Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Aug 24, 2019 15:15

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 14:08 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 13:46
Posts: 11
This one's on behalf of my partner actually who is up in court next week on a charge of driving at 104mph on a public dual carriageway A-road (A46 Lincolnshire). We realise he was very much in the wrong and are entirely prepared that he will get banned, however just wanted to pick everyone's brains on the details and if he's likely to get off a ban or what period he can expect:
- First Offence
- Has presented a statement of mitigation to the court in advance explaining his work situation - required to be able to drive. <statements removed>
- Dry, clear roads at the time.
- Not driving dangerously, just genuinely trying to be somewhere quickly.
- Overall law-abiding citizen just getting on with his life, not causing anyone any trouble ever.
- He is extremely remorseful.
- Meticulously provided all financial info to the court immediately (including our incomes, outgoings down to the slightest detail) - they ask for your bloody inside leg measurement, don't they?!! Seriously, I can't believe ANYONE would go to the trouble he has over this, especially splitting everything down to WEEKLY income etc... The paperwork the court sent is very scruffy and outdated. I mean, who gets paid weekly these days in proper jobs.?!!
- Feels he's already learned his lesson by the stress of being in contact with a police officer in these circumstances and having the worry hanging over him for 6 weeks prior to the court appearance.

Any chance of a reprieve??

Thanks! :?


Last edited by laskhudd on Tue Oct 16, 2007 23:03, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 14:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
A legal method called a 'Newton Hearing' ('a trial within a trial') makes it possible to plead guilty to a lower speed.

Most speeding cases are defendable because the prosecution MUST do or prove many things and often they are sloppy.

What's the evidence in this case? From a speed camera? What sort of camera?

The best free advice on the net in these cases comes from Pepipoo: http://www.pepipoo.com

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Unmarked Car
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 14:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 13:46
Posts: 11
He was pulled over by an unmarked traffic police car, so the evidence seems cut and dry.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unmarked Car
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 15:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
laskhudd wrote:
He was pulled over by an unmarked traffic police car, so the evidence seems cut and dry.


That makes it harder to challenge the evidence, certainly. But:

- can they prove that their equipment was calibrated, checked and working?
- can they prove the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged offence?
- were the officer(s) properly trained and certificated in the use of the equipment?
- was the paperwork completed correctly?
- was the paperwork served on time?
- is the summons for the correct offence? (often errors here...)
- are the officers available to attend court? (if they retire or leave the Police then the case is won)
- in the case of two officers, do their statements agree? Do they agree 'too much'?
- is the speed limit signed in accordance with the regulations? (leading signing expert Richard Bentley says if the signs are wrong the NSL fails - and I tend to agree.)
- was a speed limit order in force on the road at the date of offence? (goes to 'wrong part of law' / correct offence above.)
- and so on...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Wow!
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 15:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 13:46
Posts: 11
Wow, there really are a lot of ways to challenge this. However, the thing that concerns me is that he has already entered a plea, will not be appointing a lawyer and also the court date is next Wednesday. Surely having entered all this, it's too late? Also, having read a lot all over the internet about so many cases being "timed out" or people finding loopholes and eventually getting the case dropped, I just wonder if when the powers that be finally get someone in court, admitting to what they did, the system chooses to make an example of them without giving them a fair trial, so to speak. It feels like there are so many people getting away with it on technicalities, that because we are honest people and are going through the system correctly without challenging it, that he may suffer because of it. Just out of interest, what are the guidelines on what punishment / length of ban / fine could he expect for what he did? So many different sources have different ideas of the posssible outcome. Someone told me he'll get between 14-28 day ban PLUS a fine of up to £500. Others tell a completely different story, including 6 month bans, £1000 fines, 9 points etc. One military friend of his has had 27 points on his license and never been banned! Surely, that just says he hasn't learned his lesson, but because he's serving military he's got off everytime! Might be more helpful at this stage to just prepare ourselves for what he's realistically likely to receive. Thanks... I'm wishing I'd got in touch with this forum sooner now...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wow!
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 16:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
laskhudd wrote:
Surely having entered all this, it's too late?


You can change your plea at any time.

If a Not Guilty plea is entered at this stage there will be an automatic adjournment.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 17:33 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 13:46
Posts: 11
You seem to strongly believe we should challenge it then? I will definitely look in to it... any info regarding the possible ban/fine would be useful also.

Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 18:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
laskhudd wrote:
You seem to strongly believe we should challenge it then? I will definitely look in to it... any info regarding the possible ban/fine would be useful also.

Thanks!


I would challenge any such prosecution as a matter of principle. One thing I have learned is that they are sloppy and often rely on people 'rolling over'.

Celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman reportedly won 50 speeding cases in a row by finding defects in prosecution cases. I reckon that means that most of us have a fair chance.

My wild guess on sentence is a ban of 14 to 28 days and a fine of £300. But the ban might raise insurance premiums for five years at a cost of many hundreds more.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 20:17 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
SafeSpeed wrote:
A legal method called a 'Newton Hearing' ('a trial within a trial') makes it possible to plead guilty to a lower speed.


If you offer to plead guilty to exceeding the limit but at a lower speed than the one alleged the CPS may accept that, especially if the difference is small.

If they don't accept it then the bench will consider if the difference in the two speeds would make a material difference to their sentence. If if it won't then you can either plead guilty to the higher speed with no disadvantage to yourself or plead not guilty and go to trial.
A guilty plea will get you a discount off the fine but NOT off points or ban. A not guilty plea will either get you no penalty at all or the full fine and points or ban depending on verdict.

If the bench think it will make a difference to their sentence then a Newton hearing will be held. That is a mini trial with only one thing in dispute. In this case the speed. If you win the newton hearing then you are sentenced as you would be for a guilty plea. If you lose then you get the full penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 20:21 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
laskhudd wrote:
I mean, who gets paid weekly these days in proper jobs.?!!
Lots of ordinary working class people including some of my fellow magistrates.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 20:33 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
laskhudd wrote:
any info regarding the possible ban/fine would be useful also.
104 in a 70 has a starting point of a short ban of 2 to 4 weeks and a fine of 1 weeks pay or so. Plus court costs of about £40 plus £15 victim surcharge.

The court will consider any exceptional hardship you put forward and may impose 6 points (it can't be more for a single speeding offence) or a shorter ban.

They will also consider any factors relating to the offence which may also bring the penalty down or could push it up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 23:05 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
What was he doing when he was speeding?

He had to be somewhere quickly, yes... But why?

Was it in connection with his job?

If so, ask the magistrate and the clerk what their security clearances are?

The answer will probably be that they do not have any.

He could then say: "I was proceeding at 104 mph. however, due to matters of national security I cannot tell the court why I was driving at 104 mph, nor can I tell the court why I was on that particular road, or where I was going.

"I was unable to inform the officer of any of the relevant facts as I concluded that his security clearance was not sufficiently high to warrant me giving him such sensitive information."

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 01:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 20:06
Posts: 77
Thatsnews wrote:
What was he doing when he was speeding?

He could then say: "I was proceeding at 104 mph. however, due to matters of national security I cannot tell the court why I was driving at 104 mph, nor can I tell the court why I was on that particular road, or where I was going.

"I was unable to inform the officer of any of the relevant facts as I concluded that his security clearance was not sufficiently high to warrant me giving him such sensitive information."


sorry that will not work ,there are procedures for this eventuality so this is obviously not work related. :oops:

_________________
Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 01:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
hampshireian wrote:
Thatsnews wrote:
What was he doing when he was speeding?

He could then say: "I was proceeding at 104 mph. however, due to matters of national security I cannot tell the court why I was driving at 104 mph, nor can I tell the court why I was on that particular road, or where I was going.

"I was unable to inform the officer of any of the relevant facts as I concluded that his security clearance was not sufficiently high to warrant me giving him such sensitive information."


sorry that will not work ,there are procedures for this eventuality so this is obviously not work related. :oops:


Yes... But the magistrate would not know what these procedures are. And nor do the police.

(I only know this because some years ago a dopey PC stopped a car which he should not have stopped. Apparently he should have checked with someone higher up, but didn't...)

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 02:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 20:06
Posts: 77
If this had security implications it would never get to court .

_________________
Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 13:46
Posts: 11
Thatsnews wrote:
What was he doing when he was speeding?

He had to be somewhere quickly, yes... But why?

Was it in connection with his job?

If so, ask the magistrate and the clerk what their security clearances are?

The answer will probably be that they do not have any.

He could then say: "I was proceeding at 104 mph. however, due to matters of national security I cannot tell the court why I was driving at 104 mph, nor can I tell the court why I was on that particular road, or where I was going.

"I was unable to inform the officer of any of the relevant facts as I concluded that his security clearance was not sufficiently high to warrant me giving him such sensitive information."


I love this one! How imaginative...!! It was work related since he was in a hired company car on the way to pick up his boss to drive elsewhere for an important meeting... about what I do not know...??!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 13:46
Posts: 11
fisherman wrote:
laskhudd wrote:
I mean, who gets paid weekly these days in proper jobs.?!!
Lots of ordinary working class people including some of my fellow magistrates.


Thankyou. This is very unhelpful.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:03 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 13:46
Posts: 11
fisherman wrote:
laskhudd wrote:
any info regarding the possible ban/fine would be useful also.
104 in a 70 has a starting point of a short ban of 2 to 4 weeks and a fine of 1 weeks pay or so. Plus court costs of about £40 plus £15 victim surcharge.

The court will consider any exceptional hardship you put forward and may impose 6 points (it can't be more for a single speeding offence) or a shorter ban.

They will also consider any factors relating to the offence which may also bring the penalty down or could push it up.


Thankyou! This IS very helpful, and seems to follow what I had heard. To be honest, we are preparing ourselves for a short ban and a fine. Seems reasonable given the circumstances. Is the "victim surcharge" that latest idea about giving to a charity helping the victims of speeding or something? His work colleagues are already holding a sweepstake (!) on what he will get, with the proceeds to be donated to such a charity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
laskhudd wrote:
fisherman wrote:
laskhudd wrote:
I mean, who gets paid weekly these days in proper jobs.?!!
Lots of ordinary working class people including some of my fellow magistrates.


Thankyou. This is very unhelpful.


Fisherman is a serving magistrate and we value his perspective.

I'm not surprised to see him defending the paperwork, and more seriously, I think he's telling us that a lot of his 'customers' are 'weekly'.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 13:46
Posts: 11
hampshireian wrote:
If this had security implications it would never get to court .


I'm not sure that's entirely true because he did explain to the officer who stopped him about his work responsibilities and showed him relevant ID. The officer was not interested. At what point would one get the chance to explain this and hence avoid court?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.330s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]