STi_Si

Sorry if this has already been posted but how many officers were in the car?

If there was only one and no real time video evidence (which they should be able to playback in the car but are not obliged to), then that might make a difference, however they also have VASCAR which is independent from video and is also evidential.

If two officers in the car and no video/VASCAR then they have their own supporting evidence.

As already stated, less hassle and cheaper in long term to take the fine.

jdmforest

only 2 so far....................
no offence mate,but like i said to "bob",read it again.
he "estimated" it was over 100,which it wasnt,and hes naturally goin to over estimate rather than under estimate.
at the end of the day,no matter what his job SHOULD be,he job IS to reach target achivements set by the goverment or his superiors.
sad....but true

reeperb5

if he said you were racing then im suprised hes not trying to do you for dangerous driving...??

if he said he "didnt clock your speed" then he cant do you for speeding (if i remember correctly or be very hard to prove if single crewed)

if you challenge it and go to court then imo thats what i would do but only if your sure theres no video evidence...

but if there is video of you driving "eraticly" yet it hasnt clocked your speed then (again ill have to check) but i dont think they can raise the charge to "due car" etc etc...

also what did you say after "caution"?

jdmforest

i dont remember us being cautioned to be honest! dont think he did.
we never said anything incriminating,well aware of sneaky recording equipment!

he has done alot of things wrong,but if he DOES have a tape..........

s1lko

If he was going to have to stand by his word in court, he's more likely to make a conservative estimate. Just my opinion though.

One question, if you weren't doing that kind of speed, why the concern about evidence?

Before anyone questions my adherance to speed limits, my right foot is as heavy as anybody else's...

reeperb5

not sneaky recording mate but anything you say after caution he should record in his PNB (notebook)

and if you were cautioned then i would say DEFO go to court!!!

was it a traffic officer... white hat??

jdmforest

because how it looks to normal people,and how it looks to 3 magistrates who will be mid 50's,and live in a bubble of coffee mornings and WI meetings in their pretty little villages and hold an emergency neighbourhood watch meeting when the local youths raid their apple trees is a totaly different story.
especially with a "respectable local bobby" in front of them.

jdmforest

didnt caution us, and no white hat but was in police clothes

s1lko

So, he'd lie on oath just to ruin your day?

DaveD

iTrader: (2)

There's a lot of crap written in this thread.

I got stopped years ago for overtaking two cars in a rural 50mph limit. The cars were doing about 40 - 45mph and, after giving the second car several oportunities to overtake, I gave a short blast down a straight bit of road and overtook both cars. Within a few hundred yds was a 30mph limit - I was roughly 3 times this speed before hitting the brakes and entering the 30mph at exactly 30mph!


Didn't think anything of it for a few miles, until the second car (a brown Corsa) started to zoom up behind me in another 30mph limit. Then I noticed the white shirt and black lapelles! Shortly after, I got headed-off by half of Thames Valley Police.

The officer in the Corsa said I had been speeding, but couldn't say exactly how fast, just 'in excess of the posted 50mph limit.'
To be honest, at that moment in time, I resigned myself to 3 points there and then - 'fair cop' you might say.

Later, I started to think about it, and was a bit upset with his standard of driving (tailgating a recently passed driver, for a start) and how most of Thames Valley had been sent to greet me in Wantage town on a Friday evening.

Anyway, cut a long story short......because I had accepted the ticket, that was, in effect, acceptance of the offence. If I had wanted to contest the ticket, I should have refused to take it with me.
Further, although the officer was on his own, in a car with probably an uncalibrated speedo, it seemed unlikely that a magistrate would believe my side of the story.

Lesson learnt - if you want to contest the ticket, don't accept it at the roadside!

hodgy0_2

"if he said he "didnt clock your speed" then he cant do you for speeding (if i remember correctly or be very hard to prove if single crewed)"

is bang on -- to go to court for speeding the police have to have a speed to prosecute you for "going to fast" wont hold up for a speeding conviction in court -- they would have to try and convict you of "without due care" etc

and the "speed" has to be captured using proper methods VASCAR, laser, timed observation between to fixed points etc

but by accepting the ticket (with a speed indicated on it no doubt) is an admission and can be used in court.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Wrong on two counts (sort of). Trained police traffic officers can give estimates of speed in court and have it accepted as evidence: look up the definition of "expert witness". Whether the accused is convicted as a result is an entirely different matter, but the estimate of speed can certainly be admitted. If the court so wishes, the estimate of speed form any member of Joe Public can be admitted as well, but the Defence is sure to point out any attached caveats.

Second, you accept a ticket instead of a court appearance. Yes, you are accepting guilt, but it can only be used in court in evidence of another crime, not the speeding one.


And why do so many people on these forums think(?) automatically that a person who defends the police must be a police officer?


M

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Sorry but this is wrong. the ticket at the roadside is a Notice of Intended Prosecution. It is letting you know that the Police have a note and offers you a get out of court clause of accepting the points/fine.

If you do not accept the charge and wish to plead not guilty wait until you are contacted with a court date. This must happen within six months of the NIP being issued. Accepting the NIP does not mean accepting guilt.

5t.

EddScott

So is the OP saying he wasn't exceeding the speed limit for the road they were on at the time the cop car was overtaken?

IMO, it sounds like the OP got a surprise from the unmarked car when its lights came on.

Personally if you were speeding, you got caught so pay up. If you and your mate managed to overtake the same car at the same time and neither were exceeding the speed limit take it to court.

reeperb5

he didnt caution him.. so whatever the scoob driver said is inavailable as evidence in court...

contend it imo.. but im no traffic officer

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

thought this deserved to be re inserted. as reiterated by your solicitor pay the fine take the points it's all well and good the keyboard warriors typing frantickly about going to court when 99.9% of them would bottle it and pay up and the other idiot would loose his licence and a large wedge of cash. There is NO WAY one magistrate let alone three are going to believe you and your mate were not racing! if this goes to court take lots of tissues and a large industrial container of vasaline because you will be given the shafting of your life!!!!!

reeperb5

mate im telling him to go to court and i would 100% do the same if the officer hasnt followed correct procedures!!

Aaron1978

iTrader: (12)

if you want to go to court to prove a point then go and i honestly hope that if you do that you win, but as you've got a clean license 3 points don't mean anything for insurance, and the 60 notes are certainly less than its going to cost to have at least one day off work!, Sh*t i know but they know that the best thing to do for a number of reasons is to admit your wrong even if your right.

Aaron

stevecrc

I have been through that twice before, first time i was involved in a crash and the copper went out of his way to give me anough points to get me banned so i went and got my self a good soliciter and went to court, it ended up getting thrown out and they made the police pay all my costs and loss of earnings lol.
And the second time i got stopped for speeding by a traffic cop that was going in the other direection and said i was doing at least twice the limit, so i asked him for proof of this and he said he didnt have to as he had been a traffic cop for twenty four years and could tell how fast i was going, now i allmost wet myself at that point but he gave me a ticket anyway lol.
so back to my soliciter again, he then asked for all the evidence and low and be hold we he informed that the was taking no more action.
so if i was you i would go and see a soliciter.

nsld

"Trained police traffic officers can give estimates of speed in court and have it accepted as evidence: look up the definition of "expert witness"."

That sounds good, but its total pants.

You cannot be an "expert witness" in a case where you are a party to the original action as its a conflict of interest.

What the officers can put forward is evidence based on experience (which is totally different to being an expert) but if they try to give a speed it can be shot down with the simple question "how can you be certain?"

If I recall correctly a certain football manager escaped a ban after a deal was struck where the police officer giving his opinion of 120mph was forced to admit he couldnt be certain and the CPS agreed to "a speed not exceeding 99mph" and 3 points deal with the defence solicitor.

Gary C

I did a similar thing (in theory only, not admiting anything, totally hypothetical !)

Overtook a line of traffic on a wide road, doing 3x the limit

The traffic cop was great, and offered a 3 pointer. I took this because I know I was in the wrong. It was obvious that a court case would be difficult for the PC, but I was wrong, I was being treated well and I was not going to take the risk.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

It's entirely up to the court as to whether his evidence is accepted. There are no rules like the one you quote. As I said, the defence is perfectly entitled to challenge it, but it's up to the court (aka judge or magistrates as appropriate) as to whether the witness can testify as to an estimate of speed. If the witness concerned were a trained traffic officer, that could be entered as evidence as well. And would be.


M

hodgy0_2

my earlier point is that estimates of speed are just that estimates

the court cant convict you of an estimated speed -- it HAS to be a speed i.e.

63 mph in a 40 or 89 in a 70 -- not, "in my estimation your honor he was going f%%cking fast"

or even "i estimate he was going 85 mph" coz amongs other legal technicalities and as a previous poster says, it wouldn,t hold up in court

if they are prosecuting you for dangerous driving -- then yes, as part of the overall police evidence they can estimate your speed -- but they are not going to convict of that offence -- just dangerous driving

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

And you in this situation would lose your licence. Read the original post again. Then read what the solicitor said to him. Just remember that there were two of them, in different cars, regardless of the speed,road or conditions or any other variable if the officer says they were racing,( bearing in mind one of the vehicles i think is a subaru) do you seriously believe that the judge is going to believe the defendant over a traffic officer.
there are situations that people may well have had thrown out of court, but this would not be one of them..

nsld

Having worked as an expert witness in my field I can assure you that the conflict rules would apply for the simple reason that the officer making the stop cannot give an independent assessment which is what an expert witness does.

An estimate of speed can be entered as evidence but that doesnt make the provider of evidence an "expert witness", after all, all the defence has to do is call an accredited expert witness who will say that you cannot accurately estimate the speed of a vehicle by eye.

What generally happens is that as its magistrates court the legal aid budget wont stretch to a defence expert so the "evidence" is not properly disputed and is often accepted as fact when its not.

jdmforest

it was two subarus..........

s70rjw

iTrader: (2)

What make of unmarked police car was it?

jdmforest

silver volvo

reeperb5

he said the officer never gave him the "CAUTION" therefore has not complied by correct procedures... the question to be asked by the deffence is, "what else did the officer not do correctly"??

that would be enough to throw it out of court!!

The rookie

iTrader: (1)

All that is needed is the PC's verbal evidnece that he was doing the speed limit and you overtook, hence speeding, that would see you with less than a 5% chance of creating some reasonable doubt.

People have been convicted on just the opinion of two coppers, although when it comes to the penalty (speed depenadant) then magistrates tend to err on the side of safety (low) - read Graham V DPP Graham, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 120 (Admin) (22 January 2003) .

Unless they make a major cockup in court you WILL be found guilty at at least speeding and you WILL be worse off than if you accepted the FPN.

He did NOT have to show you the video, he did NOT have to caution you (he only has to do that if he wants to use anything you say as evidence) and he doesn't have to issue a verbal NIP for speeding as he gave you an FPN (although he would for the other offences if he wants to prosecute - 'You will be reported for consideration of prosecution for the offences of ......).

There are a lot of 'barrack room lawyer' comments on here that are just plain wrong, so please go to Pepipoo and get some experienced advise!

Simon