Safe Speed Forums

Went to Cannock Magistrates Court last week to defend myself against a speeding ticket going back to February 2006 and won the case...Here is the story!!!

Feb 1st 2006 - Travelling along the A51 at Colwich heading towards Rugeley in Staffordshire (Speed Limit drops to 40mphfrom 60mph) and was flashed by Gatso at 03:45 hrs doing 50mph (allegedly) despite having an onboard GPS system telling me I was doing dead on 40mph. I know the road well and use it at least three times a week at this time to get to my collection point as a courier/delivery driver.

Recieved the NIP - Filled it in - no problem, stated I was driving and also sent a letter asking for the evidence they held (Photos and calibration certificate) against me before committing myself to the fixed penalty as I disputed alleged speed.

After several chasing letters they eventually (End of March) sent single photo and calibration certificate. The certificate serial number bore no resemblence to that on the camera picture. I wrote again asking for the two pic's so that I could physically work out the speed, having visited the site, taken pictures and measured the gaps between the road markings. I also pointed out that the Calibration certificate was not for the camera in question as it was not covering the same serialnumber as that on the picture.

At this point I also pointed out that the camera position was on a bend and not in line with the guidelines from the ACPO which state 'that the camera should face a straight section of road' and that the markings on the road were mingled together with road signs for a right hand filter and straight on arrows which contravened a Department of Transport document (Ref GT 17/3/35), sent to every Council in England, relating to 'Traffic Signal & Speed Camera Signing. This states quite clearly that 'in consenting to the placing of these markings, (the speed camera calibration markings) the highways authorities should ensure that they do not interfere with markings which are prescribed or authorised as traffic signs'.

After having no joy (despite numerous letters - copies all kept) at getting the second picture or any answers to any questions relating to the above I was summoned to court in Burton-on-Trent in September of last year.

I attended the hearing - told the magistrates that I had not been provided with the second picture and other information requested and that the case should therefore be dismissed. They decided to adjourn the case in order for the evidence to be provided.

I recieved the pictures - worked out the formula for speed (time and distance) and came out with the figure of 40.75mph - Oh Sweet Joy!!!

I wrote back to the camera partnership asking for them to drop the case and enclosed my calculations.

They came back and said that the case was still going to court!!!!

Went back to court at the end of September in Burton-on-Trent and this time they asked for an adjounment as they were waiting for an expert to analyise the photo's - pity they did not checkthem prior to proceeding...

End of November 2006 - this time in Stafford Magistrates court the Camera Partnership expert fails to turn up (They also never sent his statement or findings to me in the form of an advance disclosure) and despite my request for an aquital the magistrates decide to onceagainadjourn and for these findings to be sent immediatelyto me.

Last week - February 2007 - this time off to Cannock Magistrates court - again the expert fails to appear, still no advance disclosure the magistrates kick the case out.

Am I correct in thinking that if they would have turned up listened to all the evidence from myself, faulty reading from Gatso, wrong calibration certificate issued (incidentally I did find a copy of the correct one from their own website), incorrect road markings, camera in wrong location -would they have been liable to appeals from anyone else prosecuted at this site?

Well done. But there's no need to tell us twice. I've removed the post in the 'General Chat' forum.

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

Paul - Sorry!!! but after posting I thought it might be better suited to General Forum rather than this one and wasn't sure how to delete it from here!!!

Please dont give me three points on my licence for the offence!!!!

Note: I was also awarded the costs - so a profit rather than a £60 loss...

It's no problem. We understand it takes a while to find your way around.



You have an L plate for the next 8 or so posts, and we always make allowance for learners.

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

KND

After all the work you obviously put into gathering the evidence to prove your innocence I'm glad it paid off for you.

A number of things about your case still make me cross though:

They did not bother to check the images for your speed before initiating proceedings against you. This could easily be considered frivolous prosecution.

The case was not dismissed on the first occasion that they failed disclosure. You had ample evidence that you had been requesting it, and there is no foreseeable reason why they would have been unable to provide it to you in a timely manner. You have a right to a speedy trial, not endless adjournments at the CPS and Scameraship's convenience

Having clearly collated ample evidence that this camera was penalising people who had committed no offence, the case was dropped before this evidence could be laid before the court, and as such they are no doubt still exploiting motorists with it.

I'm sure that the absence of an expert is because they could not find one willing to stand up and go against your evidence! What were they going to say?



I would imagine that the only other drivers who could benefit from your wealth of evidence are those who did not plead guilty, but were found so. Those who succumbed to the scameraship's bullying tactics and paid up for the sake of a quiet life are considered to have admitted guilt.

I think this is exactly the reason the case was moved from Burton-on-Trent (twice) to Stafford and eventually to Cannock - I am sure they were trying to wear me down and for me to just give up plead guilty and take the points.

I have now made a request under the Freedom of Information Act for disclosure of everything that is held in relationship to the case - perhaps as you loosly stated 'There ain't no expert anyway' - I await their response!!!

just out of interest....

did you take any formal legal advice ?
or have anyone to state your case in court ?

or was it just a case of you not losing your nerve.

Just went thro' it myself and kept my nerve. I felt I knew more about this case and had done more research on the particular camera site and the things I needed to highlight than any lawyer who would be running a load of cases.

Of course I always thought I was innocent anyway - if I thought I had been guilty I would have taken the 3 points and fine.

However - If I ever get another NIP I would go thro' the whole thing again because following this case I am fairly sure that somewhere along the line the Camera Partnership or CPS would make a cock-up and even though I might be guilty I now feel confindent of winning!!!

Some one made a mistake. the only people who don't make mistakes are those who work to very low standards.



I have been unable to find an offence of frivolous prosecution and would be grateful if you could point me in the right direction.
There is an offence of malicious prosecution but this does not fit the criteria.



If it had been, you would have been howling with anger that the OP was not able to defeat them in court.

It is worth remembering that if the OP had needed more time to prepare his case that would have been granted in exactly the same way as it was for the CPS.

Your case was moved around to minimise delay. In each case they will have chosen the nearest court with time free on the day.

If this caused any difficulty for you they would have booked another day at a more convienient court, even if this caused more delay.

Rubbish.

How difficult is it. They know the speed limit, they can easily work out how many markings should be passed if a vehicle is speeding. They don't have to do the calculation every time. All it takes is a number fo reach speed limit.

The only way this "mistake" could be made is if the pictures were never checked at all.

A crude and not very convincing apology for a procedural error that shouldn't have occurred. There's possibly a degree of truth there, but so there is in "the only people who make mistakes are those who work to very low standards" and in "the only people who don't make mistakes are those who work to very high standards" and in "the only people who make mistakes are those who don't work to very high standards". Take your pick - none any more or less valid than another. More pertinently, whatever truth there is in your statement, the converse (almost implied) assertion - "people who make mistakes work to high standards" - is, of course, complete nonsense.

List of partners
Don't forget the courts are in on the money.

_________________
Andrew.

Conspiracy?

Conspiracy of stupidity?

Incompetence?

How many times should an accused have to ask for the evidence he's entitled to? Once? Twice? 3 times? Would that evidence have been as hard to come by if it showed his speed as 70mph?

Fisherman, I value your input here, but surely you can see why people get annoyed? How many people believe, as the OP did, that they are innocent but just pay the £60 and take the points because it's a lot less stressful than trying to prove their innocence?

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Dear chap, this is exactly the reason that lay-persons acting as 'judges' are only really competent to process guilty pleas, and then only within very strict sentencing guidelines.

Firstly, it is not a case of one stage of the process being in error, that would be understandable. It is a case of a, purportedly infallible, device making an error (in flashing the OP), and then a human either making an error in checking the photos or, more likely, not bothering to check them at all before commencing proceedings.

You may not find a specific offence entitled 'frivolous prosecution' (for indeed, such a thing is not an offence in and of itself, but its potential consequences are), but if you look even superficially into english law then you will find that it is a state of proceedings which the law is at pains to avoid.

Is it, or has it ever been, that any section of the populace 'howling with anger' has overridden the interest of justice? If the OP had needed more time to prepare his defence then of course it would have been granted, likewise if the CPS has needed more time to prepare theirs (though one would hope that since they were the ones laying the proceedings before the court that they would have been adequately prepared). In the first instance it was not a case that extra preparation was required, it was nothing more than failed disclosure, of a piece of evidence that was pivotal to the prosecution's case. Ergo the case should have been dismissed; the very foundations on which the proceedings were being brought were not present!

Subsequently, I applaud KND for keeping his nerve and standing up to a system that is entirely stacked against him, and largely the interests of justice. It is a well acknowledged fact amongst legal circles that justice in such cases is unlikely to occur at any lower stage than the crown court, so kudos to you for sticking to your guns and showing the 'partnership' (of injustice) that not everyone can be rolled over by their united front of inequity!

There may not be an offence of frivolous prosecution. However, there most certainly is a dim view taken of individuals making vexatious prosecutions - and surely given the likely ratio of fine (had the OP been found guilty) to costs, including two adjourned trials (or PTRs) due to lack of evidence that had been requested in plenty of time) suggests that this is scamerati making a vexatious prosecution for someone exceeding the speed limit by less than the thickness of a speedo needle..

That is certainly a possibility.
It could also arise from using the wrong calibration figures to convert distance to speed.
I imagine that there are other possiblities.

Yes there was a mistake.

No its not possible to say exactly what the mistake was. Deciding, with no information to inform you, that the photo was not checked and putting that decision forward as if it were fact doesn't help anyone.

It wasn't an apology.
I don't know what happened and have no dealings with, or control over, that stage of the process. So I am not in a position to make an apology.

If that were true I wouldn't be sitting in a court with a roof that leaks.


Some of the cash does go into HMCS at the admin level.

The judicial independence of JPs and Court Clerks is guaranteed so that the admins who have control over the cash are not able to influence decisions taken in court.

JPs and Court Clerks have no administrative power and are unable to influence the admins.


Fines are probably the commonest sentence imposed in magistrates courts. That cash goes in to general taxation. Which pays for, among other things, the school my children go to.

I haven't yet inflated a fine to ensure that my kids school doesn't have to go short of books.

I always favour incompentence over conspiracy.


How many adjournments should a court grant to allow a defendant to produce proof that he was insured on the day he was stopped? Once? Twice? 3 times?

Courts are required to consider the interests of justice. In most cases that come down to not dismissing the case at the first hitch, whichever side that comes from. And not letting it go on ad infinitum.

As is usually the case these decisions are very easy when sitting in front of a computer at home. They are not so simple in court.

I have no idea.

No one should ever plead guilty to something they haven't done.
The problem for many drivers is that they habitually speed and can't be sure if they were over the limit or not. Which makes it difficult and stressful to defend the charge.