Speeding.........any loopholes???

[Fieldsy]

Just received a speeding notice, over two months after the offence. Is their anything saying it must be served within a certain time. I didn't even know I'd comitted it as there is no gatso at the point of the offence.

It was by a !!!!!! mobile unmarked unit,which parks their now and again, as I've since seen it parked up, with the !!!!!! camera on the seat next to him, no lines in the road or otherwise, or on the van.

Seem to remember someone posting a thread about this some time ago concerning the calibration of the thing and going in to depth on the subject via a link.

I also thought they had to be visible.??

any thoughts or advice........................ ........pleez.

We can't even determine who was driving as its now 2 months ago

[stara]

they have 6 months to serve the summons.



ask for photographic evidence of the driver as you can't determine who was driving (this won't stop it going to court though.) ask for the calibration certificate as you are positive you or any other driver drives within he speed limit (camera has to be calibrated evy day.)go here too http://www.northeastrhinosmcc.co.uk/...%20exposed.htm

or http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3151221.stm

or http://www.gbbikers.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3461

there are lots of ways to get away with providing you werent going 100+ or anything.

[Fieldsy]

thanks mate,

Just been reading up on this, and found out that pictures are being digitally enhanced to show the reg number of the vehicle but omitting the speed. I have just scanned the nice camera pic and for the life of me can't see the speed of the vehicle on the pic, considering the literature says I was travelling at 45mph ?????


All I can see is time and date??

14.58.45
5th October 04

opinions anyone?

[Koi]

The European Court of Human Rights has accepted eight motorists' applications claiming that S172 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act breaches the right to silence implicit in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Based on the fact that you are forced into a confession by being given an ultimatum of 'either confess to this crime or we will convict you of another crime carrying a similar or even worse penalty'. This goes directly against the 'right to silence'.

To say you don't remember who was driving at the time is very different to refusing to name the driver (an offence under section 172 of the road traffic act).

The Human Rights Act doesn't cover you for refusing to name the driver as there is a greater good to the public which overrides it.

But there's never been a law against forgetfulness!



Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act

172

(1) This section applies—

(a) to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—
(i) an offence under Part V, or
(ii) an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or 117,
and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,
(b) to any offence under sections 25, 26, 27 and 45 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and
(c) to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads.

(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
In this subsection references to the driver of a vehicle include references to the person riding a cycle.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.

(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence.

Further to this there was a loop hole about not signing the form when you returned it. This did work on several caes but since then the lopphole has now been closed and it now makes no difference if you sign the form or not.


· Driver receives Notice of Intended Prosecution.

The driver must complete all relevant sections on the form and return it to the sender.

· The driver may later receive a fixed penalty ticket accompanied by a 'Conditional Offer' to pay a fixed penalty fine and/or attend a 'Speed Awareness Course' in place of penalty points.

The driver writes a letter to the authority requesting evidence concerning the alleged offence, e.g. copy photograph, certificate of compliance for the camera (if appropriate) and a copy of the Police Officer's statement - as required for lawful and necessary corroboration
- if a mobile camera is involved.

· The driver may then receive a letter stating that the request is denied - stating words to the effect that photographic evidence can only be seen when a decision is made to prosecute and summons the driver to appear before a Court. This letter should also detail a denial for the other items of evidence, but often fails to mention them.


It is only at this stage that the alleged driver should consider sending to the authority, the letter as shown below.

· It is advisable that all correspondence be delivered via Recorded Delivery.


Dear Sirs,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated……….in which you allege that I have committed a speeding offence. That letter does not provide, or offer to provide, any evidence that I have indeed committed such an offence.

I regard your allegation with the utmost concern as I am being asked to make a very important decision which could very seriously affect my future quality of life.

I shall be grateful therefore if you will advise me where, in law, does it state or allow for evidence against a suspect to be deliberately withheld following, or during, the process of an official demand for the payment of money (in this case a £60.00 fixed penalty (or) £95.00 for a 'Speed Awareness Course'.

Further, whereby failure to pay that money on demand will expose the person suspected of that offence to a possible fine of up to £1000.00 (plus costs) at a Magistrates' Court, an amount that is in excess of 16 times (or 11 times) (respectively) the amount of money previously demanded.

This, in my view, could potentially be a criminal offence in itself, the offence of demanding money with menaces. It is also arguably a breach of my human rights in that I am being subjected to unreasonable and possibly unlawful pressure by being placed into a 'pay us now and save yourself harassment later' position.

I am entitled, in law, to all and any evidence that I have committed the offence complained of before I pay any money to you - not just at Court, but as soon as you issue me with a fixed penalty (or offer me a speed awareness course).

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully

………………….


Further information: It is advised that all threats received after this letter is sent, be ignored - a letter will probably be received with words to the effect, "we are complying with the regulations so pay up within seven days or a court case will be prepared" etc…..

To date, there have been no prosecutions of any alleged (minor speeding) offender who has compiled and sent a letter similar to the above.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was another posting on the forum. This was an answer to someone posting about receiving a NIP in the post and taking it on the chin.

What proof do they have that:-

1. The vehicle in the picture is yours and not a clone?
2. The speed trap device is accurate?
3. The proper guidelines have been followed?
4. You were actually driving the car at the time?

Reply to the NIP stating that "I am unable to provide you with the information you require". Don't sign it. Enclose a covering letter stating that you wish to see a copy of the photographic evidence, and a copy of the calibration certificate for the speed detection equipment.

Also ask for a copy of the guidelines and manufacturers instructions for the use of that equipment, plus a copy of the relevant pages of the operator's (Policeman's) notebook, detailing the entire chain of events starting from when they parked the van to when they packed up and drove away. This will tell you whether the relevant instructions were followed.

You may not receive all of this straight away but be persistent. Regarding the photographs, make it clear to them that at present you are unable to provide them with the information they require and you need to see the photographic evidence in order that it might help you do this (notice the word "might").

Once you receive the photographs, you will (naturally) still not be able to identify the driver and will probably have doubts as to whether it is you car or not. Ask them to prove that it is indeed your car in the picture and not a similar make/model with false number plates. In the meantime, try and work out a way to place yourself and your car elsewhere at the time. (Be careful here, you don't want to lay yourself open to perjury!).

In addition to this, you could refuse to answer their questions on the grounds that it is your right to do so under the terms of the European convention of Human Rights. See http://www.righttosilence.org.uk for more information and also information on a current case before the ECHR specifically regarding this. Depending upon how far you want to take things you could cite this case and ask for a stay of proceedings until you have the outcome of a similar action on your own behalf.

To summarise:-

1. Cause the buggers as much inconvenience as humanly possible.
2. Demand to see ALL the evidence against you.
3. Demand verification that all procedures have been followed and that the equipment is calibrated.
4. Ask what proof, rather than circumstantial evidence, they have that they have identified the vehicle correctly.
5. Ask what proof they have as to the identity of the driver (they will have none at all).
6. Play the human rights card.

If everybody did this, the system would collapse


Basically you could ask to see a photograph of the offence to help you ascertain who the driver was as a long time has passed since the offence was committed, see how they respond.

[Fieldsy]

Brilliant Koi !!!, thanks m8

Taken a few tips from that, but I still can't see how they can issue a speeding fine without an apparent speed on the image???

[mikey]

Hello mate,
I presume you have a notice requesting driver details under S172 RTA:

"Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 provides that keepers of motor vehicles have a duty to give information as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle when certain offences have been committed. Subsections (7) to (10) set out the procedure for the correct service of the necessary documents by post and service on bodies corporate.

172(7) (a) The written notice can be served by post and gives the recipient 28 days to reply from the day it is served."

I have had a look at the legislation in detail, & it doesn't appear to state a time limit for the letter to reach you, unlike where you are stopped & reported for speeding or whatever, where you must be served a NIP (Notice of intended prosecution) within 14 days of the offence.

I have just got off one of these - so when you get a minute give me a call for a chat - 07889 956387

[Fieldsy]

thanks Mikey, also found this, which seems to state that any offence must be served within 14 days.


http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/a...en_2.htm#mdiv1


Might give you a ring later m8 if thats ok

[Fieldsy]

hmmm?
Just found this


Tens of thousands of speeding UK motorists may have their convictions quashed after a loophole in the speed camera laws was recently uncovered. Police have been using computers to enhance the photographs in order to make the numberplates more visible, and easily identifiable. However, as only direct pictures from a speed camera are admissable as evidence, anyone convicted with enhanced pictures is entitled to a pardon. Convicted motorists should write to the courts demanding that their cases be reviewed.
Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as amended by section 23 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 specifies that only evidence produced by the speed camera is admissible. As a matter of standard procedure, the CDO unit produces video prints and in my case even manipulated one, enlarging the rear view of the car only, but not showing any speed information. They were unable or unwilling to provide the negatives produced by the camera. Going from film to video prints to manipulated video prints clearly breaks the continuity of evidence.

[markjbl32]

Hi I work for kent police...some areas do this differently but if you are caught around these here parts on a gatso you should be given the nip via the post within 14 days if this isnt done then many people get off as the time of "notice of intended prosecution" is up and thereofre the offence void....like i say thats what happens here.....( my colleague accidently went through a red light in a marked car, idiot" ...on day 12 still no notice after 14 they can forget it!!!

[markjbl32]

thanks Mikey, also found this, which seems to state that any offence must be served within 14 days.


http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/a...en_2.htm#mdiv1


Might give you a ring later m8 if thats ok

Must get a warning in 14 days...some forces work with different policies but you should have a warning within 14 days of the offence....koi your good...but i feel there is a frustrated traffic cop in you somewhere hehehe

[Fieldsy]

hi markjbl32

thanks for the advice and honesty, can you explain why there is no speed indicated on the pic, as this would obviously be relevant, and without this, I can't see a case ??

[Koi]

Must get a warning in 14 days...some forces work with different policies but you should have a warning within 14 days of the offence....koi your good...but i feel there is a frustrated traffic cop in you somewhere hehehe

I try my best I know of a couple of cases where that has worked, most of it is having the b***s challenge it.
My brother was stopped in his company van for allegedly speeding and driving with undue care and atttention. Being a large van he turned in to a side road and crossed the central white in doing so (just as lorries do, big vehicles small roads).
When I questioned my brother about it he was not shown any evidence of the speed etc. Luckily he wrote down the reg number of the police car, I check it out and it was no more than a beat car.
So i wrote a letter asking to see the data of the checks for the speeding equipment carried by that car on the day in question. Got a reply what the hell was I talking about basically. Several letters later case dropped including the driving with undue care.

As for the traffic cop bit, not that frustrated

[Fieldsy]

ok, this what I've put together so far........................any observations welcome

Dear Sir/Madam,

I recently received the enclosed NIP dated the 8th December 2004 for an alleged offence which occurred on the 5th October 2004, which is over two months after the incident. I understand that any notice of an NIP must be forwarded to the registered owner within 14 days of the offence.

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53)
1988 c. 53 - continued


An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the prosecution and punishment (including the punishment without conviction) of road traffic offences with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission.

Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

Requirement of warning etc. of prosecutions for certain offences.
1.—(1) Subject to section 2 of this Act, where a person is prosecuted for an offence to which this section applies, he is not to be convicted unless—
(b) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or
(c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—
(i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,
(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.




Given, that the offence in question, was over two months ago, and this is the first notification I have received, I am unable to provide you with the information you require, due to the fact that both myself and my wife drive our vehicle, and we cannot recall or confirm the identity of the driver of our vehicle on the given day of the offence, which occurred over two months ago. It is possible the driving was shared on this particular day, and I cannot claim to know/remember the identity of the driver at the given time on the notice.If, I was to complete the notice, I would be supplying information which I could not honestly support, and would therefore not be complying truthfully to the notice, which in itself would be an offence.

Unfortunately, the provided photograph does not show enough evidence to support the identity of the driver, which might have helped in the identification.

The suggested speed on the notice is not apparent on the supplied photograph. Can I assume the photograph has not been digitally enhanced to show the registration details as I understand that only direct pictures from a speed camera are admissible as evidence.The supplied photograph on the notice addressed to me, does not show any confirmation of a speeding offence.


In the event of any of the above being upheld, I would like any available documentation supplied to me, to confirm any allegations/evidence of the offence, as follows;

1) Photographic evidence of the speed of the vehicle, showing the driver, as this might help in the identification of the individual on that particular day.

2) A copy of the calibration certificate for the speed detection unit used for the purpose of the notice.

3) A copy of the guidelines and manufacturers instructions for the use of the speed equipment including the operators notebook for that day.

4) Detail the chain of events, from when the unit was set up, up until it was driven away, to confirm that the correct procedures had been carried out to warrant the use of the unit.



Thanking You,

Yours Sincerely

[markjbl32]

I try my best I know of a couple of cases where that has worked, most of it is having the b***s challenge it.
My brother was stopped in his company van for allegedly speeding and driving with undue care and atttention. Being a large van he turned in to a side road and crossed the central white in doing so (just as lorries do, big vehicles small roads).
When I questioned my brother about it he was not shown any evidence of the speed etc. Luckily he wrote down the reg number of the police car, I check it out and it was no more than a beat car.
So i wrote a letter asking to see the data of the checks for the speeding equipment carried by that car on the day in question. Got a reply what the hell was I talking about basically. Several letters later case dropped including the driving with undue care.

As for the traffic cop bit, not that frustrated

Nice job mate...I like to be proactive but that involves the real !!!!s of life not straying over a !!!!!! white line!!!! if speeding is blatent then yeah but otherwise let people get on with thier lives ffs.....u ever thought about joining hehehe who said that!!

[markjbl32]

Hi Fieldsy, with regard to the photo they mave have another part which indicates speed but i couldnt tell you...we dont have to deal with this side of things its a seperate agency which im glad i dont work for!!!

but like it has been said if they cant indicate your speed what case have they got...back to work Sunday 12th i will ask a few more questions ..