Safe Speed Forums

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/display.var. ... chiefs.php

Speeding motorists will not be refunded, say road chiefs
By Jon Reeve

ROAD chiefs today insist they will not refund fines for drivers caught speeding on a Hampshire road where the speed limit did not legally exist.

Last week 14 motorists accused of speeding along the A27 in and around Fareham had their cases dismissed because the limits were not properly signposted.

Following that ruling pressure had been growing for the authorities to pay back fines and clear the licences of all drivers caught for offences on the same five-mile stretch.
advertisement

Legal experts and speed campaigners pointed to legislation that says no one should be convicted of breaking a limit that isn't set up according to the requirements of the law.

They argued that means none of the convictions from the same stretch of road over at least the last two years are legal, and so should be overturned immediately.

After several days considering appealing against District Judge Philip Gillibrand's ruling, Hampshire's Safer Roads Partnership said it would not refund money or remove points.

"After taking legal advice and conducting a wide consultation the Partnership has taken the decision that no conditional offer penalties will be rescinded," said a spokesman.

"This is because the decision of the learned District Judge applies to those individual cases on the basis of the evidence that he heard."

Road speed campaigner Paul Smith described the move as "appalling".

"The principle of the prosecution case was found to be defective and the limits did not exist in law," said Mr Smith, founder of the Safe Speed organisation.

"If the signing was defective for those whose cases were in court it was defective for everyone.

"That they can take that standpoint beggars belief. They should own up to their terrible mistakes and pay back the other motorists who were caught by an illegal speed limit."

***

Some choice comments accumulating - see the link.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I'm not surprised that this is Hampshire SCP and its acolytes. For ages they have been trying to get the "Sheer Arrogance" award from Cumbria and now they seem to have succeeded. The only thing missing is Hewitt spouting a lot of rubbish about how they are saving hundreds of lives by failing to errect signs correctly.

They only have themselves to blame. If you persecute people for technical offences, you must expect them to use technical defences against you. You must be squeaky clean. All you had to do was your job - correctly.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

And to have the common decency to hold up your hands, apologise, and put right your mistakes.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Is that right?

Journalists will be journalists.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I know this road very well - the signing may not have been legal, but it was clear. The offending motorists in question should not be allowed to worm their way out in my view. I therefore support the SCP's stance on this.

_________________
GROOVE ARM

On the flip side:

I know this road very well - the speeds may not have been legal, but it was safe. The offending SCPs in question should not be allowed to worm their way out in my view. I therefore support the motorist's stance on this.

Why should technical infringement not be fought with technical infringement?

Speeding is a legal technicality.

Signing of speed limits is a legal technicality.

Spot the difference. (I'll give you a clue - there isn't one.)

If they want to enforce legal technicalities, then they must observe legal technicalities themselves.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

As the signing was not legal no speed limit existed.

Do you agree that people should be convicted of a crime they did not commit?

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

Only if they're obviously guilty!

Oh wait, you can't be guilty of nothing can you, so in the absence of a speed limit, therefore the absence of the offence, what are they clearly guilty of again? They're a menace I tells ya, get off my lawn!!!

It seems like there are vast numbers of motorists who have fallen foul of this; I wonder if we could garner figures for how many were obeying the 'reversionary' speed limit (that valid in the absence of proper signage establishing a different one). I also wonder how many had accidents along that stretch owing to their speed.

The Pratnership can't refund the money from fines because the government have probably already spent it. They can't give the money from current funds as that would bankrupt them.

At least they could have the points rescinded.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

Not true. The make up of the partnership makes the partners liable. The fines WILL be repaid by rate payers.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Everyone must now appeal.

they have two choices as I see it.

1: Refund the expensive way

2: Refund the very very expensive way.

Live by the technical sword die by it I say.

I just want to correct people, the speed limit was very clear if you traveled the whole route. If you joined the route from one of at least 5 side roads, the limit was not clear or legal. They did not check any side roads properly in 4 years of enforcement.

It does strike me that they are attempting to pervert the course of justice by knowingly keeping innocent motorists convicted.. Oh well , more fun for me.

They produced statements to court in the last 11 months stating that there was proper signing , all the time they had the experts report on the signing

I wonder if my best route of attack should be via the local government ombudsman, the police standards or via Inside Out or other TV programs.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

In view of your statement that the "powers that be" knew the signing was wrong but stated in court that it was OK, then go to the police and report them for perjury or PTCOJ.



If you or I could be proven to have lied in court, what do you think would happen to us?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.