Safe Speed Forums

Short life link:
http://www.thisisbournemouth.co.uk/dors ... NEWS0.html

SPEED LAW FLAW

by Julie Magee

THOUSANDS of motorists could have their speeding fines quashed after a Bournemouth solicitor persuaded magistrates to throw his summons out of court.

The lawyer pointed out a flaw in police paperwork after being issued a fine for driving at 38mph in a 30mph zone.

Details were released after the case by a fellow solicitor, David McCreath, who attended the hearing.

Mr Creath said: "Following legal submissions that proceedings could not be brought on the grounds that the standard police notice was defective, the court agreed that it was not up to scratch and told the police to improve their practice.

"Since then the district judge has dismissed other similar cases and the Crown Prosecution Services are now apparently applying to the divisional court for a review to clarify the position."

Mr McCreath warned that the Bournemouth case could have "important consequences and considerable ramifications."

He added: "Standard Dorset police notices have been used since the 1991 Road Traffic Act. It may mean prosecutions have been wrongfully commenced and fines and points wrongfully imposed against Dorset motorists for a number of years.

"Recently, in similar cases, organisations operating speed cameras have had to repay motorists and reinstate their licences where the paperwork has been irregular.

"The potential cost to the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership is pretty staggering. Everyone who receives a speeding notice should check the paperwork very carefully as it could also be void.

"The solicitor involved wants to remain anonymous because he fears for his licence."

The solicitor argued the police paperwork was flawed because, although it gave the offender 28 days to pay a £60 fixed penalty, it did not spell out that proceedings were being suspended in the meantime. Legislation says no proceedings can be taken until after proceedings have been suspended for 28 days, so the case was dismissed.

A Dorset Safety Camera Partnership spokeswoman said: "We cannot comment until we have carried out an investigation into this particular case."

John Revell, Chief Crown Prosecutor for the Dorset Crown Prosecution Service, said: "The forms used when a speed camera is activated incorporate a number of different legal issues. Following the ruling in this case we and the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership have carefully examined the wording.

"We consider the relevant parts of the forms comply with the legislation and that there is nothing wrong with the convictions obtained. Any appeals on the ground that the forms used are defective will be opposed."

The Arrive Alive organisation, which operates speed cameras in North Wales, has been ordered to pay motorists more than £68,000 in fines after signs at roadworks on the A483 near Wrexham were placed at the wrong spot.

First published: June 17
=======================================

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 13:02 today:

PR205: Speed camera folly in Dorset

News For Immediate Release

News emerges today about a serious error with Dorset Police / camera
partnership paperwork that may lead to the fines issued to thousands of
motorists being refunded. (see link in Notes to editors)

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) commented as follows: "We have entered an arms race of
petty regulations. As the authorities enforce speed limits with unnecessary
and unhelpful degrees of technical precision the public is demanding that they
also observe petty regulations to the letter. Neither side is up to the
challenge - we can't stick to speed limits with technical precision and they
can't get their technicalities right either."

"The entire system of speed limit enforcement has become incompetent. We're
not enforcing the right limits for the right reasons against the right people,
and the roads are being made more dangerous. They can't even get their legal
paperwork right. I urge all members of the public to subject paperwork and
requests from camera partnerships to intense scrutiny - errors are frequent
and it is everyone's right to ensure that a case against them is properly made
according to law. In most cases it's far better NOT to pay the fixed penalty,
and to examine the evidence in detail before deciding on a plea. The public
needs to be aware that camera partnerships cannot 'cost recover' money paid in
court fines - they can only 'cost recover' from fixed penalties paid. So if
you reject the fixed penalty and go to court - even if you plead guilty - the
partnerships don't get cash for yet more infernal cameras."

"I've been asking: 'who will stop the runaway gravy train?' but it's starting
to look as if it's going to run off the rails all by itself."

<ends>

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

I think this guy probably expresses how this makes me feel



[defective image link removed ]

"They don't like it up them, sir"

Hmmm. I wonder how many other Speed Camera Conspiracies have paperwork that is defective in this way.

However, you can't help but admire their all too familiar head-in-the-sand response.

Now then,

is this to time to call for a suspension of the whole SCP programme pending a judicial review into the legality of the issuing of NIP's?

I'm a lowly engineer but there could be merit in this. I imagine even if nobody here could actually fund an injunction calling for the cessation I imagine an effectively worded and targetted press release possibly channelled through a polititian of note could result in a swathe of headlines along the lines of

'Call for Judicial Review into Speed Cameras' or 'Call to Suspend Illegal Cameras'????

I really think theres an opportunity here.

Sounds like the classic cakes and ale situation!

Here's the legislation in question:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Uk ... htm#mdiv34

Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 amending section 75 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988:

RTOA 1988 Section 75:

...

(7) A conditional offer must—
(a) give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence to which it relates as are necessary for giving reasonable information about the alleged offence,
(b) state the amount of the fixed penalty for that offence, and
(c) state that proceedings against the alleged offender cannot be commenced in respect of that offence until the end of the period of twenty-eight days following the date on which the conditional offer was issued or such longer period as may be specified in the conditional offer.


(8) A conditional offer must indicate that if the following conditions are fulfilled, that is—
(a) within the period of twenty-eight days following the date on which the offer was issued, or such longer period as may be specified in the offer, the alleged offender— (i) makes payment of the fixed penalty to the fixed penalty clerk, and (ii) where the offence to which the offer relates is an offence involving obligatory endorsement, at the same time delivers his licence and its counterpart to that clerk, and
(b) where his licence and its counterpart are so delivered, that clerk is satisfied on inspecting them that, if the alleged offender were convicted of the offence, he would not be liable to be disqualified under section 35 of this Act,

any liability to conviction of the offence shall be discharged.

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

I've re-read this thread 3 or 4 times. Can't get my head around the exact reason why he got off.

Can someone breakdown the chain of events and arguments for me, so I can grasp what was wrong with his ticket and what is assumed wrong with all the others issued.

Ta.

"any liability to conviction of the offence shall be discharged"

Does this read the way I think it does? When read in context, the paragraphs above it state that "if the offender delivers their licence to the Clerk and tenders payment", then "any liability to conviction of the offence shall be discharged".

To me, this says that, if you comply with the law in this respect and surrender your licence and payment, then you will NOT be convicted of the offence??

Or am I reading it incorrectly?

Yes and No!

The way I understand it is that if you opt for the Fixed Penalty then you are not actually convicted of an offence, you are effectively opting to take a voluntary penalty of £60 + 3 Points in return for which the scammers are agreeing not to prosecute you.

Obviously this distinction is effectively irrelevant, as the 3 points carry exactly the same weight as if they had been applied following a conviction, but in law the distinction is there nonetheless.

(But I still don't understand how this case collapsed).

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Here's an Essex COFP which appears to show the same defect:



So that's going to be fun.

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

Apart from the obvious blurs of identity, did you fiddle with this Paul, or is it genuinely a NIP for doing 40mph on a motorway?

There were roadworks at the M11/M25 junction at that time, it's more likely than not a roadworks scamera.

Yeah... roadworks.

No, I haven't 'fiddled with it'.

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

Hi,

Just though I should mention, you probably want to cover up the barcodes too, unless you know what they say. Looking at this form the one at the top probably contains the number & letters above it (which looks like it could refer to your case anyway) and the verical one could easily be the COFP Notice No which you have so lovingly covered up. It looks about the right length!

--

Andrew.

Even for roadworks 40mph seems like a very low prosecution threshold. It usually seems to be 50s and 40s but getting pinged for 40mph suggests a 30 limit in operation. Anybody ever seen a temporary motorway limit that low before? Is it justified or is it designed to feed the Gatso?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein