Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Is this an invalid ticket?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
as300182
I'm not inclined to speed, so when I received a notice of intended prosecution for doing 42 in a 30 zone I was intrigued.

On the back of the form that needs to be returned with the driver declaration on it, it quite clearly says:

Time into Red: 0 seconds.

So I logged onto the police website provided in the notice to view the evidence. It appears to be a 2 camera system as there are two pictures. One of me entering the zone covered by a camera, and a second of me exiting the same zone, clearly taken by a second camera. One presumes that the time covered between the two cameras is used to determine the average speed.

In the top left hand corner is a time code. The time code on the two images is identical. This presumably accounts for the '0 seconds'.

Given that the evidence doesn't actually confirm any offence at all, and that clearly the equipment is at fault, do you think that I can successfully fight this prosecution?

Jlc
It's a speed on green camera. The 0 seconds is referring to a red light jump and not for the speeding. EDIT: It's a proforma template for both type of offences.

QUOTE (as300182 @ Tue, 16 Nov 2021 - 14:13) *
In the top left hand corner is a time code. The time code on the two images is identical. This presumably accounts for the '0 seconds'.

A lot depends on the type of camera. The speed is usually measured virtually instantaneously and a corroboration shot is taken.

Tell us the location or post the pictures. It won't be an 'average speed' system.

Regardless, the driver still needs to be nominated.

I suspect the camera is working correctly and it does prove the allegation.
The Rookie
QUOTE (as300182 @ Tue, 16 Nov 2021 - 14:13) *
Given that the evidence doesn't actually confirm any offence at all, and that clearly the equipment is at fault, do you think that I can successfully fight this prosecution?

Basically clearly NOT the case.
andy_foster
Where to start?

"Ticket" is not a legal term and therefore the question of whether it is invalid is somewhat nebulous.

Presumably you have received a Notice of Intended Prosecution combined with a requirement under s. 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 to name the driver? If so, the s. 172 requirement is valid as long as there was an allegation that the driver or the vehicle on question committed an offence. A NIP can be invalidated if it fails to comply with the stipulations of s.1 Road Traffic Offenders Act, but the last time I checked, listing time into red (whether or not the notice stated that this is only relevant to red light offences) as 0 seconds, did not invalidate a NIP for speeding.
as300182
So far I've not received any credible information on this.

It's seems that people either haven't read my post completely or they've just not understood what I've written. That being the case I apologise for not being clear.

1) This does not involve a single camera.
2) There are no road markings like the type you get for a single camera taking two images, so that speed over a distance can be verified.
3) The two images are clearly taken from different cameras.

Thus the time code in the two images must be important and one would presume would be the evidence necessary to prove the offence. I've attached images for you to look at.



Jlc
Ok, it IS an average speed system...

Clearly the 42mph has come from a time over distance calculation regardless of the timestamps on the entry and exit photos.

So, you are still in the same position that the driver needs naming. Remember the information provided is not the evidential pack the prosecution would be relying upon at court.

You could point out the identical timestamps on the entry and exit photo's but I wouldn't expect them to cancel.

That excess just qualifies for an awareness course. Should you want to challenge at court it could turn into an expensive day out.
as300182
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 16 Nov 2021 - 19:58) *
Ok, it IS an average speed system...

Clearly the 42mph has come from a time over distance calculation regardless of the timestamps on the entry and exit photos.

So, you are still in the same position that the driver needs naming. Remember the information provided is not the evidential pack the prosecution would be relying upon at court.

You could point out the identical timestamps on the entry and exit photo's but I wouldn't expect them to cancel.

That excess just qualifies for an awareness course. Should you want to challenge at court it could turn into an expensive day out.


The thing is, I don't believe I was speeding at all. As I said. I'm not inclined to speed anywhere. Confirming the driver is not an issue. But if this is the evidence they are relying on in court, it doesn't stack up does it.

The website says the following in the FAQs
"I want more evidence than is provided on this website


All the evidence we provide at this stage is available on this website. There is no entitlement to any additional evidence until the matter has been referred for Court Proceedings. The Camera and Tickets Office will not adjudicate over disputed facts and any requests for further documentation/evidence prior to a Court Hearing will be declined."

So on that basis I'd have to take the matter to court in order to get any evidence that makes sense. If they have other evidence that proves the offence, why would they not declare it up front?
dp7
QUOTE (as300182 @ Tue, 16 Nov 2021 - 20:14) *
So on that basis I'd have to take the matter to court in order to get any evidence that makes sense. If they have other evidence that proves the offence, why would they not declare it up front?


Because they believe what they have sent you constitutes enough evidence to prove the offence - it's largely an automated process.

Someone else who knows more about the technical specifics of the camera type might be able to fill in the gaps regarding how the time stamps on the pictures works, but I think it's a safe bet that the "Time into red: 0 seconds" is nothing to do with those time stamps. It'll just be a proforma template that they use for both speeding and red light offences.
Jlc
QUOTE (as300182 @ Tue, 16 Nov 2021 - 20:14) *
So on that basis I'd have to take the matter to court in order to get any evidence that makes sense. If they have other evidence that proves the offence, why would they not declare it up front?

As I said, you can take the 'low risk' option and just query the timestamps with your driver nomination. They may just ignore it though and issue a course/fixed penalty offer - it's then your choice whether to accept the out of court disposal.

However, if you don't believe you were speeding then you have every right to 'challenge'. (It is far more likely you didn't realise it was a 30mph so didn't think you were speeding)

You can then have access to the evidential material they would intend to use for the prosecution. Unfortunately, the out of court disposals are gone and you are subject to court sentencing and costs etc.

Should you maintain a not guilty plea and are found guilty then you'll see an income related fine (1 week relevant earnings), likely 4 points, costs listed as starting at £620 and a surcharge of 10% of the fine (min £34).

Of course, if there is a monumental mistake they would likely discover it before court or if you won then you'd walk free. But I'd still lay a wager that they do know the time interval and the distance between the cameras - but I agree the identical timestamps appear 'misleading'.

There are others on the forum that may have more information on the particular camera setup...
The Rookie
42 in a 30 would usually qualify for an awareness course, so you risk a lot if you decide to challenge it.
NewJudge
QUOTE (as300182 @ Tue, 16 Nov 2021 - 20:14) *
If they have other evidence that proves the offence, why would they not declare it up front?


Because they don't have to.

At present they have to do two things:

(1) issue a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) to either the driver or the Registered Keeper with 14 days (and since they don't know who the driver was, it goes to the RK)

(2) Find out who the driver was. They do this by issuing a "Request for Driver's details" to the RK.

The NIP has to provide the "...the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed" so it seems they've done the two things they have to. They don't have to provide any evidence, or any photographs. Those you have have been provided as a courtesy. You have a duty to provide the driver's details and when you have, the offer to avoid prosecution will almost certainly be made. As above, the speed qualifies for a course and if you don't fancy that, a fixed penalty would be offered provided you do not have more than eight points. And that is largely it. Unless you want to dispute the allegation. Then the matter will be heard in court and before then you will be served with the evidence the police intend to rely on to convict you.
TryOut
QUOTE (as300182 @ Tue, 16 Nov 2021 - 19:46) *
So far I've not received any credible information on this.

It's seems that people either haven't read my post completely or they've just not understood what I've written. That being the case I apologise for not being clear.

1) This does not involve a single camera.
2) There are no road markings like the type you get for a single camera taking two images, so that speed over a distance can be verified.
3) The two images are clearly taken from different cameras.

Thus the time code in the two images must be important and one would presume would be the evidence necessary to prove the offence. I've attached images for you to look at.

Those images are previews of the images from the record produced by the speedmeter. They are not the approved record from that speedmeter. If you decide on a court appearance then the police should produce the record that is approved and the CPS will serve it 7 days or more before the hearing.
You do not need to be given the approved record to accept the speed and the offer not to take the matter to court.
If you are not happy with the charge then choose court.
The time on the image is the event time that will be close to the time you reached the second camera.
If you do go to court and all you get is these images, ask for the proper record.
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (TryOut @ Tue, 16 Nov 2021 - 22:53) *
Those images are previews of the images from the record produced by the speedmeter. They are not the approved record from that speedmeter. If you decide on a court appearance then the police should produce the record that is approved and the CPS will serve it 7 days or more before the hearing.
You do not need to be given the approved record to accept the speed and the offer not to take the matter to court.
If you are not happy with the charge then choose court.
The time on the image is the event time that will be close to the time you reached the second camera.
If you do go to court and all you get is these images, ask for the proper record.

What on earth is an "approved record" or a "proper record"?

Only so as not to make the OP look stupid if he is insisting on a mumbo jumbo "proper record" in court when the prosecution produces records from a prescribed device.
TryOut
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 17 Nov 2021 - 00:43) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Tue, 16 Nov 2021 - 22:53) *
Those images are previews of the images from the record produced by the speedmeter. They are not the approved record from that speedmeter. If you decide on a court appearance then the police should produce the record that is approved and the CPS will serve it 7 days or more before the hearing.
You do not need to be given the approved record to accept the speed and the offer not to take the matter to court.
If you are not happy with the charge then choose court.
The time on the image is the event time that will be close to the time you reached the second camera.
If you do go to court and all you get is these images, ask for the proper record.

What on earth is an "approved record" or a "proper record"?

Only so as not to make the OP look stupid if he is insisting on a mumbo jumbo "proper record" in court when the prosecution produces records from a prescribed device.

Exactly what it says. If you don’t know what that is then simply resist comment.

To the OP: records from Home Office Type Approved devices all take a specific format for that equipment. The images you have been given thus far are previews. They cannot be certified with a Road Traffic Offenders Act section20 certificate. If you do go to court then you should do what I suggest above.
as300182
Many thanks everyone for your input.

For now I guess I'll have to wait for them to take the next step. It would appear that the system is rigged to ensure most people take the fine rather than question the alleged offence, even if they believe they are innocent.

The one thing I'm taking from this is that I'm now getting a dash camera that'll record exactly what speed I'm doing and where I am. That way at least I'll be able to proceed with a court process with 100% confidence.
Jlc
The system is not rigged. The vast majority of motorists fully accept the allegation and want to dispose of the matter in the easiest way possible.

Everyone has a right to take the matter to court and have the allegation proven (or not). I've already detailed the potential costs in doing so.

Not sure what you mean by them taking the next step? You have nominated the driver, right?
Gerfc1
Remember your dash camera will not be a type approved by Home Office.

The speed cameras are approved device by Home Office.


I have dash cam and sometimes it even shows me at "22mph" while I was statutory!
The Rookie
QUOTE (as300182 @ Thu, 18 Nov 2021 - 11:21) *
It would appear that the system is rigged to ensure most people take the fine rather than question the alleged offence, even if they believe they are innocent.

The alternate viewpoint is that Fixed Penalties were introduced to reward those who readily admitted their guilt (and saved the justice system a lot of cost - everybody won), they are generally considered a good idea and penalising the 90% of those who readily accept them for the 10% (probably less) who may wish to challenge them seems the wrong thing. If you do away with them everyone gets the harsher result.
TryOut
QUOTE (as300182 @ Thu, 18 Nov 2021 - 11:21) *
Many thanks everyone for your input.

For now I guess I'll have to wait for them to take the next step. It would appear that the system is rigged to ensure most people take the fine rather than question the alleged offence, even if they believe they are innocent.

The one thing I'm taking from this is that I'm now getting a dash camera that'll record exactly what speed I'm doing and where I am. That way at least I'll be able to proceed with a court process with 100% confidence.

Very good. Let us all know where you will get one of those. smile.gif

Perhaps your camera would have also shown the same speed as the Approved speedmeter...you never can tell.

QUOTE (Gerfc1 @ Thu, 18 Nov 2021 - 11:33) *
Remember your dash camera will not be a type approved by Home Office.

The speed cameras are approved device by Home Office.


I have dash cam and sometimes it even shows me at "22mph" while I was statutory!

Oh dear. Get that replaced or do you stop very quickly?
andy_foster
QUOTE (as300182 @ Thu, 18 Nov 2021 - 11:21) *
It would appear that the system is rigged to ensure most people take the fine rather than question the alleged offence, even if they believe they are innocent.


Most people caught speeding were actually speeding, but that does not change the fact that the system is rigged to the point that many regulars on this site will often advise against defending an arguably defendable case. However, unless you have a viable plan to do something about it, complaining about things that are outside of our control does not always endear the poster to many of the regulars.

QUOTE
The one thing I'm taking from this is that I'm now getting a dash camera that'll record exactly what speed I'm doing and where I am. That way at least I'll be able to proceed with a court process with 100% confidence.


A valuable lesson.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.