Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Aug 10, 2026 09:19

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: failed prosecutions
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 02:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I want to start digging into failed speed camera prosecutions. Recent figures posted here showed that only about 50% of NIPs had resulted in a completed process. We should be asking: "What happened to the others?"

In order to ask the question effectively, I want to try and come up with a list of failure types. Here's a quick punt for discussion:

Group 1 Can't trace driver
- incorrect or incomplete registration records (i.e. can't trace keeper)
- foreign registered vehicle
- keeper failed to name driver

Group 2 Process failed
- documents out of time
- evidence insufficient
- paperwork errors (documents lost etc)

Group 3 Emergency services
- driver had valid exemption

Group 4 Case lost
- court finding of innocence

Can anyone suggest anything important or commonplace that may have been missed, or perhaps more useful classifications?

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: failed prosecutions
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 08:46 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
SafeSpeed wrote:

Group 2 Process failed
- documents out of time
- evidence insufficient
- paperwork errors (documents lost etc)

..........

Group 4 Case lost
- court finding of innocence


I would suggest removing evidence insufficient from process failed and change Group 4 to cases lost or dropped after driver identified. And put "insufficient evidence" and possibly "not in the public interest" (and/or "other") in there.

Might be useful to know how many cases of "keeper failed to name driver" resulted in S172 convictions.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 13:59 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
I'd change the tilte of group 4 to innocent.

afterall we see so much crap from the scamerati about losing on technicalities. And how he 'got off'

Since there entire job is about technicalities and rigid interpretations, I think its better to call the innocent - innocent. The law says they are innocent.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 13:11 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
a lot of cases are dismissed or discontinued at CPS stage rather thatn lost



hants put thier FPN hypothication online for you to read
http://www.safetycamera.org.uk/pd/audit2.pdf

include FPN paid 81%
ommited data is NIP's issued

(if i Foi the court services for hampshire we could ask how many people were summonsed for speeding... bet it wasn't 19%)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 18:20 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
How can number of NIPs issued be "not available"?

anton wrote:

include FPN paid 81%
ommited data is NIP's issued


It's 81% for the 4th quarter, the 1st quarter is only 65%, overall they only manage 76%


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.199s | 10 Queries | GZIP : Off ]