Nicely done Hippo
And in this case fully agree to throw in all the technical possible.
I'd also suggest additionals:-
The Contravention did not occur.
It is well established that any PCN must include sufficient details of the alleged contravention for the recipient to clearly understand the same.
Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited arguably achieves this but, as is normal practice, there has been a still photo from the video added that purports to show the circumstances and the contravention. On the contrary, the still chosen shows the point where I entered the box junction, moving, not stopped and with ample room on the far side of the box to allow myself to fully cross and clear the box junction.
As the still chosen by Westminster not only fails to indicate the contravention but seemingly provides ample evidence that no contravention occurred, the PCN fails to provide the requisite information and must be cancelled.
The contravention did not occur.
As established in the still photo on the PCN and others on Westminster's website as well as the video of the alleged contravention, at the point of entry into the box junction, I had clear view of sufficient space at the exit to allow crossing and not to be stopped by the presence of stationary vehicles either within the marked box or immediately after. In this respect I had a legitimate expectation that I could enter the box with little or no risk that I would be in contravention of the box junction regulations by doing so.
After I entered the marked box, the light coloured taxi, previously behind and to the left, continued straight, preventing my lawful left turn, and taking the available space. I could not have predicted this, any stop after this point was not because of stationary vehicle or faulty judgement on my part but because of circumstances that I could not have reasonably predicted.
In this ground I am supported by the consolidated reviews of Gillingham –v- L.B. of Newham (2130193949), Essoo –v- L.B. of Enfield (2130232767) and Khan –v- Transport for London (2130261437), particularly the Adjudicator's comments regarding Essoo v LB Enfield and subsequent overturning of the original hearing where the result was in LB Enfield's favour.
The Contravention did not occur.
With regard to the part on the video that shows the point of exit, after the available space had been taken by the aggresive driving of the light coloured cab, I would seem to have stopped with the rear wheels of my taxi within the marked box. However it also shows easily sufficient space for me to have cleared the marked box.
Stopping at this point was not due to stationary vehicles but rather a desire to stay as far away from the lunatic driving of the light cab as possible. As I stopped by choice driven by self defence, not because of stationary vehicles, there is no contravention.