Tomorrow's big news: Folly Bottom

[SafeSpeed]

You heard it here first!

At 18:24 today, Safe Speed issued the following PR:

PR168: 5,000 motorists cheated in latest camera disaster.

News for immediate release

In a landmark case in Salisbury Magistrates court today 28 motorists
had speeding cases dismissed because the temporary speed limit signs
had not been displayed properly. An estimated 5,000 more motorists
have paid their fine and are entitled to refunds and compensation.

Salisbury Magistrates agreed the speed limit at the A303 at Folly
Bottom did not exist in law. However is was heavily enforced with
cameras.

Safe Speed said this careless mismanagement is all too typical of the
way that speed cameras are used on our roads.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign,
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "5,000 have paid fines when they were not
in breach of any law. I hope the authorities will contact them
promptly and ensure that they are both refunded and compensated for
the stress and inconvenience. Whoever is responsible for this fiasco
should lose their job."

Paul continued "When the authorities enforce technical regulations
they must always be aware of their matching obligations. Some might
claim that these motorists are 'getting away with it on a
technicality, but none of us can be expected to obey a speed limit if
we do not know that it was there. It really is that simple.

Claire Allison, 46, a make-up artist was the 'prime mover' behind the
cases coming to court. She said: "I drive a very high mileage and I do
my very best to always drive safely. The ticket in the post made me so
angry because I knew that I hadn't passed a speed limit sign. Safe
Speed put me in touch with Richard Bentley last year and I took
hundreds of photographs to support my case. I am so relieved it is all
over."

Richard Bentley, the signing expert who supported the defence cases
with evidence of the faulty signs said: "The onus is clearly on the
highway authority to get it right in the first place. They failed in
that duty and members of the public have been massively
inconvenienced."

Barry Culshaw, defence solicitor said: "The signing regime at the
enforcement sight aptly named folly bottom was fundamentally flawed in
a number of material respects additionally a number of my clients had
been prosecuted under the wrong part of the legislation. 25 clients
facing allegations at Folly Bottom had their summonses dismissed and 2
further defendants were similarly acquitted in relation to speed
enforcement at a site at Wylye further westbound on the A303

<ends>

edited to add 'Folly Bottom' to topic title.

[g_attrill]

All I can say is "WHOOPS"

That's what, £300,000 in fines? Plus the costs of dealing with all that paperwork, plus any complaints about compo etc, if it is possible for anybody to reclaim?

This is probably going to get a nice bit in every paper I bet.

I also see Mr. Bentley is causing trouble again

[SafeSpeed]

I found a gem of a Police PR and sent out another Safe Speed PR at 04:03 today:

PR169: Police crowed too soon at Folly Bottom

Further to yesterday's news (Safe Speed PR168) Safe Speed has learned
that the Police 'crowed too soon' in the Folly Bottom speed
enforcement fiasco.

In a press release from Wiltshire Constabulary on 18th June last year,
reporting that over 5,600 drivers had been caught, safety camera unit
manager David Frampton said; "It's barely credible,".

With fines of £60 requiring repayment, and the likelihood of claims
for compensation the bill will run in excess of £336,000. Safe Speed
couldn't agree more - it is barely credible.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "Speed camera enforcement is running
completely out of control. It's not making the roads safer. It's not
properly managed. It's not identifying dangerous drivers and it isn't
even founded on a basic understanding of how road safety works. Safe
driving and legal driving are not at all the same thing. Virtually
everyone speeds yet very few crashes are caused by responsible
motorists simply exceeding a speed limit. We've got the safest roads
in the world, but we're fast losing our lead. We have to scrap the
cameras and get back to the excellent policies that gave us the safest
roads in the world in the first place."

<ends>


Notes for editors.
==================

Wiltshire Police Press release:

http://www.wiltshire.police.uk/news/newsview.asp?id=455
======================================

Well worth checking out the Police PR...

[Paddy27]

This is great news!

But what the hell are you lot doing up so early??? Madness.

Wonder what the scamera partnerships will do now!!

[SafeSpeed]

Has the BBC been tricked?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wilt ... 277285.stm

Driver gets speed charge dropped

A speeding charge against a Wiltshire motorist has been dropped after she claimed there were no warnings.

Clair Allison was caught on camera exceeding a temporary 40mph limit in roadworks on the A303 at Folly Bottom.

She challenged the prosecution using photographic evidence and a report from a sign expert.

The Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case against her due to "absence of documentary proof".

'Doubts raised'

A statement from the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership said: "The Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed that there was clear evidence of careful checks of the signage having been carried out by police officers conducting enforcement.

"But a doubt was raised due to the fact that contractors' written records were not available during the early stages."

Ms Allison, a make-up artist, said: "At that point it is a 70mph limit and I didn't see any signing so that was what threw me completely.

"I think the safety camera has a lot to answer for. I think it has huge implications for people all over the country."
================================

What's going on here then? I've spoken to the appropriate BBC News online editor who is looking into it.

[SafeSpeed]

The BBC was tricked. The camera partnership and the CPS have been putting out disinformation. I've been fighting it all afternoon. While there are some interesting developments and angles, I don't believe that I've been effective in keeping the disinformation out of the newspapers. I've never known anything like it.

However the BBC web site has been updated and now reads:

Driver speeding charge dismissed

A speeding charge against a Wiltshire motorist has been dismissed after she claimed there were no warnings.

Clair Allison was caught on camera exceeding a temporary 40mph limit in roadworks on the A303 at Folly Bottom.

She challenged the prosecution using photographic evidence and a report from a sign expert.

The case was dismissed by Salisbury Magistrates' Court because of a lack of evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service.

The CPS added that it has "decided to withdraw [further] speeding prosecutions" for the period the roadworks were in place.

A statement said that the defence report highlighted there was not a "high standard of checks to ensure that the signage met legal requirements".

'Doubts raised'

A statement from the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership said: "The Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed that there was clear evidence of careful checks of the signage having been carried out by police officers conducting enforcement.

"But a doubt was raised due to the fact that contractors' written records were not available during the early stages."

Ms Allison, a make-up artist, said: "At that point it is a 70mph limit and I didn't see any signing so that was what threw me completely.

"I think the safety camera has a lot to answer for. I think it has huge implications for people all over the country."

==========================================

The disinformation trick is a statement in a CPS press release saying that 'charges have been dropped'. It's unclear, but they are NOT referring to the cases yesterday. Instead they are referring to other cases.

[SafeSpeed]

More disinformation from the SCP:

http://www.safetycameras-wiltshire-swin ... ?newsid=72

18/02/2005 15:44:43

STATEMENT
ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE WILTSHIRE AND SWINDON SAFETY CAMERA PARTNERSHIP (WSSCP)

Date: 18 February 2005

A303 Folly Bottom

The cases against Clair Allison and others were discontinued yesterday by the Crown Prosecution Service due to the absence of documentary proof that all signs were always present at the correct locations at all times, regardless of whether speed enforcement was taking place or not. These cases have not been proved or disproved in law, and none of the evidence has been tested in court.

The fact remains that anyone travelling along the A303, Folly Bottom would have been aware of the extensive road works and by ignoring the speed limit they were endangering the lives of the workforce as well as those of other road users. At least one of the defendants was detected not only exceeding the temporary 40 mph speed limit but also above the national speed limit, showing a complete disregard for safety and the law.

The outcome of this case only affects a relatively small number of drivers who were detected speeding, during the early stages of the scheme when the road works first commenced. Thereafter there is documentary evidence available from the Highways Agency contractors to confirm not only that the necessary safety checks were carried out every two hours but also that those checks were recorded.

The Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed that there was clear evidence of careful checks of the signage having been carried out by police officers conducting enforcement but a doubt was raised due to the fact that contractors written records were not available during the early stages.

[r11co]

The BBC was tricked. The camera partnership and the CPS have been putting out disinformation. I've been fighting it all afternoon. While there are some interesting developments and angles, I don't believe that I've been effective in keeping the disinformation out of the newspapers. I've never known anything like it.

The stakes are being raised. There is an election looming and potentially damaging news has to be 'massaged'.

Careful, Paul. I don't want to be reading about your 'suicide' in some quiet country lane.....

[SafeSpeed]

Safe Speed issued a third PR on the subject at 21:54 this evening:

PR170: Folly Bottom: misinformation

News: For immediate release

Safe Speed deplores misleading information issued by the Wiltshire and
Swindon Safety Camera Partnership. In a press release the partnership
suggests that the cases 'were discontinued yesterday by the Crown
Prosecution Service'(CPS). This is misleading - almost a lie. The CPS
offered no evidence and the cases were dismissed by the court.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "I was absolutely amazed to read the
statement issued by the camera partnership.

"The fact is that they do not have evidence that the speed limit signs
at Folly Bottom were properly displayed - and there's a simple reason
- the signs were not properly displayed, so of course there's no
evidence."

"This looks to me like a very ugly and cynical attempt to deflect
innocent members of the public from seeking their rights under the
law."

Barry Culshaw, the defence solicitor in the cases said: "The cases
were not discontinued, the Crown formally offered no evidence and the
cases were dismissed by the court. The impact of this is that all
Folly Bottom convictions and fixed penalties, must be regarded as
unsafe and any motorist who perceives an injustice about the situation
should seek legal advice or at the very least apply to the court to
have their conviction rescinded.

Barry Culshaw advises motorists fined or convicted at the site as
follows:

* If you pled guilty or paid a fixed penalty: apply to the magistrates
court to have the conviction set aside.

* If you were found guilty after a trial: apply for leave to appeal
against conviction out of time to the Crown Court.


<ends>

Notes for editors:
==================

The Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership Statement:

http://www.safetycameras-wiltshire-swin ... ?newsid=72

[Gatsobait]

They mentioned this on BBC local news (South Today) last night. They said the driver was clocked at 75, which IMO is a bit faster than I'd go on the A303 with one lane coned off... although slower than I've driven there other times . I wonder if this is more evidence of more or less staying at the limit, whatever that is perceived to be by the driver, and in this case due to crap signs she didn't realise the limit had changed. OTOH Wiltshire have got Prolaser IIIs (I think) and we've just heard how accurate they can be . If it was that or the orignal dodgyscope who really knows what speed she was doing?

[FJSRiDER]

..

[SafeSpeed]

The story gets a mention in The Sun:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005081166,00.html

Speed cam lift for drivers

TWENTY-seven motorists snapped speeding were cleared yesterday in a case that could lead to thousands of drivers having their convictions quashed.

Lawyers accepted that road signs warning of a reduction in speed limits to 40mph did not meet with regulations.

Around 5,650 motorists were fined £60 after being flashed in 16 months of roadworks on the A303 at Folly Bottom, Amesbury, Wilts.

Defence solicitor Barry Culshaw said all can now appeal — and that could lead to £320,000 in fines being repaid.

Mr Culshaw said: “This has implications nationwide. Motorists who think they have been wrongly convicted should get legal advice.”

[spearchucker]

Could do with some advice on this I was nicked at folly bottom in dec 03 in the road works at 46 mph I'm going to inform salisbury mag ct of this to try and get the conviction quashed fine refunded etc but how should I approach this I dont have any details of the case (pleaded guilty by post more fool me)what should I put in the letter?can I go for compensation as well? any help gratefully excepted
thanks in advance

[Gatsobait]

Could do with some advice on this I was nicked at folly bottom in dec 03 in the road works at 46 mph I'm going to inform salisbury mag ct of this to try and get the conviction quashed fine refunded etc but how should I approach this I dont have any details of the case (pleaded guilty by post more fool me)what should I put in the letter?can I go for compensation as well? any help gratefully excepted
thanks in advance

What was that then, the usual fixed penalty job? If so I guess Wilts scamera partnership would be the first call, and if they've got an 0800 number I'd speak very slowly and put their phone bill up as well . Otherwise you'd be best visiting the forums at http://www.pepipoo.com where they're into the legal stuff.

[diy]

It's my understanding that if you pleaded guilty you need to write to the CPS to get the conviction set aside, I'd write a letter to the scamerati, the CPS and the Mags court (cc all).

If you pleaded not guilty and were found guilty you need to apply for leave to appeal out of time to the crown court.

[SafeSpeed]

The Partnership are gradually changing their story. At 04:01 Friday, safe Speed issued the following PR:

PR172: Folly Bottom - the truth emerges slowly

News: for immediate release

After last week's dismissed court cases it seems that the Crown
Prosecution Service and the Swindon and Wiltshire Camera Partnership
are gradually waking up to the magnitude of the error. Safe Speed
demands that all drivers who have paid a fine are contacted by the
camera partnership to have their fines and licence points refunded and
compensation paid.

A press release recently issued by the camera partnership includes:
"Although there was clear evidence of careful checks of the signage
having been carried out by the enforcing police officers prior to
conducting speed checks, the defence expert’s report highlighted that
there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to prove a consistently high standard
of checks to ensure that the signage met legal requirements at all
times."

In other words: all convictions are unsafe.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "It has taken a week for the camera
partnership to admit to the error. At first they falsely implied that
the cases had been dropped and that only a small number of motorists
were affected. Now it is clear that all 5,600 penalties were unsafe.
This cowboy behaviour is all too typical of camera partnerships with
highly misleading and self serving statistics at the top of the list.
The camera partnerships must be disbanded immediately before more harm
is done to road safety and the Police / public relationship."

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

Get angry! The partnership appear to have attempted to mislead the
press and the public. 5,600 motorists need to know about this!

Latest partnership PR:
http://www.safetycameras-wiltshire-swin ... ?newsid=75

Previous partnership PR (now withdrawn):
http://www.safetycameras-wiltshire-swin ... ?newsid=72

Text of previous partnership PR still available at:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1873
(also previous Safe Speed PRs and other info)

[SafeSpeed]

Game Over at Folly Bottom. At 13:52 this afternoon, Safe Speed issued the following PR:

PR173: Folly Bottom: resistance collapses

News: For immediate release

Earlier today the Partnership agreed that many people are due a refund
on penalties paid for exceeding a speed limit that did not exist in
law at roadworks on the A303 at Folly Bottom. Safe Speed insists that
the Partnership is proactive in contacting those motorists who have
been penalised unjustly.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said:
"After a week of prevarication they have finally owned up to their
responsibilities. Motorists who have been inconvenienced by this will
be entitled to compensation as well as a refund of fine and licence
points."

Richard Bentley, (www.getjustice.co.uk) the signing expert who
prepared the defence case said:"From the outset my report clearly
identified that the law with regard to signing and traffic orders had
either been overlooked, ignored or deliberately sidestepped. After
many months of adjournment, the crown have finally accepted my
findings and motorists will at last get justice.

I'm delighted that motorists, who are continually under attack, will
finally get justice in one small corner of England."

<ends>

[CarlP]

How can they possibly get away with not pro-actively contacting those affected? I can't comprehend how they can in any way justify that to themselves, and the fact that they do so in the name of road safety makes it even worse.

[PeterE]

When a similar case occurred recently in Greater Manchester, the authorities do seem to have been more pro-active in refunding fines and removing points. See this thread.

[SafeSpeed]

The story FINALLY made the national newspapers. It's in today's Sun:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005092177,00.html

Speed cam sneaks' KO

By NEIL SYSON

A MUM yesterday celebrated victory over sneaky speed camera chiefs — who admitted WRONGLY nicking nearly 6,000 motorists.

Clair Allison, in her 40s, was stunned when she got a ticket through the post for driving too fast on a dual carriageway.

Officials had cut the limit from 70mph to 40mph at roadworks — but divorcee Clair insisted that at the point she joined the road there were NO warning signs.

She was backed by 26 other nicked drivers.

JPs dismissed their prosecutions after Clair spent months compiling photographic evidence along the A303 at Folly Bottom, Wilts.

She also showed that the mobile speed cam van was illegally parked.

Wilts and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership blamed the Highways Agency for the cock-up over signs.