Safe Speed Forums

Surely if one happens to abroad when a speed camera ticket is issued and therefore could not respond within the required period, one should not be immediately arrested on return?!

I have to say: why do you ask?

When you say "immediately", do you mean at the airport, or elsewhere?

It is a bit much to deprive someone of their liberty for something that is essentially out of their control. I would guess that if this actually did occur, there probably would have been more to the case.

Is this related in any way to: "... how to get away with speeding ... cannot prosecute when abroad"

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

No, I was arrested on Monday evening having arrived back on Friday night. I go away a lot, which causes problems. The attitude of the court official seemed to be that 'I will choose to go away' as though one should not, just in case they should want to issue a speeding ticket!
I feel something should be done to prevent this recurring for all who happen to be away when a scamera ticket is issued.

If you had been arrested at the scene of the "crime" it would be a different matter, but people do go away and not know they have committed a "crime" and have no way of knowing they have done so until they get home and the bill is on the door mat

I'm surprised to hear this. In my experience, whilst working in the magistrates' court, the normal procedure would be to convict in your absence, have DVLA endorse their record of your licence, and refer the fine to collections. On becoming aware of the issue it would be open to you to make a statutory declaration, attesting that you had no knowledge of the charge, and thus the conviction would be set aside in the interests of justice, with the option for the CPS to bring the case again (uncommon in my day, for routine offences, for financial and caseload reasons).

I'm unaware of any significant changes to this system; is there more to this story?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Not justifying the arrest, but I suspect there must be more to the story...

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Presumably the time abroad would have to bracket the expected dates of the NIP and response time.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Can we verify exactly what has occurred here.
As I understand it :
You went away and during that time a speeding ticket was issued.
Then upon your return (what time frame - please) you are arrested. (At the airport ? later that month ? what time frame, please).

It does seem odd as if one doesn't reply within the 28 days (and vehicle / driver not under a Company etc where 6 month time frame is activated) that the Police would possibly be so interested in a speeding case?
It makes no sense. Can you fill in the gaps perhaps ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

OK - here we go!

I was sent two speed camera tickets in connection with travelling [at an indisputably safe speed] on an empty dual carriageway on 1.6.08 at 21.18 and 21.24 at 38 and 39 mph. Cameras were Truvelo front facing Magenta flash. The tickets were issued separately for offences 6 minutes apart on the same road, on the same journey in the same direction. The summons seems to give a range of dates [a week] by which I should have sent the s172 driver details. I don't understand this.

I did return the s172 forms partially completed within the 28 days [as I did not know who was driving and asked for the photograph[s]]. I said I could not attend the hearing because I was abroad [as I did for each hearing when I was abroad]. I work as a full time volunteer for charities and cannot normally phone from abroad or often receive post. I rely on email or texts.

My memory was affected in 1984 when I was given a 'Mickey Finn' that made me unconscious for two days. So now I have to write everything down.

I could not remember who was driving but know from the location and time that I was going to a live music event where my friend and I always go together. It is easier to park if we take only one car. We drive each other depending on who has done least driving that day. We take whichever car is easiest to retrieve from the driveway where we meet, probably his driveway in this case, so we do drive each others cars [especially as my car did belong to my friend at one time]. As we do this so regularly he cannot remember who was driving either.

The speed camera photograph may have been sent after the 28 days. It was not good enough to tell who was driving [scamera partnership disagree]. Only one person can be seen in the front, but one of us may have been in the back so that a third friend who may have joined later could access the front as he has hip problems. One photograph has the details of the other offence printed on it, so is incorrect! Many emails followed but I did not get the answers to all my questions.

A printed information leaflet sent to me by the court indicated that I could receive 3 points rather than 6. I believe this two years out of date!

Very few of my letters have been answered by the authorities.

The prosecution tried for two separate offences of failing to give driver details - total 12 points.

I answered the charge as best I could, but as I spend most of my time abroad was unable to attend the hearing on 18.8.09 [or earlier hearings]. Although the offence was in the centre of Southampton the hearing was arranged for Lyndhurst – very inconvenient. I wrote comprehensively about the situation in advance of the hearing to explain matters. It is very difficult to always keep to such low speed limits with modern cars on multi-lane roads that are safe to travel at much higher speeds in such good conditions. I spend most of my time abroad as a full time voluntary charity worker. No one has stated formally that I should give this up to return to this country for a hearing, but the prosecutor’s attitude seems to say so!

After returning from abroad on 22.8.09, I received a card on 24.8.09 detailing a warrant for arrest! I immediately telephoned the number on the card [02392 893248] and was referred to Southampton Court [02380 384200].

They explained that there were two methods of obtaining a hearing: one by going directly to the court and a second by going via the police. She said I could attend court on Wednesday lunchtime and they could probably arrange a hearing as they were relatively free that afternoon. By going via the police, which seemed to mean arrest, I could get priority at court.

I then telephoned a particular police station as this would probably be the most convenient to park if were to go with them to Southampton court. The first time I called that Monday morning I was told they would call back, as the receptionist said she was only a support officer. As they failed to return my call I called again. They eventually put me through to a police officer on the ‘front desk’ who confirmed the two methods.

He said I would never be arrested for such a minor offence. I said: “so I can just throw this warrant notification card in the bin?” He said: “yes”.

I arranged with Southampton court to go there directly myself on Wednesday lunchtime.

However that Monday evening two officers called to arrest me! When I explained the situation they still arrested me and took me to Fareham police station! Surely they should have used their discretion! I am told by police that even where the arrest warrant may say ‘no bail’, the officers can still allow bail if they choose, depending on circumstances.

This was the wrong decision because the only reason I had not attended previously was because I was abroad. When I am within the country I can attend anyway. An arrest makes no difference. This was a waste of resources and taxpayers funding and in addition vexatious. The officers should have accepted my commitment to attend as I had arranged.

I was kept in a cell with the light on all night. I believe that this has recently been quoted as torture in connection with terrorist arrests?

The next day I was taken to Lyndhurst Court [where administration is done at Southampton]. I understand that where a defendant is not represented, the prosecution must be open about all matters with the Magistrates and reveal all evidence and facts. This was not the case however. The prosecutor had not read the complete file.

She told lies [not necessarily deliberately] claiming that the two cases involved two roads when it was in fact one. At best this is incompetence! I cannot see that this is in any way reasonable: to make out that because there were two speed cameras [a few minutes apart on the same road] that this was two cases. As I was unable to determine from the poor photograph who was driving, a conviction would mean 12 points – for essentially one offence!

At the previous hearing it seems my defence had not been presented in court in my absence. My statement of why I could not attend had also not been presented, even though I sent this more than once to the prosecution as well as the court. I had been assured by the court staff that my statements were on file for disclosure at trial.

I had been told that I would have access to my laptop containing files needed to present my case by the arresting officers. That is why I took my laptop upon arrest. However I was not allowed my laptop until after being released following an adjournment.

The decision to issue a warrant in the first place was wrong as the only reason I had not attended was because I was abroad.

I understood that the case was to be re-heard on 15.9.09 upon the Magistrates suggestion under some Rule to give me time to seek legal advice.

I discovered: -
Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended 1991 (c. 52)
Main body
Part VII Miscellaneous and General
Other duties to give information or document
21
s172

s28 (4) Where a person is convicted (whether on the same occasion or not) of two or more offences committed on the same occasion and involving obligatory endorsement, the total number of penalty points to be attributed to them is the number or highest number that would be attributed on a conviction of one of them (so that if the convictions are on different occasions the number of penalty points to be attributed to the offences on the later occasion or occasions shall be restricted accordingly).
Also RTOA 1988 Part II 28 (2)

However on the 15.9.09, the prosecution on reciting the events did not mention the hearing of 25.9.09 saying this was just a hearing to consider the penalties! These Magistrates seemed much less sympathetic than the first and I was given 12 points and £515 in total fines and costs. I already had 3 points on my licence.

The Legal Adviser [previously Clerk to the Court] explained that if my ban was suspended whilst awaiting an appeal, the time suspended counted! This means that if the ban was 6 months and I waited 6 months for an appeal and was found guilty, then I would not effectively be banned at all! As the Magistrates decided not to suspend my ban pending an appeal, if subsequently found not guilty, I will have suffered a ban for nothing!

There seems to be an attitude almost that one is guilty until proved innocent, that it is one’s own fault if one “chooses” to go abroad or be abroad when a hearing is due, that I am not entitled to a reply to my enquiries before a hearing or any explanations whatsoever! I feel this is wrong and that the whole mentality of speed camera/police/prosecution authorities should change. It makes it very difficult to prepare one’s case when one does not receive complete replies, or more usually, none at all.

I notice that PC Mark Milton was acquitted of 159 mph on a two lane motorway! Like him I have advanced driver training so should not I [or my friend] be acquitted of a far lesser speed on a dual carriageway: 38 and 39 in a 30 limit on an empty road? Southampton authorities did say years ago when faced with criticism, that they set 30 limits expecting drivers to go at 40!

Lawyers I have consulted, including those that claim to give free legal advice, will not actually tell me of the past cases they claim will help me until I pay their fees. These range from £500 + vat [without representation in court] to £2500 + vat.

What past cases are there to help in such appeals?

I wonder if the two speeding offences can be tried as one offence?
However, I suspect the S271 offences will be counted separately (courts are surprisingly unforgiving in this area).
If you do get the full-monty 12 points, then you might prefer to accept it and take the 56 day ban (typical) it brings as I believe that doesn't add points to your licence (although the fine could be a bit steep, and insurance companies won't like it)

It is worth asking about all this on http://www.PePiPoo.com. Do read their FAQ too.


Many dual-carriageways within Southampton have ludicrously low limits, so you have my sympathy.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Your story is quite difficult to believe.

You say you have gone through a front facing Truvelo. These flash with a white flash and are very-very noticeable.

If, as you say you have difficulty with recall you may well have forgotten 2 flashes 6 minutes apart.

You say there was perhaps someone else in the vehicle. How come they don't remember the flashes?

If you have difficulty recalling the flashes and there is nobody that does remember them then that suggests you were on your own and have forgotten those unexplained flashes! So you were driving.

Alternately, you were accompanied and your friend suffers the same memory problem as you do. Perhaps your friend has come to the conclusion that if he/she has no recall then you will assume you were on your own and hence was the driver.

Quite frankly I think my story is more plausible that yours.

You have missed out on the full Monty as the CPS could have charged you with 2 counts of failing to supply the driver details and 2 of speeding as you are the registered keeper of the vehicle. You can of course rebut the presumption that you were driving but would need to have a clear recall that you were not. That of course would lead you into difficulties with the basis of your story.

You need to hope for either gullible or sympathetic magistrates.

Really? Not the ones I've seen! Even bigzimsuperior gave you a bit of a clue there!
Remember, I used to live in Portsmouth where there are a fair few of them. Indeed I've sat a Truvelo site and watched - I might have realised an interesting pattern between vehicle activity and flashes ...


Unless you blink at just the right moment, or were looking elsewhere ... but yes, I also reckon such explanations likely won't be accepted by a court unless well substantiated.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Please pay no attention to Greenshed, he has absolutely no clue when it comes to the law, though he will no doubt tell you otherwise; he is well-known here as a liar.

This is almost certainly not the best place for you to receive legal advice pertaining to your specific case and, whilst pepipoo might well be better, I am afraid that the manner of your telling does not lend itself to a full understanding of the issues online. I would suggest that you would probably be better off obtaining professional legal advice even though it may be at personal expense, or at the very least having the duty solicitor represent you when you next appear in court.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Thank you for the further details.

(NIP's need to arrive within 14 days - unless there is a business owner of the vehicle etc.)

I think it very unfortunate that you were arrested. Of course once arrested they will secure your belongings and so that left you without your computer to help express your points about the case/s.

IMHO and personal opinion, (I am not a lawyer and cannot advise you), any speeding infringement that happens at the same 'time', same 'day', within the same stretch of road, cannot be taken as two offences. (I have not got a reference for this at the moment - may have time to find one later).

The Court is unlikely to take kindly to you quoting other cases where Police have been acquitted in part or whole, as each case stands on an individual basis. But perhaps that is for our info than the Court.

It does seem that it has all rather got out of hand.
Your going abroad when there was a hearing was perhaps not the best move? Or did you have representation.
On that aspect, you can provide the Court with an Advocate who can speak on your behalf, although I cannot recall if you need to be there but that is likely to depend entirely on what the Court is planning to do on that date. The Court Clerk will be able to advise you of this.

You say there are numerous emails, but not of that content. You must always ensure that all correspondence is not 'damaging' your case (that you are not 'hanging yourself').

Courts also do not like lengthy cases although they will recognise that it can happen 'with the best will on all sides'. Some solicitors might have simplified (to the Court) your case a while back, and I would urge you to seek legal advice (& as others have) as there are obviously a number of involved points to consider which is the best legal path for you to follow now.
Perhaps the Court failed to appreciate the legal aspects of your case. If the Court clerk badly advises then this will influence the Magistrates decisions.

Doing an Internet search on the case type is likely to have you locate the cases that you seek. (I haven't time now to do this or I would.)

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Thanks.
The only way I know they were Magenta flashes is because I was told so by the authorities.
The Safety Camera Manager for Hampshire said "We would treat your two offences as separate offences as they are at least 6 minutes apart....." This always seems unethical: to try for a higher conviction when past cases [according to solicitors] indicate this unlawful.
I had already arranged to go abroad as it is my job [full time charity work most of the year]. I am usually away at least 6 months in one go.
I am advised that for legal representation I need to personally attend the solicitors offices for money laundering regulations!
I have heard that if a Court is considering a ban one has to attend.

"money laundering"

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Well the flash has a magenta filter over it but when it goes off in front of you it looks more white than magenta.

I once had a biker just in front of me trigger one, so I have reasonable cause to disagree.

Don't forget that I said I once sat at a Truvelo site waiting for the triggers ... (Mile End Road - the mouth of the M275 if you must know).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

That is totally standard in this day and age. It is a process by which solicitors have to ensure that you are responsible if you try to pay them in this manner, and that they will report you even if they are just suspicious of any laundering activities.
All solicitors need to see your ID too, to confirm that you are 'you' before agreeing to have you as a client. Then they will start requesting funds.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

A person of my acquaintance whose wife died recently, received a payout from insurance policies and work pensions due to him.
He decided to move from their home to a new house - and has been blessed with the task of accounting for all the money he is spending on the new house!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!