Safe Speed Forums

This is a subject that has cropped up on more than one forum. If there is a single-carriageway road with a limit that is not correctly signed, can the police still prosecute someone for exceeding the of 60 mph, or is no limit in practice enforceable?

If someone is charged with exceeding the 40 limit, but is acquitted because the signage was wrong, then surely to charge them with exceeding the constitutes a form of double jeopardy. I have never heard of such a case coming to court.

Obviously, even if you believe a limit to be incorrectly signed, you are taking a very risky course deliberately exceeding it, as to get a charge dismissed is likely to cost a lot of time and money.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

IANAL, but I would say yes one could be prosecuted, simply because every driver should know there can be no limit higher than NSL. Even no signs at all = NSL.


A spanner in the works could be the level of the penalty.
Going above NSL prosecution thresholds within an NSL could be a mere COFP/3 points, whereas going above NSL prosecution thresholds within a 40 is an automatic summons/higher penalty (for most vehicle classes). Could Newton trials be relevant here?
I don't know if any of that counts for anything.

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

It's probably not relevant but wasn't there a discussion (with Fisherman) on here a while ago about someone charged with dangerous driving being acquitted of that but being found guilty of careless driving as the lesser charge is wrapped up within the more serious one.

Could this apply here?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I don't know how the improperly signed limit as raised by the OP would work out in practice as I have never seen this arise. I can make a few comments which may (or may not) help.

When charged with speeding the wording is that you exceeded the prescribed limit. The matter of what the limit was and by how much you exceeded it form part of the case details and are relevant for sentencing purposes (if proven) but are not part of the charge. It is permitted alter details of the prosecution case when it is in the interests of justice to do so. If I were faced with a charge of 90 in a 40 I would be very happy if the bench considered it in the interests of justice to alter that to 90 in a 70. Given that it is now a requirement for both sides to tell the court in advance what they are going to rely on at trial cases where such changes are made are now rare.

A Newton hearing might help if you pleaded guilty to 90 in a 70 but disputed the 40 limit as, if the 40 limit were found to be unenforceable, you would get maximum credit for your timely guilty plea.

The power to find not guilty of dangerous driving but guilty of DWDC is set in statute for that situation only and is not generally available for other offences.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

OK being a little anal about this I know! The police don't prosecute, the CPS prosecute, the police simply investigate and report crimes. So I suspect that yes the police are completley entitled to report the offence!