Speeding Fine!

[EVer Hopeful]

Are you seriously suggesting they wouldn't charge you with the robbery after they dropped the murder case?
The only chance the OP will have of showing their evidence is at the court hearing. But by then it will be too late.

serious? Me?

rarely

but it would be an interesting defence. Mind you I've heard of two people being convicted of the same (single actor) crime so I guess anything could happen


You sound like the sort of chap who actually knows what he's talking about (meant as a compliment btw)

 

[init6]

You sound like the sort of chap who actually knows what he's talking about (meant as a compliment btw)

No, I'm just good at googling

It would certainly be interesting if the OP had evidence of being under 30mph. Worth a punt, but not if their own evidence shows they were speeding.

 

[Cnixon]

Option 2 is the smart choice. But if you are feeling lucky, plead not guilty, notify the court you have your own speed evidence and invite the prosecution to take it to trial and prove their case. There is a decent chance they will drop the case in favour of a more important case. Their time is very limited and there are more cases than they are going to be able to run.

If you do go to trial you will lose, and get a slightly more severe sentence. But, PROBABLY, the crown will drop it.

Your choice.

I would add to that somewhere in any letter you write that the random application of the UK recognised Association of Chief Police Officers guidance has caused you excessive CONFUSION. <<this is a magic word in these matters

 

[pgkevet]

No, I'm just good at googling

It would certainly be interesting if the OP had evidence of being under 30mph. Worth a punt, but not if their own evidence shows they were speeding.

Not a lawyer but surely if they specified a court case that you were doing 35 (as opposed to 'speeding') then evidence that you weren't doing that speed should negate the prosecution?
I recall a case involving a roughish acquaintance who was taken to court for dangerous driving (he was drunk and raced the cops home to avoid a breathalyser - refused them entry without warrant etc). During the hearing the PC described his driving and stated he'd turned left at the embankment. Defence picked up on that since he'd turned right 'cos otherwise he’d have been in the river! - thus voiding the whole of the PC's testimony as untrustworthy.

 

[init6]

Not a lawyer but surely if they specified a court case that you were doing 35 (as opposed to 'speeding') then evidence that you weren't doing that speed should negate the prosecution?
I recall a case involving a roughish acquaintance who was taken to court for dangerous driving (he was drunk and raced the cops home to avoid a breathalyser - refused them entry without warrant etc). During the hearing the PC described his driving and stated he'd turned left at the embankment. Defence picked up on that since he'd turned right 'cos otherwise he’d have been in the river! - thus voiding the whole of the PC's testimony as untrustworthy.

There is that possibility, but in this case it is predicated on the Teslafi data being more accurate than the police camera/speed gun and that's already been discounted as not accurate enough. More importantly, the OP can only present his data when it reaches court. I certainly wouldn't chance a higher fine by presenting proof of speeding as a defence against speeding. Especially if I can just do a course instead!

 

[spdpsba]

There is that possibility, but in this case it is predicated on the Teslafi data being more accurate than the police camera/speed gun and that's already been discounted as not accurate enough. More importantly, the OP can only present his data when it reaches court. I certainly wouldn't chance a higher fine by presenting proof of speeding as a defence against speeding. Especially if I can just do a course instead!

I certainly wouldn't do it for all the practical reasons.

But for an argument sake, presenting a proof of 31mph vs 35mph police recording will at least prove that the police cameras caliberations are not reliable. That opens the can of worms - imagine the same day someone else might have get caught for doing 92 when they were only doing 87 and that makes a huge difference as one would be 3 points and the other a court appearance and +/- barred from driving. You can present proof of speeding as a defence against speeding (remember the movie A few good men) as long as you have a good lawyer and wants to do something about some of these local councils putting up speeding camera as easy money making scheme! Rant over

 

[init6]

You can ask for the camera calibration certificate without incriminating yourself with your own data. You can do that before you choose one of the options, but if you want to show your data, then you'll have to do that in court. Good luck with that.

 

[brucet999]

how much was it? I got an extra ding on the credit card but it was just to "process" the paperwork. thirtyfive of some currency units IIRC. The fine would have been extra had it come to that

I'm not sure how they could pay your fine as they'd have to admit your guilt

Photo and radar speed check.
Rental company's car, their license number, so they got fined.
Adding 17% "value added tax" was insult added to injury. What value was there? But from 6,000 miles away, what could I do?

 

[EVer Hopeful]

well you can claim back the VAT if you purchase something and take it back with you . . .

 

[Rooster6655]

Due to Teslafi not being a constant source of data streaming, much speed data points are missed also the fact that Teslafi is not exactly audited, its the same as using Teslamate and you could literally modify the data with Teslamate if you wanted to.

 

[Forty_Two]

I believe the letter says something along the lines of "you are the registered owner, who was the driver etc.," . .

I was playing golf a few years back with a defence solicitor in the 4 ball who told us that he'd had a notice for speeding and replied back that on the day in question he was travelling with his wife taking turns in driving and he couldn't remember which of them was the driver at the point in question.

 

[Andywil]

I wouldn't employ that solicitor.
The registered keeper is responsible for identifying the driver at the time of the offence. Failure to do so could result in a further fine.

 

[EVer Hopeful]

I was playing gold with a defence solicitor once ... and I asked him how much he charged

He said it was a thousand pounds for three questions.

"Isn't that quite a lot?" I said

"Not really" he replied "now what's your third question?"

 

[Dangerous Fish]

I believe the letter says something along the lines of "you are the registered owner, who was the driver etc.," . .

I was playing golf a few years back with a defence solicitor in the 4 ball who told us that he'd had a notice for speeding and replied back that on the day in question he was travelling with his wife taking turns in driving and he couldn't remember which of them was the driver at the point in question.

That reply alone will not be enough to stop proceedings. If there wasn't photographic evidence he would have had to attend court with his wife and they would both be cross examined and asked to show how they had both taken all reasonable measures to try and establish who was driving at the time. If the magistrates aren't convinced they could get more than the original penalty.

 

[Casss]

“I can’t tell you why, who or how but It wasn’t me your honour, promise! Perhaps a tear in the space time continuum?”

“Sounds reasonable! Case dismissed!”

 

[Rob R]

Not a lawyer but surely if they specified a court case that you were doing 35 (as opposed to 'speeding') then evidence that you weren't doing that speed should negate the prosecution?
I recall a case involving a roughish acquaintance who was taken to court for dangerous driving (he was drunk and raced the cops home to avoid a breathalyser - refused them entry without warrant etc). During the hearing the PC described his driving and stated he'd turned left at the embankment. Defence picked up on that since he'd turned right 'cos otherwise he’d have been in the river! - thus voiding the whole of the PC's testimony as untrustworthy.

Evidence cannot negate a prosecution. Only proof can. Not the same. Evidence will be more or less persuasive, but only proof is proof.

 

[candida]

Evidence cannot negate a prosecution. Only proof can. Not the same. Evidence will be more or less persuasive, but only proof is proof.

Don't know about Scotland. But in England and Wales, proof is evidence which persuades the tribunal to the requisite standard. In a criminal case, the prosecution proves its case by adducing evidence which makes the tribunal sure of guilt. If the prosecution evidence fails to make the tribunal sure of guilt, the prosecution fails. If the defence adduces evidence which undermines the prosecution evidence to the extent the tribunal cannot be sure the prosecution has proved its case, the prosecution fails.

I recall a case involving a roughish acquaintance who was taken to court for dangerous driving (he was drunk and raced the cops home to avoid a breathalyser - refused them entry without warrant etc).

Since 2005 no warrant for entry required to pursue a suspected drink driver - s.17 (1)(c)(iiia) Police and Criminal Evidence Act

 

[Zakalwe]

That reply alone will not be enough to stop proceedings. If there wasn't photographic evidence he would have had to attend court with his wife and they would both be cross examined and asked to show how they had both taken all reasonable measures to try and establish who was driving at the time. If the magistrates aren't convinced they could get more than the original penalty.

Indeed. Not naming or being unable to name the driver leaves the registered keeper open to a Section 172 offence which can carry 6 points and £1000 fine. You would have to show that you had carried out reasonable diligence in trying to identify the driver or that it was not practicable to name the driver.

 

[pgkevet]

Since 2005 no warrant for entry required to pursue a suspected drink driver - s.17 (1)(c)(iiia) Police and Criminal Evidence Act

Interesting. Although my story occurred circa1975.

 

[candida]

Indeed. Not naming or being unable to name the driver leaves the registered keeper open to a Section 172 offence which can carry 6 points and £1000 fine. You would have to show that you had carried out reasonable diligence in trying to identify the driver or that it was not practicable to name the driver.

Question1 - "What do you do for a living?"
Game over....