CB1

Got to work today to find a letter in my in-tray from Northhampton Police.

I am being prosecuted for speeding in my Merc (Comp. Car) for doing 87mph in a 70 limit (Junc. 15 M1).

Now firstly, I am totally out of order for breaking the limit, especially by this much. I have no defense and if I was doing this speed I apologise.

However, the date was Friday 3rd Nov. 2000. Now I make this almost 3 months ago (bar one week). Now I can accept being gatso'd or pulled over by the police if I was doing this speed. But not to be sent a letter 3 months later. I need a license for my job as I have to use a car for business purposes, so pride myself that I drive at sensible speeds. 87mph is not sensible I agree but what makes me more angry is that it is so rare that I allow my speed to creep up. And this is normally only if I have to accelerate past a lorry that has pulled out etc.

I'm not going to go on, but I'm concerned that I may have drifted past the 70mph mark since then and not been informed. I could yet receive more letters with points.

So please be warned. I know many people that sit on the motorway at 90-100mph whenever the lane is clear. They have never been caught or prosecuted. I am always amazed at the speed cars come past me on the motorway. Often I reckon a car passes me at 100+ possibly more.

Do I have any defense due to the time scale? I appriciate as my car is a company leased car that Lex Lease would have to let the police know my details, but nearly 3 months??

Typical, never even been pulled over in my STI (I like to think it is because I honestly try to drive carefully).


So James at A Plan, Add 3 points mate and send me the bill!!!

Remember - Keep em peeled.

CB

Neil Smalley

Unless it took A plan 3 months to find the details you should be OK.

see

boomer

I thought that the only reason for the 14-day ruling is that you can't be expected to know exactly where you were, and at what speed you were going, many weeks ago.

What possible defense could you provide - "er, i don't remember my speed, or even if i was driving your honour, because it was three months ago".

Then again, surely the Police have to _prove_ that it was you actually driving. This needn't be one of those "human rights" arguments - maybe you simply don't recall!

I believe that that 14-day rule can be extended in cases such as company cars where the registered keeper may take some time to determine - but three months, phew!

Was it a Gatso? If not then why weren't you stopped at the time? Sounds like sloppy Policing to me. Maybe a letter to the relevant Superintendent expressing your concern wouldn't go amiss.

mb

Gastro

Unfortunately it looks like your done matey.
There is short time scale for you to be notified (12 months is the max) - you can of course argue your corner in court - but you'll be darned lucky if you win (sorry) and placing more financial risk on the line - unless of course you are about to tot up 12 points (!).
My other half says that you are going to have to face the music unfortunately - the human rights thing is now very old hat and has been kicked out of court several times now.

Neil Smalley

Then where does this fit in

This is that all important bit that people keep asking me about. It pertains to the 14 day rule that surrounds service of an NIP. As with all traffic offences in the UK, an NIP is required for prosecution to proceed. If you're stopped at the scene however (for example, by a radar-gun-toting traffic policeman), then a verbal NIP is sufficient. Otherwise it must be in writing. So theoretically, if you've not heard anything after 3 weeks, you got away with it. Not, of course, that the police don't get the calculations wrong from time to time - there's no better way to knock the smile off a prosecutors face than to ask if they can prove service of an NIP.
In order to remove some of the mystery from this area - or cast it into a murky grey area depending on your view of things, here are the relevant excerpts from Butterworth's Police Law (Butterworth's Law; ISBN 0406981469). Thanks to Simon Hepworth for help with this information.
Stuff not of interest to the subject of speeding have been omitted, stuff with particular relevance to NIPs and speeding has been underlined. You'll need a stiff cup of coffee and a shedload of concentration to proceed, so go ahead and make a 6-scoop cuppa and then come on back and read on:

In the case of a number of moving traffic offences, the driver, if not stopped and interviewed by the police at the time, may experience considerable difficulty in recalling the circumstances some weeks after the event. For this reason, the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, section 1 states that, in relation to certain named offences, a person shall not be convicted unless:

he was warned at the time of the possibility of prosecution for the offence;
or
he was served with a summons for the offence within 14 days of its commission;
or
a notice of intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed was served within 14 days on him or the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence. (In the case of dangerous or careless cycling the notice must be served on the rider.)
The requirements of section 1 are deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved.
The following offences require notice of intended prosecution in one of these forms:
Road Traffic Act 1988
Section 2: Dangerous Driving
Section 3: Careless, and inconsiderate driving
Section 22: Leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position
Section 28: Dangerous cycling
Section 29: Careless, and incosiderate cycling
Section 35: Failing to conform with the indication given by a constable engaged in the regulation of traffic
Section 36: Failing to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
Section 16: Exceeding temporary speed restrictions imposed under section 14
Section 17(4): Exceeding speed restrictions on special road
Section 88(7): Exceeding temporary speed limit imposed by order
Section 89(1): Speeding offences generally
Aiding and abetting any of the above offences
However, such notice need not be given in relation to an offence in respect of which a full or provisional fixed penalty notice has been given or fixed under the provisions of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Service of summons or notice of intended prosecution
In circumstances in which an oral notice is not given at the time, then either a summons or a written notice of intended prosecution must be served within 14 days. In reckoning a period of 14 days, the day on which the offence was committed is ignored. A notice sent by post must be despatched so that in the normal time of postal delivery it will arrive within 14 days. If it is so posted but is held up in the post and is delivered outside the 14 day period, it will be deemed to have been served in the 14 day period; consequently the driver can still be convicted.
Circumstances where non-compliance is no bar to conviction
The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, section 2(3) states that a failure to comply with the above requirements is no bar to conviction if the court is satisfied that the name and address of the accused or of the vehicle's registered keeper could not with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time for service of a summons or notice, or that the accused by his own conduct contributed to the failure.
This last section should be of particular interest. It means that if the police spent a month just trying to find a record of the car's owner, that month doesn't count as part of the 14 days. Similarly, if your dog tore up your mail with the NIP in it, that too is no cause to bar the conviction.
Butterworth's Police Law goes on intricate detail to explain how 'at the time of the offence' means any reasonable time during or after the offence - eg. if the police had to chase you for three hours to serve notice, it's still considered to be 'at the time of the offence'.
It's also a bit of a grey area when it comes to issuing an NIP after a fixed penalty notice has been given. Technically, the police should still do it. So for example, if you've been caught speeding and been served with a fixed penalty notice there and then, it tends to nullify the requirement for an NIP within 14 days. This is based on the simple fact that the police warned you there and then, and that you already have proof that you're going to get fined.

Incidentally, you should also be aware of the 'Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty Notice' which gets round the earlier requirement that a fixed penalty notice could only be issued at the time of the incident. The legislation for this is Section 75 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. This natty piece of legislation allows the police to send out fixed penalty notices for camera-detected offences (ie. GATSOs and the like).

So has that cleared it all up for all you inquisitive types? If not, print it out and read over it again. If your NIP arrived 3 months after the event, by the letter of the law, you're away scott-free.


From

Stuart H

The NIP must be served on the <B>REGISTERED KEEPER</B> of the vehicle within 14 days (s1(1)(b) RTA 1988). In this case the registered keeper would be Lex Lease.

Served for the purposes of the RTA s1(1)(a)(2) means:

<I>A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post, recorded delivery service or first calss post addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him</I>

What the hire company has chosen to do with the notice is <B>not</B> relevant as the prosecuting authority have fulfilled their legal obligations under s1 RTA 1988. The prosecuting authority also have 6 months to serve a summons on a person named in a s172 notice (provision of drivers details form)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Neil Smalley:
<B>If your NIP arrived 3 months after the event, by the letter of the law, you're away scott-free.[/quote]

<B>IF</B> you were the registered keeper - if you are only the driver of the vehicle in question this does not let you off "scott-free"


Neil,

Would you like to finish last 3 days of my early shift off for me??

Edited 'cause I can't spell tonight!

[This message has been edited by Stuart H (edited 22 January 2001).]

CB

Thanks to everyone who has offered advice. I have also taken legal advice.

To be honest, I have gone over and over in my head how I could have been A: going that fast, and B: Caught. My assumption of a van on a bridge is only a guess because I've seen them before. However If I was breaking the limit why was I not pulled over and told at the time.

I shall let you all know the outcome. Ultimately I guess I will lose and get points. It sounds funny, but I would like to see some evidence that I was doing that speed.

CB

Fullonloon

M1 J15...
Between J15 + Northampton border did it say?

I know of several people done here...

I think that it is just after J15A (services) where there is a small service road just before the acceleration lane coming out from the service station...
I may be wrong, but I've looked at all the other possibilities and it's the only place most people wouldn't see... If you see a van on a bridge, what do you do??

craigamungos

I might be saying something which has already been said but here goes.
If you have recieved a letter telling you that you have been caught speeding then they(the police) have to now prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were driving. It is your right not to own up as you can not be expected to incriminate yourself.
I suggest that you get a solicitor and go to court, Believe me it'll get kicked out.
Talking from experiance did time in the nottinghamshire constbulary.

Stuart H

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by craigamungos:
<B>Believe me it'll get kicked out.[/quote]



Not any more it won't - the Privy Council has over-ruled this decision. You can no longer fail to provide details on the grounds it infringes your human rights under ECHR Article 6.

Incidently Craig, when did you leave Notts?



[This message has been edited by Stuart H (edited 23 January 2001).]

MartinM

A few years ago, I had a similar problem - received the notice 3mths after the event (company car - found me via DVLC, lease company, my company etc etc). It was alleged I was doing 80.1mph in a 50 limit roadworks contraflow.

I couldn't remember anything about it - the day in question, the roadworks, whether I saw any police and what speed I was doing.

Was summoned to court. I didn't take a solicitor but I had some advice. Before my case was heard, I approached the 'prosecution' bloke and asked him (nicely) to expand on the evidence - like where the offence was detected from, where the contraflow actually was (it had long since gone), whereabouts I was in the contraflow at the time (eg start, middle, end), what the road, weather and traffic conditions were etc etc. He knew absolutely nothing - he really only had the same form that I'd been sent!! There was no-one else from the police side at all - even the "arresting" officer wasn't there

As I was over 30 over the limit, it looked like a ban..but to cut along story short, I queried the accuracy of the equipment (if it had been reading about 0.2% high, I was really doing 79.9 and was therefore in fixed-penalty land), I remarked to the magistrate that it was odd that there was actually no evidence being presented apart from the officer's report and how little the prosecution knew about the offence, that I needed the car etc etc

..net result, yep - a 7 day ban and £140 fine (this was some years ago!)..even though it had been my first and only offence in 16 yrs or so of driving.

I still feel riled (?) about it now - I still can't imagine that I was doing over 80mph in a contraflow - I'm sure you'd realise the excess speed in such a restricted area. Although I'm sure its not the case (honestly Stuart H), the result would have been exactly the same had the policeman just seen my car and said to himself "Right, I don't like red Sierras (sorry!) today, let me just fill this form in...."

Thanks for listening...

craigamungos

Stuart H i left about a year ago.(why)
You could be right about your facts but people who question this often won (but this was only in my experiance) Anyway each to there own

Stuart H

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by craigamungos:
<B>Stuart H i left about a year ago.(why)
You could be right about your facts but people who question this often won (but this was only in my experiance) Anyway each to there own [/quote]

The reason I asked was because the "cannot incriminate yourself" argument only started when the ECHR came in sometime in Novemeber.

I also used to train the TPAC instructors in Notts so I thought I might know you, I have had many a drink with too many Notts lads!!

Oh, and I am right on my facts!! but as you say.....each to their own!

mutant_matt

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by kurtw:
<B>CB1,

I've seen the Northants police "safety camera crew" around more times than I care to mention, on the M1 - J15, on the A43 etc. etc.

I've heard that recently, Northants Police have busted over 17,000 motorists using this method so you're in good company and they're getting enough revenue to invest in more of these devices. Also, their success is bound to filter through to other forces so watch out for vans on bridges wherever you all go.
[/quote]

I have heard, but *NOT* from any official source so it may be rubbish, but the Chief Super or whoever is at the top of the Northants police, personally gets £50 for every speeding ticket issued!!!!!!!

*IF* this is true then I'm sure the scheme is working real well (i.e. he's making a mint and is keen to nick as many people as possible) and is going to become common practise all over the country.

Matt.

kurtw

CB1,

I've seen the Northants police "safety camera crew" around more times than I care to mention, on the M1 - J15, on the A43 etc. etc.

It basically is a van on a bridge and looks harmless until you're on top of it.

There does seem however to be a margin on the equipment as I passed under one the first time I saw it at 79, and heard nothing. I would say this is the 10% +2mph margin they apply to speed sensing equipment to allow for momentary passing manouvers + speedo inaccuracies.

I've heard that recently, Northants Police have busted over 17,000 motorists using this method so you're in good company and they're getting enough revenue to invest in more of these devices. Also, their success is bound to filter through to other forces so watch out for vans on bridges wherever you all go.

Basically, don't speed in Northamptonshire unless you've got an clear view of the road ahead. They tend to sit on bridges, just behind a blind summit, so as soon as you see them, it's too late.

As for the date thing, It's appaling that it took so long to get to you. Something needs to be done.

Regards
Kurt

PS....You can have some fun though.......if you see a van up ahead, do 75 in the fast lane so the little ***** in the 318 that's been glued to your *** for the last couple of miles gets pissed off. Once in range of the camera, pull into the centre lane. He'll zoom off like a loon to show you not to mess with a beemer and in the process get a lovely photographic momento of the occasion.

How do I know this

CB1

Well thanks again all, my legal advice has told me nothing more than yourselves. Which just goes to prove how much you all obviously all know.

Cheers.

However, I have decided that I am going to phone Lex Lease tomorrow and ask when they first received the letter from the Police. My company has never been contacted, so if Lex Lease took along time to reply I will make sure they receive merry hell. On the other hand if they were prompt I will be asking the Police why they have taken so long.

Either way I'm still not happy. If I had been pulled over at the time. Far cop. But as I always make a real effort not to speed and all I have is a letter (no photo so far as it was not a Gatso) then I'm not happy.

I would also like to point out one other thing. Whilst out for a run this evening I was jogging up a road that carried a 40 limit. I counted 17 cars in the time it took me to job the road that were doing at least 60-70mph. You can tell the cars that were doing 40 and those that weren't. This is a built up area. Where are the police? Answer? Well 17 cars does not give the sames return as a motorway that has hundreds.

I just hope they have road safety in their best interest and not money. But then again, if it was road safety in mind Gatso's would be (as Clarkson says) painted bright pink. Thus we would all slow down and reduce the risk of an accident. Kinda makes sense?

Please don't get me wrong. I do not want to appear anti police. They have always been top when I have been a victim (car crime, Fraud). couldn't be nicer.

Cheers

Stuart H

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by mutant_matt:
<B>but the Chief Super or whoever is at the top of the Northants police, personally gets £50 for every speeding ticket issued!!!!!!![/quote]

Complete, utter, unadulterated boll*cks!!

Northamptonshire Police keep some of the revenue in order to maintain their speed enforcement systems.