Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: got photos and confused
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
willow321
My name is Robert
On 06/09/12 i was accused of speeding on the east lancs road doing 76 in a 60
i would have to have been clocking 80 mph and i don't believe i was.
I was sent a NIP and complied by informing owner and driver details, i was then asked to send my licence and bank details ( for �60.00 and 3 points ).
About 19/09/12 i asked for copies of photos, certificate of compliance and any other proof, i was refused.
About 13/10/12 i then sent a letter saying i would not plead guilty or not guilty without seeing any evidence against me.
I then received a letter saying that as i had not entered a plea it would be taken as a not guilty and my details would be sent for prosecution and finally received a letter with a court date 8/04/13. it contained a statement from a camera enforcement officer but no other proof.
What advice would you give me to proceed.
Thank you in advance
> Robert
sgtdixie
It is extremely unusual for speed cameras to be wrong. There is a huge difference between knowing what speed you were doing and simply not believing the speed they allege.

Unfortunately the law does not require any proof to be served until you opt to go to court. By declining to give a plea and asking for evidence (albeit you do seem to be fishing) you leave them with no choice but to assume a not guilty plea. The whole basis of the fixed penalty system is if a driver knows or believes they committed the offence they get a discount for accepting a COFP, in the same way as at court you would get a discount for pleading guilty.

As the dice have been rolled I suggest you await the full prosecution evidence and then come back here. There were a whole number of things you could have done if you had found us before replying but none are relevant now.

Ultimately you will get as well, as the statement, a copy of the relevant photos or video. Asking for calibration certs or training records is a waste of time.
BaggieBoy
It's hard to see any other outcome than a guilty I'm afraid. You can be sure that the prosecution will have compelling evidence of the offence, if your defence consists solely of "I wasn't going that fast" then things are unlikely to end well for you. Your best hope is that the other side cocks up somewhere.
Jlc
Well the good news is that speed is still only 3 points at court. However, the fine will be income related. (Around 50% of weekly relevant earnings)

But the big issue is the costs. If you persist with a NG plea then the costs will be around £600 if subsequently found guilty which is likely given your account thus far.

Do you know what sort of camera it was? (Or tell us the location)

The prosecution must produce enough evidence to convict which would normally be proof of driver (you provided this) and the relevant camera readings/pictures. They will assume to be accurate unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
The Rookie
Strictly you were offered a fixed penalty, there is no such thing as pleading to that, you either accept (comply with conditions of) or not.

As you chose not, you now have the inevitable summons, you have no obvious defence, and to gte it, you have to plead not guilty and lose the fine discount that somes with a guilty plea.
blocco
QUOTE (willow321 @ Wed, 20 Feb 2013 - 17:50) *
My name is Robert
On 06/09/12 i was accused of speeding on the east lancs road doing 76 in a 60
i would have to have been clocking 80 mph and i don't believe i was.
I was sent a NIP and complied by informing owner and driver details, i was then asked to send my licence and bank details ( for �60.00 and 3 points ).
You had received a combined Notice of Intended Prosecution and Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty.

QUOTE (willow321 @ Wed, 20 Feb 2013 - 17:50) *
About 19/09/12 i asked for copies of photos, certificate of compliance and any other proof, i was refused.
You gave an early indication to the police that you were not going to accept the Fixed Penalty and were not going to comply with the conditions under which it was made.
QUOTE (willow321 @ Wed, 20 Feb 2013 - 17:50) *
About 13/10/12 i then sent a letter saying i would not plead guilty or not guilty without seeing any evidence against me.
You confirmed to the police that you were not accepting the conditions of the offer of Fixed Penalty.
QUOTE (willow321 @ Wed, 20 Feb 2013 - 17:50) *
I then received a letter saying that as i had not entered a plea it would be taken as a not guilty and my details would be sent for prosecution and finally received a letter with a court date 8/04/13. it contained a statement from a camera enforcement officer but no other proof.
What advice would you give me to proceed.
Thank you in advance
> Robert

The police raised a summons for the offence of speeding for which they have evidence. The reason they have done that is because you did not comply with the Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty. You will receive the evidence against you a minimum of 7 days before your trial.
For a guilty plea you may get a reduced fine, not below £60.00 and 3 points. A small amount of costs will be added.For a not guilty plea you are likely to be found guilty unless you can prove something is wrong with the speed or the procedure in your case. A defence of "I would have had to register 80 to be doing 76" isn't going to get you not guilty verdict. A not guilty plea and a trial is more expensive in fines, costs and points.The best thing to do is to seek legal advice from a solicitor who is likely to start with what you have been told on here and then get more expensive in direct proportion to the desperation of the measures they suggest.
albert2008
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Wed, 20 Feb 2013 - 18:05) *
It is extremely unusual for speed cameras to be wrong.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-12522641

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/145...-was-wrong.html

and more, biggrin.gif
blocco
QUOTE (albert2008 @ Thu, 21 Feb 2013 - 09:09) *
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Wed, 20 Feb 2013 - 18:05) *
It is extremely unusual for speed cameras to be wrong.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-12522641

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/145...-was-wrong.html

and more, biggrin.gif


On both occasions the cameras were incorrectly operated and the wrong speed had been applied to those vehicles. If they had been operated correctly the penalties would not have been issued. They should be checked on all occasions and it seems that on these occasions that had not been done correctly.
Jlc
QUOTE (albert2008 @ Thu, 21 Feb 2013 - 09:09) *
and more, biggrin.gif

Yes, yes, but the presumption is that the measurement is correct unless proven otherwise. Sometimes there are errors but statistically very small - this is why it's advised to ask for the photo's to at least have a basic 'check'. Of course, everyone has the right to reject fixed penalties and ask to be prosecuted and fight based upon the evidence. But 'not believing' is not a defence.
The Rookie
QUOTE (blocco @ Thu, 21 Feb 2013 - 09:26) *
On both occasions the cameras were incorrectly operated and the wrong speed had been applied to those vehicles. If they had been operated correctly the penalties would not have been issued. They should be checked on all occasions and it seems that on most occasions that had not been done correctly.

Corrected for you..... later checking seems mostly non existent now.

The first was (likley to be) a Gatso, so no operator and that is why it's a disgrace that the secondary check isn't performed - even at a cursory level, at least with a manned device there is a chance an operator will spot an obvious error and note it.

I would agree though that the percentage of pings with errors is probably circa 0.1%.
blocco
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 21 Feb 2013 - 09:40) *
QUOTE (blocco @ Thu, 21 Feb 2013 - 09:26) *
On both occasions the cameras were incorrectly operated and the wrong speed had been applied to those vehicles. If they had been operated correctly the penalties would not have been issued. They should be checked on all occasions and it seems that on most occasions that had not been done correctly.

Corrected for you..... later checking seems mostly non existent now I would make a wild guess and say that it is my unqualified opinion that checking doesn't take place.

The first was (likley to be) a Gatso, so no operator and that is why it's a disgrace that the secondary check isn't performed - even at a cursory level, at least with a manned device there is a chance an operator will spot an obvious error and note it.

I would agree though that the percentage of pings with errors is probably circa 0.1% not known by me at all but from time-to-time I don't let that prevent me from just making stuff up and typing complete bollix.

If you are going to correct things then let's all have a go.

I would request you don't start placing your words under my user name.
The Rookie
I didn't, clearly has my user name on the post you dingbat, I merely quoted you ans commented on that then added an extra comment, you want me to post twice unnecesarily?

THINK man, I know it's not requisit of the job but try!
NeverMind
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 21 Feb 2013 - 11:39) *
I didn't, clearly has my user name on the post you dingbat


No, I see what he means. You quoted him and changed the text inside the quote, so I think his complaint is fair enough.

Although I'm not disputing that his original statement could still be wrong ... wink.gif
StuartBu
QUOTE (NeverMind @ Thu, 21 Feb 2013 - 13:23) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 21 Feb 2013 - 11:39) *
I didn't, clearly has my user name on the post you dingbat


No, I see what he means. You quoted him and changed the text inside the quote, so I think his complaint is fair enough.

Although I'm not disputing that his original statement could still be wrong ... wink.gif


I absolutely agree..If you are going to amend what someone has posted then do not amend the quoted text .Copy and paste it as a reply and amend that and say e:g that you think the amended version is better .
The Rookie
"Corrected for you" underneath, it's common on forums, tongue in cheek, sheesh, get a life!
willow321
hi all
just a quick question ? .
if i was to plead not guilty so that i can see any evidence they might have. what evidence would i be advised to ask for
Danger-Mouse
If you plead NG you/your solicitor will be served a Trial Pack by CPS.... you dont ask for anything.
willow321
QUOTE (Danger-Mouse @ Fri, 1 Mar 2013 - 15:27) *
If you plead NG you/your solicitor will be served a Trial Pack by CPS.... you dont ask for anything.



would that include all the evidence they have including anything that may harm their defence or just what they intend to use
Danger-Mouse
It will be everything..... you will receive the Disclosure Schedules which will include listed anything that undermines there case...... do you think there is something that undermines them?
willow321
i belive that the accused speed is wrong and if they have made a mistake there, then they may have made mistakes elsewhere.
i just want to see all the evidence, as i can allways change my plea
Danger-Mouse
It is extremely unusual for a speed camera to be wrong.

willow321
Hi all, I was accused of 76 in a 60 I do not believe I was travelling at the accused speed and asked for the evidence but like most people I was refused so I plead not guilty and finally got the so called evidence. a statement explaining how the evidence is collected with a last bit being the statement of facts. I got a total of 6 photos, the main 2 showing time/date/speed/distance. the only difference being a 2 second interval between photos. a certificate of use of prescribed device and that is the total of their evidence against me. I intend to go to court and fight this any one got any ideas or advice please
paulajayne
Post up the pics.

Should show a cross hair on the front / or rear of your vehicle with a speed, time and date.
Speed may be a negative value if you were travelling away from the device.
willow321
not scanned photos yet but both photos do show crosshair on number plate, my query is both photos show the date, the time + 2 seconds, the alleged speed 76 and what I assume is the distance from the camera 295.9 meters. now if I am travelling at 76 and the photos are 2 seconds apart the distance cannot remain the same
The Rookie
ONE CASE ONE THREAD
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76858&hl=

What device was used?
BaggieBoy
QUOTE (willow321 @ Wed, 29 May 2013 - 15:20) *
not scanned photos yet but both photos do show crosshair on number plate, my query is both photos show the date, the time + 2 seconds, the alleged speed 76 and what I assume is the distance from the camera 295.9 meters. now if I am travelling at 76 and the photos are 2 seconds apart the distance cannot remain the same

Clearly a LASER device, the distance is how far you were away when the speed was detected (which takes less than 0.5 second). Unless they "pinged" you multiple times the distance will not change. What you are seeing are simply stills from a video. Trying to do time vs distance calculations is not possible. So what you are left with is proving the device was inaccurate or was used incorrectly, good luck with that.
Jlc
Indeed, the speed measurement is virtually instantaneous and distance over time cannot be gleaned from the photo's.

If the footage shows the cross-hairs cleanly over your vehicle then it will be almost impossible to refute the alleged speed. Not believing the speed won't assist your defence.

I note in my original post that I listed the expected starting point for costs should you be convicted.

The fixed penalty is no longer available, then potential sentence is still 3 points but the fine would be income related, along with costs and the victim's surcharge (10% of the fine, min. £20):



The fine would be reduced by 33% should you decide to change your plea to guilty.
willow321
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 29 May 2013 - 16:06) *
ONE CASE ONE THREAD
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76858&hl=

What device was used?

sorry had forgot about that post
the device was a LTI 2020 utralyte 1000

also as I have stated there is no mention of the device being checked before or after the duty cycle. so how do I know it was setup correctly and in accordance with acpo guidelines
AFCNEAL
QUOTE (willow321 @ Wed, 29 May 2013 - 17:07) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 29 May 2013 - 16:06) *
ONE CASE ONE THREAD
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76858&hl=

What device was used?

sorry had forgot about that post
the device was a LTI 2020 utralyte 1000

also as I have stated there is no mention of the device being checked before or after the duty cycle. so how do I know it was setup correctly and in accordance with acpo guidelines


Unless you plead NG, go to court and ask..........you don't.
Pete D
Scan and post the photos for further help. We do not know what you have been sent. Pete D
Jlc
I'm surprised the statement doesn't make reference to this - it's usual for them to explicitly state the unit was checked and the officer had training to operate the device etc. But it's omission doesn't mean this didn't happen.
BaggieBoy
That's usually in the evidence, however if you want to persue this line, you would need to get the operator called as a witness and cross examined. So when the operator give evidence that all procedures were followed, you are going to be left with little wiggle room and a potential large request for costs.
willow321
QUOTE (Pete D @ Wed, 29 May 2013 - 17:12) *
Scan and post the photos for further help. We do not know what you have been sent. Pete D

I'm having trouble uploading photos at the moment will try again later
The Rookie
Read the FAQ....
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.