Safe Speed Forums

Hi chaps. Please take a look at my partners circumstances below and provide me with your feedback as to how best proceed.

He was pulled over on a 3 lane A road with 3 passengers travelling at a speed in excess of 100mph. (Was actually travelling around 120mph).

Unmarked Volvo pulled him over and said that they will be prosecuting on basis of “corroboration”. (ie: their word against his).

They had no car camera nor did they clock him with a stationary speed gun. We actually don’t think they were Traffic officers as they were plain clothed officers.

They did say they believed he had been travelling no slower than 115mph (by which measurement I can only assume using their own car speedometer in pursuit?).

The point of us raising this request is to see from you guys how you think the best method to proceed is. We have just brought a house and our credit cards are to the max with typical refurbs + mortgage payments etc…

The “Statement of facts” included in the summons states:

The defendant drove a motor ***** on the said road at a speed exceeding 70 miles per hour. The defendants speed was checked by a police officer and found to ****

(I am not sure what these asterix’s represent, but they’re on the “statement of facts”)

We are tempted to submit a guilty plea – how do the magistrates take to this – do they look down on your and impose a more heavy fine/ban if you’re not present? Or are you better off pleading ng and getting a solicitor.

Not that wanting to evade the law is the goal but you think there is enough circumstances here to sustain a not-guilty plea? It’s hard to plead guilty when you don’t know what they’re going to hit you with in terms of evidence?

I wouldn't say, from the information you've provided, that you could enter a not-guilty plea, you've said he was doing 120mph!!

The only advice would be that if the summons allows you insufficient time to prepare for the court date then you should ask for an adjournment. Given the circumstances of the service, they should have no issues granting it.

So perhaps better to go in with Guilty Plea?

There's a reasonable prospect (not a good prospect) of finding a defect in the prosecution case if you do enough homework.

We issued a brief checklist: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/347

Pepipoo provide the best free advice on the net in such matters.

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

Was he doing 120mph?

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

Is that a moral question? There's nothing wrong with asking moral questions, but a better one would have to be: Was he driving dangerously fast?

Quite possibly the law is intended to embody morality, but frequently it falls far short.

The questions the OP needs to be answered are:

- Was an offence committed?
- Can the prosecution prove their case according to law?

It is right and proper that all the technical requirements of law should be satisfied before conviction. Nothing less is acceptable justice. All too frequently the prosecution fails in their duty to present a watertight case.

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

If he was doing an INDICATED 120 mph. It is likely to be 10% lower true speed. Possibly 108mph. Check the speed o against a number of sat navs and you should be able to calculate the over read of your speedo. Then you can negotiate the true sped with the court in a "newton hearing."

If speeding is on the summons then he might get a ban of 56 days
if dangerous driving is alleged it could be a 1year ban

If he has any argument for hardship during a ban then he should make it.
But I have tried this and it is very hard to look poor on 30k

_________________
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

Not moral, no! I was thinking of the case when a councillor was done for 60 in a 30 and was really doing less than 15mph!

Clearly not the case here but if he was -say- only doing 80 or 90 not 120?

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

Ahh, just a little diversion then...

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

Would not be the first time a police officer has got a little ahem! over-excited and decided to over-egg the pudding a little bit!

Police seem to -sometimes- have problems with numbers.

They always underestimate the number of people at a demo.

IE 500 people miraculously becomes two old chaps and an elderly dog.

And over-estimate speed.

IE 60 mph becomes at least 85!

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

How can it be a statement of facts if it withholds all of the key facts? What a weird system we have, here!

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

Hi chaps - court was today and we've just got back from our 4 hour drive back from Barnstaple Civic Centre - phew, of course watching our speed the whole way!

He was banned from driving for 21 days and fined £750 + £50 court costs + £15 victim support fee (whatever that is?). He went with a guilty plea which the court honoured and said they would take into consideration

When my partner met with his solicitor (www.marymonson.co.uk , £1175) she actually showed him the prosecution evidence - it was shocking what the officers had produced. It was a full report going into detail about the speed he was travelling, even said that they levelled their speed at 115mph at which the driver was still accelerating (sounds bad doesn’t it?). I think it would have been stupid to go with NG knowing that you've been caught red handed.

The mags said they had gone with a lighter sentence due to his need to drive for living and had no choice to present a smaller than fair fine due to his financial circumstances. The solicitor highlighted his £6000 student loan and the fact that he was paying RENT and MORTGAGE at the present time due to being between properties, which sought out the sympathy vote.

It was quite tempting in the first instance to think "screw the law, I'll plead not guilty and make them prove it, how can they do me if they dont have any substantial evidence?!?" - but in hindsight, I think this is a long shot. Ok, if you've been presented to the courts for 99mph, then there could be reasonable doubt that you might have been doing 88 / 90 / 95, but when you're stood up there with the prosecution saying you've been pulled doing 120mph, it really isnt going to work!

Advice for anyone else in the same posistion - get legal advice, get a solicitor if you've been doing an excessive speed, prepare. Ta all

Interesting you say that as, apart from show the evidence - which you'd have got for nothing from the prosecution had you pleaded not guilty - the solicitor in this instance would appear to have relieved more money from his client than the court did.

"£15 victim support fee (whatever that is?)"

It's an extra fine for domestic abuse. Your friend hasn't been found guilty of domestic abuse, but he gets fined for it anyway. Everyone who gets fined in a court does now.

I'm just dying to see how Gordon's going to write us a proper constitution with laws like that on the books because it's hard to see how "you have the right to be fined for crimes you haven't even been found guilty of committing" could get written in there and anyone nearby keep a straight face.

I wonder if this has been tested against Human Rights legislation?

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