stu turbo 98

iTrader: (6)

I would opt for court,and hope they see sense and just give it up as a waste of time.If you pay the £30 pound they will never leave you alone and youll end up with the double barrelled pea shooter

chopperman

Opt for court and i doubt CPS will go forward with it. The law on this is a bit ambiguous. It goes something like "changing your exhaust for an after market system with the intent of making your vehicle louder than standard". There is no law saying you cant use after market parts inc exhausts. That would probably break monopoly laws.
For CPS to secure a conviction they would have to prove A. its louder than standard which would be difficult as your car is an import and B. the exact db tested in compliance with the VOSA test procedure. Even though you car is an import it would still have to be under 101 db i believe as it would of had to have passed the VOSA tests to obtain a British registration.
Fight the system with the system. If you receive a summons don't wait until the court hearing to state your case. CPS will have to give you a copy of there evidence. Read it then set out your case with fact and copy's of any documentation that supports your case. Send a copy to CPS and tell them you intend to challenge them. Don't be surprised if you get a letter from CPS stating the charges have been dropped. Then if you feel like revenge is the time to make an official complaint about police incompetence and / or harassment. Because then you will have a letter from CPS saying there was no charge to answer.

rich-zs-180

Unreal, how the hell have we been allowed to come into a situation where the police now have the ability to say if a cars road worthy or not? Yes most can spot obvious faults but without real knowledge most will just be guessing.

A mate of mine was stopped a few year back and issued with a notice to have his car taken in to a mot station as his multi fit wheels only had 4 bolts on them lmfao. The copper actually believed it should have 4 more bolts in the remaining 4 holes.

Anyway best of luck with the case mate

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

thanks for the advice i have copied several pieces of proof , including a statement to the press from devon & cornwall police made by the officer in questions sargent, stating if someone denies modifiying the exhaust(they can't proove that can they) that they will use the noise legislation instead well guess what your honour it's under the noise limit and has never been tested either, NEXT QUESTION PLEASE

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

A word of caution, Don't expect too much in the way of justice.

chopperman

It will be "Your worship" not "you honour" I doubt thyis will find its way past the magistrates to crown court. Don't expect much joy from the magistrates, most will just take the police side which is why you need to set your case clearly and with facts to the CPS. Try and get CPS to drop it as UN-winnable.
So are you saying the police did not test the noise db of you car? Do you have the original VOSA test certificate from when the car was inspected to get British registration?

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

no car has not been noise tested and for a fiver i can get a copy of sva test from dvla why?

chopperman

That sva should have the vosa db test results showing the car was under 101db to pass. If the police did not test the car they can not prove it is louder than it was as standard or when it was tested and passed by vosa. The police would need both these results to prove the exhaust is a different system from when the car was imported or louder than 101bd. I cant see how the police can prove their case, the copper should of tested the noise levels from your car.
As i said, opt for the case to be heard in court. Then CPS will have to send you all the details of there case against you. Then after you have seen their case you can prepare your own and send it to cps. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets dropped shortly after you opting to go to court. There is no law making it illegal to use after market car parts and they cant prove noise levels at the time of the alleged offence because the copper didn't test it.

bluenose172

iTrader: (2)

The previous section of the RTA mentions you are not allowed to modify the car if it affects a number of things, one of them being noise, then the following section states the following - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...4#section-44-1, is your a JDM?

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

yes it is a jdm wrx , and it's only 94db at 4500rpm, is the above a usable piece of evidence you have just given me ?

bluenose172

iTrader: (2)

I guess you really need to know what law you are being accused of breaking before you can start to form a defense.

I read the above as....the previous restrictions mentioned in the RTA are allowed under certain circumstances, one of them being "of vehicles or trailers, or types of vehicles or trailers, constructed for use outside the United Kingdom"

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

ok heres what it says on the letter from them
you where the driver of vehicle reg number xxx xxx for the offence of using vehcile with altered silencer/exhaust system at xxxxx xxxxx contary to
section r54 rv (con & use) regs 86 s42 rta 88 any ideas on what this means ?

bluenose172

iTrader: (2)

Ok, so Section 42 RTA 1988 is the previsous section I was talking about. Use the above section 44, sub-section 1, para (b) as a defense.....

Not sure what R54 is?

bluenose172

iTrader: (2)

(1)The Secretary of State may by order authorise, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified by or under the order, the use on roads—

(1)The Secretary of State may by order authorise, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified by or under the order, the use on roads—
(a)of special motor vehicles or trailers, or special types of motor vehicles or trailers, which are constructed either for special purposes or for tests or trials,
(b)of vehicles or trailers, or types of vehicles or trailers, constructed for use outside the United Kingdom,
(c)of new or improved types of motor vehicles or trailers, whether wheeled or wheelless, or of motor vehicles or trailers equipped with new or improved equipment or types of equipment, and
(d)of vehicles or trailers carrying loads of exceptional dimensions,
[F1and sections 40A to 42 of this Act shall not apply in relation to] the use of such vehicles, trailers, or types in accordance with the order.

CREWJ

Ahaha, so if it's an import they don't have a leg to stand on?

Brilliant, the copper doesn't even know the law he's preaching.

chopperman

I think they would still have a case if it were over 101db and possibly if it were proved to be louder than the original test carried out at vosa after import.

This sounds like one of these coppers on a personal crusade.

bluenose172

iTrader: (2)

The question is though, do they have that reading on the current exhaust? No evidence, no case.

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

well i can't find any data on the net. ref noise emmissions from a jdm only uk models after they where approved for uk/eu use and had to be under 89db. in fact i don't think subaru released that data, the p1 was allowed 101db when they where imported by prodrive/subaru

chopperman

Exactly. And testing it now would not be admissible as it should have been either tested at the time of offence or the vehicle confiscated and recovered to a site where it could be tested. They have no case because the coppe3r did not do his job properly.

LuckyWelshchap

I think it might be that if you don't pay the £30 they will CONSIDER taking the matter further. What is the exact wording?
(I've had a Fixed Penalty for a stupid 'offence' which I completely ignored.
Almost 4 years down the line I think they've seen sense).

I presume that you've a legal eagle to represent you in court.
However, a couple of pointers (in my experience solicitors mostly know primarily how the criminal justice system works but aren't armed with the incisiveness to properly support their client. A bit like a mechanic who knows how cars work, but not how to efficiently and effectively diagnose faults and fix problems).

Firstly, to claim anything is non-standard the CPS has to provide the benchmark 'standard'.
Next, CPS via Plod has to provide evidence that the standard was being breached at the alleged time of the alleged offence.
Finally, CPS has to show that you had no reasonable excuse for committing the breach (usually by trying to break your defence, of, say, you couldn't get an original exhaust as a replacement - they (Subaru) don't make them any more).

Sorry if this is getting long but it is worth being very precise, even pedantic.
As I read it you're not being done for breaking noise regs., simply 'a non-standard exhaust'.
So, in line with my comments above CPS will need to provide in evidence:

1) the specification for your car, particularly the exhaust system and specifically for your model;
2) acceptable evidence - almost certainly photographic - of the exhaust system that was on your car at the time of the offence. I say photos because they'll have to prove that whatever part(s) they claim were non-standard were not simply cosmetic eg. you stuck a 4.5in pipe over a 2.5 one to make it look good (in other words they have to prove that you DID modify it, not simply made it look sportier). They would have to have something date and time-stamped;
3) You email a Subaru dealer asking for a quote for the relevant OEM exhaust, hopefully you'll be told that they aren't made anymore and that a company called eg. XYZ Exhaust Corporation of Outer Singapore are the suppliers.

Finally, prove that the officer isn't an expert, especially on Subarus (does he know the difference between Classics, Bugeyes etc. etc.), especially the suggested exhaust systems for legally modified cars (even if yours isn't modified) ?
That should prove that he had insufficient knowledge to provide him with a reason for stopping you. If you want to get arsey with him perhaps suggest that he thought the exhaust was loud but didn't have any sound measuring equipment and set his sights on ensuring that what he thought was a clear breach of the law was addressed in some way.
Has he ever seen an exhaust that large?

Remember, they're not having you for excessive noise, so you can't go down the path of how loud 90dB or any other level actually is.

The rules of evidence, as I understand, mean that the CPS' case will be available to your solicitor (but incredibly not to you if you defend yourself). Check it out, plead Not Guilty and let them incur the costs of a full hearing (which will likely be at a future date).
Make sure that the local press will be there, or will be informed of the outcome.
Chief Constables don't like headlines such as 'PC's expensive exhausting mistake'.
"Devon Police prosecuted a middle-aged driver for having a tailpipe which was too large for one of their PC's liking. Mr X was found not guilty after it emerged that the PC nor the CPS were able to ascertain what exhaust should have been on the vehicle. Mr X was awarded costs in a case estimated to have cost taxpayers well over £2,000".

Oh - and it goes without saying that you don't become involved in any dialogue, written or verbal, with any representative of Plod and/or the CPS, just ignore the FPN. Give nothing away (I'm uneasy at posting all this on here, but if CPS realsie how much work they'll have to do for a possible fine of £50 and perhaps £100 in costs they might decide it's not cost-effective).

Good luck !

LuckyWelshchap

It can't go to Crown Court, it's not an 'each-way offence'.
I agree with the comment about partisanship but even magistrates wouldn't want to be associated with supporting a PC who hasn't done his job anywhere near properly.
It's noticeable that the only alleged offence is a non-standard exhaust, not breaching noise regs. They know they haven't got evidence.

Also, I don't think madscoob as an individual would be given their case because he isn't governed by a code of legal confidentiality. I never got anything when I took them on years ago until the hearing. Made the police witnesses and the complainant look complete fools, the magistrates still had me but I had the moral victory - no order for compensation and no order for costs. I got done because I hadn't contributed to a solicitor's coffers.

LuckyWelshchap

If it's come off a Government website it is not only admissable as evidence it is authoritative evidence and as long as you can prove that it applies in this case then at the very worst it will be a valid excuse that you had every reason to believe that you weren't committing an offence. At best it will torpedo and completely scupper the case against you.

If CPS come back with 'well it has been modified' hit them with 'not by me it hasn't' (and then use D&C Plod's own statement to sink them).

LuckyWelshchap

I'd also point out that (c) appears to cover modified vehicles. It doesn't indicate that it's only vehicles improved by the manufacturer.
Be warned that you'd have to have the mods in the V5 or you'd be committing an offence.

chopperman

Funny thing is, i have represented myself in court 3 times. I was cleared in 2 cases and awarded an absolute discharge in the other. The one and only time i hired a lawyer, i lost. I still feel i could of won that case as the lawyer was missing lots of relevant points. I think representing yourself and fighting for your own justice carries a lot of weight with the beak sometimes, especially if they see you have taken time and care in constructing your case.
As per your comment in your earlier post regarding cps giving there case file to your lawyer but not to you if representing yourself. You may have to ask CPS for it and they can not refuse. I agree with your point about leaving the ball in there court and not communicating with plod or cps until they notify they are proceeding with the case.

Frenchwood

My 3.0 Vec V6 had a non-standard exhaust, and it was ridiculously loud. Too loud for Donnington circuit in fact, and I never got pulled for it once, so this certainly sounds like it's a personal mission from the Coppa you got done.

I'll bet he's hoping that you just pay the FPN, keep the exhaust on, and then he can then keep nicking you for the same offense.

LuckyWelshchap

Thanks for clearing that up, clearly the OP needs to demonstrate to CPS that he's up for it, so hopefully a request will be on the way.
Your point about lawyers missing points is very valid and regrettably it goes with Plod as well.
My son was recently asked to 'help with inquiries' when a (counter)-complaint was made against him. I had to point out a number of anomolies to the PCs, and a number of pertinent questions that should be asked. Result - dropped, without it even getting as far as the CPS.

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

many thanks for this post. i have taken the liberty of copying it i hope you don't mind.

LuckyWelshchap

No probs at all.
The same applies to anyone else.

Advice is free and as the hymn goes "If I can help somebody as I pass this way........"

bigphilbaby

good luck with your case mate. Being in this kind of work you should be fine

Richy P1984

The noise meter should be calibrated before every recording -i.e. there and then in front of you. They are very sensitive bits of equipment - a single car journey can cause them to be miss-calibrated. They should use a device with a known dB rating, and use that to 'tune' the noise meter.

The meter should also be sent back to the manufacturers at least once a year for more in depth calibration.