Safe Speed Forums

My wife and I are both nominated drivers on each others insurance policies. In May of last year my car broke down in Hartlepool, Cleveland and over the course of a few days we travelled up and down to Hartlepool from our home in Sunderland, Tyne & Wear to move the car and to have it repaired then pick it up. On the 16/04/07 my wife received an NIP stating that at 9:57am on the 10/04/07 she had been driving at 46mph in a 30mph zone.

Given that we had driven backwards and forwards along the road some 6 to 8 times in just a couple of days neither of us had any idea who was driving as we split the driving pretty much evenly. Neither of us have ever had any driving convictions or points on our licences despite both having been driving over 15 years. When she received the NIP we ended arguing as neither of us would accept it was us who were driving at that speed in a 30 zone. In the end she sent the NIP back stating that she was not driving and named me as the driver.

Subsequently on the 01/05/07 the police claim that I was sent an NIP/Notice of requirement to provide details of driver form. While I received a form asking if I was the driver (which I simply stated no to) there was nowhere in which I could name the person who I believed to be driving.

That was sent back to Cleveland police who state it was received by them on the 31/05/07

This week I received two summonses to appear at Hartlepool Magistrates Court on the 24th of September....

The first is for speeding offence (which of course I had denied)

The second is for "failing to give information which was in his power to give and which might have led to the identification of the driver of a vehicle which was alleged to have been guilty of an offence of excess speed Contrary to Section 172(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988,"

The police officers statement claims a number of things. Firstly that I was sent a combined NIP/Notice of Requirement to provide details of driver form. While I received what I assume was and NIP in which I simply answered "no" to the question "were you the driver of this vehicle" there was no where on the form where I could state who I thought was driving. Neither did it appear there was any other way of explaining the circumstances or confusion as to who was the driver. The wording of the question simply gave a Yes/No option.

The police then claim on the 31/05 they sent me a letter offering me the opportunity to view the photographic evidence which they claim they did not receive a response to. I did not respond as I have never received any letter giving me the opportunity to view the photograph. Had I received such an offer I would have torn their hands off as it would settle the argument (which has caused a lot of trouble between my wife and I) once and for all.

I am currently totally confused as to what to do next. If it was me speeding then I am happy to hold my hands up and admit it. Problem is I have now read a number of cases in which people stated it was them who was driving a car and have then been done for perjury/perverting the course of justice when the photographic evidence made it obvious it was not them. I cannot afford a solicitor to defend my case as while I am a school teacher I have 3 small kids. a hefty mortgage and even bigger monthly child care bill. I am tempted to plead guilty by post and simply set out the case as above in mitigation so as to get the least punishment possible. I truly have no idea whether I am guilty or not so am more than a little peeved that I may have to admit the offence...

Problem is that I am catagorically not guilty of the S.172 offence. Given our on going argument and my wife naming me as the driver I was desperate for the opportunity to do the same back. The forms they sent simply did not give me any opportunity to do this or to explain the circumstances.

I have read on a number of sites that I could end up with 3 points for the speeding offence and a further 6 points for the S.172 offence putting me just 3 points away from a ban. I could also get a hefty fine.

ALL FOR SOMETHING I SIMPLY DONT KNOW WHETHER I HAVE DONE OR NOT!!!!!!!

I appear to have a number of options

I plead guilty in writing setting out my case above and hope they are lenient?

I admit the speeding offence (even though I dont know if it was me) and risk getting done for perjury?

I deny both of the offences only to be finally presented with the photograph in court and then have the book thrown at me.


Had I had any idea what so ever that this was all going to end up in a mess like this I would have kept copies of all the documents I was sent. Unfortunately having had no experience of speeding fines and hence never taking any advice I simply filled the forms in I was sent to the best of my ability and trusted that it would be dealt with fairly....It seems that I am extremely naive

Any assistance greatly appreciated :0(

I believe you should be furnished with a set of photographs at least 7 days before you go to court.

The documentation you were given with no opportunity to name the driver will also be supplied - or a copy of it, so you should be able to show this in court.

I recently fought unsuccessfully to clear myself of a speeding charge, but in most of the early paperwork I was sent, there was NO opportunity or information saying how to inform the CPS that I wished to go to court - despite frequent passages saying that if I wished to refuse the conditional offer and go to court, I should let them know.
ONLY when I got the copies from the CPS did I find a missing page with a box to tick and return - by which time I had been summonsed by way of not responding!
Also, I was not given a court time - and when i rang, I was told to be there at the start of the day - 10.00 am.
When I attended, I was then told I did not have to be there until 2.30 pm, and SHOULD have received a letter to this effect!!

Hang around here and I am sure that some more info. will come your way!

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

providing you ask for them. Do so, quickly!

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

Hang about.

No one knows who was driving in this case. And the RK (wife) is possibly the one that should have been summonsed anyway.

IMO the original poster should:

- plead not guilty to both charges.

- delay procedings if poss to ensure that the possibility of issuing a sunnons to his wife times out (date of NIP first arrival + 6 months + 28 days).

- attend court and defend the S172 charge with paragraph 4. (the 'Hamilton defence')

-get along to Pepipoo for more detailed (and possibly less technical / more understandable) advice.

No one knows who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence and no one should be convicted. My understanding is that in these circumstances the test of diligence will be very easy to satisfy, given the nature of the form supplied. If the RK had been summonsed the full test of diligence would apply and the case would be harder to win.

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

You need to be aware that it is common for anti camera sites to suggest very high penalties will be imposed when this is not the case.
S172 only carries 3 points so no court can impose 6 even if they wanted to.
It is very very rare for both speeding and s172 charges to be pursued. In all but a tiny minority they are alternative charges and one or the other will be automatically dropped at court.

Are you sure that it's very rare.

Abeit from what I have read rather than first hand experience a Speeding and s172 charge seem to the the MO for the CPS when prosecuting in a case where the PACE statement defence has been used.

It is standard practice to list both charges whether the pace statement has been used or not.
That way, if the defendant wants to change his mind and admit to being the driver, he can do so without needing an adjournment to another date.

It is very rare, at least in my experience, for both charges to be proceeded with. Normal practice is to drop one of them once a plea has been entered to the other charge.

Whenever that has happened when I have been in court it has been because the defendant has been sent a copy of the photo which contains a clear image of the driver and is still saying he doesn't know who was driving.
If anybody has FIRST HAND knowledge of both charges being proceeded with in different circumstances I would be interested to hear about it.

I find that if all drivers of the car stick to the limit these types of problems dont happen!!

NOW ISN'T THAT A THOUGHT

Really? Why don't you ask the trusted user Ernest Marsh if his personal experience tallies with that? How about the user Peter Ward at PistonHeads? I'm starting to wonder if camera proponents share the same reality with the rest of us.


IT'S JUST AS ORIGINAL AS EVERYTHING ELSE YOU'VE WRITTEN SO FAR.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Have you ever known a driver who actually achieved that?

It's important to be realistic. But you're not being realistic.

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

You can't even stick to the limit yourself, you said so.





So you do break the limit.

How do you know this happened on purpose?

Now isn't that a thought.

I assume drivers of other motorised vehicles on british roads are free to break the limit?

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Not forgetting the fact that the owner of the car may be being punished because the other driver may have broken the limit!

Safetyman, are you prepared to go to jail for your lovers crimes?

_________________
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