then it could equally be said by the Police Officer that he has given evidence 1000's of times before, therefore he must be more trustworthy than you - see my point? It's irrelevant).

5) Finally, your relative who was a Police Officer giving you advice - I'm not saying ignore it, far from it, but take it togther with the rest of the advice you have been given here. Believe it or not, a good proportion of Police Officers who have not been a Traffic Officer know very little about these little quirks to do with speed etc. Yes, they know about the NIP, S172 and calibration, but the phrase I often hear from people in your position who have sought advice from an ex-Police Officer is 'ask me one on crime'. I am NOT saying your relative doesn't know what he is talking about - but equally how do you know he does?

Hope all of this helps you make a sound decision.

Sharky,

I see what you're saying, especially with the lawyer. The main point im thinking now, and i reckon its quite an important point is:
He said he followed me at a constant distance from Llandaf Rugby club too a point prior to tesco's on the off side. I've driven this road both directions today, and measured it with my odometer. reset it as jsut after i passed tesco, and the way i was travelling on the night of the incident, east bound on A48, i reset it at the point of the rugby club. BOTH times it has not made 0.3 miles/3 tenths of a mile. It is actualy around 0.25 miles from the rugby club too tesco's. I've also checked it on google maps and found the same distance.

So my point here is that he didnt follow me for a long enough distance i guess?

Im not going to bother with lawyers because i can present my point for free myself. rather than having them charge me £1.5k for one appearance. Im also not saying that because i've been a witness before it would make my word law, the point was to say that i've not been in trouble ever before and have been a good citizen. Not that it makes me immune to the law of course.

With the NIP, i knew he had given me a ticket for a FPN but didnt understand the whole thing. He didnt make everything clear too me.

The other question i would like to ask, is if there was a voice recording device in the car which heard me saying i think i was doing around 40, can i get that tape before the court hearing? and as he didnt notify me about the recording at the start of the conversation, can it be used as evidence in court? This way prooving that i said different things, and he didnt give me a Verbal NIP. And i started this thread because my summons to court came through the post on thursday.

The last point i with to 'debate' is the checking of the speedometer afterwards. he did it before the end of his shift, so ok. But will they actually stop to write down their findings, time, exact distance, on a report sheet every time they do it when they're about to finish their shift? and if so, he would need to file that sheet and keep it on records. Thus prooving the calibration checks. I believe that with cameras, they have to calibrated within 24 hours before the event to be used as admissable evidence in court. and to use the speedometer it has to be calibrated before the end of every shift as to be used in court. Not too sure on this point. Its like trying to rely on a clock thats half hour fast really in my opinion anyway.

Cheers,
Eifion

read the previous posts. Several of us have provided all theses answers to prevent you dropping yourself in deeper.
to summarise

2 tenths of a mile is sufficient.
NO NIP needed as you "appear" to have received a Fixed Penalty Notice at the time. regardless of if you didn't understand what was going on.
There may or may not be voice and or video recoding, do you remember if he told you or perhaps a sign in the car mentioning it?
The record will be in his notebook which i assume he has confirmed accurate to his statement for disclosure purposes. Nothing of this will be available until you put your plea as not guilty though.

At risk of asking a question and getting a response:
Did you accept the Fixed Penalty Notice in the car?
and
Did you sign anything in the car?

I signed the ticket he gave me in the car.

You got a opportunity for an FPN, so the 'didn't get a NIP' stuff is a dead duck.



0.3 is 0.25 to 1 decimal place.


Maybe your odometer and Google Maps measure to hundredths of a mile and the officer's odometer measures to tenths.

My odometer starts at 0.0 It changes to 0.1 after 0.1 of a mile. it also changes to 0.3 after 0.3 of a mile. neither of the times did i change to 0.3 of a mile.

I've always been under the impression it has to be a minimum of 0.3 of a mile. which means my odometer has to turn to 0.3 of a mile before tesco's in order for his statement to be correct. which it didnt.

The legislation is such, that no NIP needs to be delivered if the motorist was given a FPN at the time. The fact that you have received and signed the ticket, and the fact that the information on the back of the ticket explaining exactly what to do next either to pay the ticket or request a court hearing will be all is needed. Please understand that the defence of no NIP will not work for this reason.

Sorry, you are wrong. It has to be 2/10ths (0.2) of a mile.

Eifion,

I think you're right about the Solicitor and you're decision to do it yourself, although sometimes they can put things across in a different way which makes w hole load of difference. However, in your case I think they would do a 'damage limitation' job because your defence appears so weak, (to me anyway and trust me, I do this sort of thing all day every day!).

As before, CuriousOrange is spot on - you signed a ticket and accepted it. The Court will take the view that the Officer would not have offered you a ticket and issued it without Reporting you, although it is possible he has forgotten - proving it is a different matter. You say that you didn't understand it - I can guarantee that the Court will ask you if you told the Officer you didn't understand it. It is generally accepted in society that if the Police stop you and start a procedure that you don't agree with or understand then the vast majority of the public would question what was happening, that's just human nature, although there are exceptions agreed.

So far as the audio in the car is concerned - some Police vehicles have it, some don't. Some have it switched on all of the time whilst others are switched on manually if the Officers feels the need to have it on. You can certainly ask if there was video with audio, it's a perfectly reasonable request, but if the Police say it doesn't exist or wasn't switched on then that's it, unless you have evidence to prove otherwise then you are flogging a dead horse.

The Officer need not fill out a form every time he checks the calibration of the device used. For example, with the VASCAR 5000, (which I don't think he has used in this case), a simple entry in his notebook will suffice to say he has checked it. With a calibrated speedo this is generally not required. To the best of my knowledge, calibrated speedos are fitted and do not require ANY checking during their life UNLESS a problem is identified.

Now I can hear the uproar here from people who think that is outrageous, but the fact is that they are calibrated on fitting and that's it. Some Forces may have procedures for checking them on a regular basis but others don't. But there are 2 very important things that people MUST take into account in these cases;

1) As I stated before - the prosecution DO NOT have to prove that the device is working accurately. It is accepted that it will be, unless you can PROVE otherwise. A SUGGESTION that it may not be will not be good enough!

2) The offence is exceeding a speed limit - in proving the offence your actualy speed is really not important. The Officer has to convince the Court that, in his opinion, you were exceeding the speed limit. PROOF of you having committed the offence is from the Officer, not the device - the device simply CORROBORATES the Officer, in other words 'supports his opinion'.

I do hope the advice your getting here is useful to you - send me a PM if you need anything else but I think between us we've covered most if not all of the pitfalls.

I would like to have another quote here from http://www.pepipoo.com/files/ACPO/RPET_Cod...tice_Nov_04.pdf

This is a link to the ACPO Code of practice for operational use of enforcement equipment.

I want to quote this part *pg33*:

'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.'

Also:

'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.'

Once more qutoe from this page:
'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.'

So really he'll need the certification on the measured distance, the certification of the stopwatch. and his certification notes of the testing. He needs all three in order for the prosecution to stand.


http://www.hampshire.police.uk/NR/rdonlyre...C75/0/11901.pdf - Page 3.

'Where offences of excess speed are detected using this type of speed detection device, the speedometers of the police vehicle will be tested over a measured distance or compared with a calibrated VASCAR equipped vehicle, laser or radar, before the completion of that tour of duty. This is to ensure that the device is working accurately and correctly.'

Im thinking when i do go to court this is going to be a strong part of defence.

Cheers,
Eifion

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=nipwizard

'The NIP is not to be confused with a COFP (Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty), which is often sent out with or attached to the NIP.'

You were issued a Fixed Penalty Notice at the scene. That negated any requirement for a NIP to be served, either verbally or by post.

See here.

I saw your blind, raised you with a quite off this site, you re-raise with a parlimentary Act. I do here by FOLD! lol

It MAY look like im annoying, and i know i am being annoying. BUT by doing this, it gets the most correct/acurate information form everybody. This thread will now be here for ALL other to look at, and if in my situation, can make a reasoned judged call. People need to be shown evidence of a statement before they should believe its truth. Hence the reason you linked in the Act. Hence the reason i link in the ACPO codes etc.

Cheers,
Eifion

Just for the sake of clarity are we happy that the FPN and NIP issue is put to bed and all that remains is the distance paced and the pre and post pacing procedure????

Yeah the nip thing is put to bed.

Just out of curiosity I went and found the markers he used on the a4232 and did a check on my own car lol. 60 mph constant over half mile was 31.4 seconds, so my speedo is deffonately over reading. Not that it has anything to do with the case lol. And it was my mate in the car with iPhone stop watch checking it

Urm, I've been told about a legal aid traffic lawyer who's '**** hot' on this stuff so im going to speak to him tomorrow. Get his view on the case.

Cheers,
Eifion

You won't get legal aid for a speeding case.

have you confirmed the exact distance from the markers without using Google?

Legal aid will probably be declined for speeding cases.

Eifion,

You've been advised regarding Solicitors who promise the earth - I can guarantee he will tell you that he can get you off, producing lots of evidence about cases he has won, whilst forgetting to tell you about the ones he lost and charged vast amounts of money for the privilege, (and that's before all the Court costs which YOU will have to pay!). I would be interested in hearing what this chap says - ask him if he has ever lost a case and what it cost the defendant!

Anyway - 2 quick points if I may;

1) The ACPO Manual of Guidance is just that - GUIDANCE. You may say, and some Solicitors do, that it is the Bible when it comes to these cases but it is not. It is written by Senior Police Officers and offers no more than a guide as to how these things should ideally be done. Some Courts, although not all, see the ACPO Manual for what it is, a guide, whereas others do see it as the Bible. The one over riding factor in all of this is what I told you earlier - Darby v DPP 1995, which is caselaw and will supersede any document which is not a legal one and simply offers guidance. (That's why it is called a Manual of Guidance).

2) Defective or inaccruate speedo, (as far as your vehicle is concerned), is not a defence and if you try to run that one you will be disappointed. Exceeding a Speed Limit is an offence of strict liability. You do not need mental intent, (commonly known as Mens Rea), you either are exceeding the speed limit or you are not - the fact that you may not have known is a factor in sentencing ONLY. Harsh as it sounds, that's the Law.

If I were a Magistrate, given that you accepted a FPN originally, my thoughts would be that you took the ticket because you didn't really know what speed you were doing, (hence your comments about thinking you were doing 40-45 but not sure), and having given it some thought you have decided to contest it, not because you KNOW you were not speeding, but because you've had a think about how the Officer may have not done his job properly. I'm not saying that's what it is - just how it may look to someone who sits in front of these cases day in day out.

As I said earlier, 45 mph is in excess of the speed limit - so you either go to Court and say that you were definetley not speeding, (which you can't by your own admission - unless of course you want to commit Perjury which I would not recommend!), or you plead guilty, ask for a Newton Hearing and contest the speed alone as I detailed previously.

My advice - go to Court, plead guilty and apologise for wasting the Court's time in the hope that you will get what you were originally offered, £60 and 3 pts.

It was explained in post #12 that the follow-check minimum is 0.2 miles, and in post #14 how the officer's odometer could show a 0.3 difference for < 0.3 travel (and is likely why he allowed an indicated 0.3 change rather than a 0.2). The officer is most unlikely to be resetting his odometer for a follow-check rather than just glancing and noting what it happens to be at the time.

If you stand there in court arguing that he's wrong saying 0.3 miles because it's 0.25 then you'll just look like an idiot.

You have come here for advice, and I and others are happy to help you. There is collective wisdom here - we don't always get it right, but I was well aware of the implications of s.2(2)(a) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - That if you are given a FPN, no NIP is needed.

I have, along with others also told you that if you want to successfully defend this, you need to come up with ONE line of defence and argue it well, rather than coming up with a multitude of defences and being shot down in flames on all of them. Please start listening to advice, otherwise some of us might form the opinion that you know best and let you get on with it.

So with a one line of defence. I think that what actually happened is he was closing the gap up to me when he was taking his reading. Because he had to turn around, his speed must have been higher in order for him to 'catch up' with me, and in the distance that he must have done it, he really must have cained it.

I know if i go into court argueing that he's lying, i'll get laughed out. But as i said, i think he is mistaken when taking his reading. I did see a case on this site where the video proved that the copper, on his own in un-marked volvo was constantly dropping off and regaining the speed from a car that was actually doing 70, and he clocked him at 90. Could be the same principle here? there was other traffic behind me, and in my opinion this is what must have happened. I'll try find the link and post it on here. Because there's no WAY in hell i was doing 60-62. I've been down that road loads of times since doing 40 and thought the, how was i going faster than this??

Cheers,
Eifion.

This is the event before that i was on about:

http://www.pepipoo.com/Police_driving.htm

Again, i assume that this is roughly what happened with me. But there's no video evidence to prove/disprove otherwise?

Cheers,
Eifion.

i tried this agument back in 1983, re the welsh police following me on my bonnie, it didnt work then, but i came awfully close, with the copper stuttering and muttering, whilst trying to explain, how he both caught and maintained a constant distance, with a bike that was going ''like a bat out of hell''

your faced with the same problem of convincing the court, that the copper is mistaken

I think you need to be very careful here - 'suggesting' something as a defence with no evidence will not get you anywhere.

Sure, suggest that what has happened previously in the video 'may' or 'might' have happened in your case but as you so rightly pointed out, proving it with EVIDENCE is somewhat different than suggesting it may have happened. If the Courts accepted that something happened, or probably did happen because defendant's simply suggest it MAY have happened, they, (the Courts), would have an endless stream of people who are trying their luck - the whole point of our judicial system is to convict or acquit people based on evidence!

The only other point I would make, and it has been raised earlier, is that the Officer only needs to show that your vehicle was exceeding the speed limit - THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR HIM/HER TO SHOW WHAT SPEED YOU WERE DOING, (only what you weren't if that makes sense?).

Whilst it is obviously preferable for them to show a speed, it is not a requirement, therefore comments such as 'I followed the vehicle for 1/2 mile at speeds between 80 and 90 mph' is enough to prove the offence, (together with the other corroboration bits).

I can't comment on the video and I fully accept that some Officers stretch evidence to its' extreme, BUT my experince so far is that for every Officer there is that does stretch evidence and fact, there are probably 100 more who don't.

My advice, as before, plead Guilty, ask for a Newton Hearing then resume normal daily life and being able to sleep at night!