Speeding - Single Justice Procedure

[Freepost]

Good morning,

Hopefully somebody can assist me with a problem related to a motoring offence …. To provide some background I have listed the events below;

31/12/2021 I was travelling along a duel carriageway on an uphill section with a posted speed limit of 50mph. As I came over the crest of the hill there was a mobile speed camera on the opposite side of the road, I immediately checked my speed which was 50mph. Within 14 days I received a “Notice of intended prosecution”, for a recorded speed of 62mph in a 50. I confirmed that I was the driver.

A couple of weeks later I received a letter where I was offered a choice of 1) National Speed Awareness course, 2) Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, 3) a Court Hearing - I instructed to write back with my selection! This seemed very strange to me, I wasn’t speeding and the police offered no evidence to support their opinion that I was. I responded to the letter to say that since I had not been provided with any information/prove that an offence had been committed I was unable to make a choice.

In late February the Traffic Department wrote back to me to say that the time frame for making a choice had elapsed but they would give me another 30 days, they would not provide me with any evidence unless I elected a court hearing. If I did not make a choice then they would prosecute me for not making a choice. Of course I had to respond which I did stating that I could not in good conscience select option 1 or 2 because I don't believe I was speeding. Consequently, under duress of the threat of further court action I must waste the courts time with option 3. I explained that I would most certainly complain to the magistrate/judge that I had been denied any factual confirmation of the offence.

Almost four months later, in late June the Police sent me a document the “Single Justice Procedure” (…. plead guilty by post and save 33%) which included a witness statement from a “Safety Camera Operator” together with two photographs, one of which shows a speed of 62mph.

Clearly I have a problem with the photograph evidence because I wasn’t travelling at anything near that speed and of course having now seen the image I would assume that it would be difficult to argue against ….. how do I prove a negative! Of course the evidence isn’t just the photograph, the operator has to make a judgement call as to whether the vehicle is travelling faster than the speed limit before using the camera but this isn’t particularly my argument at the moment.

Where I have a problem is with the Witness Statement from the Safety Camera Operator, it has not been signed, sure it has the operators name typed on it in the signature box but it’s not signed. I always thought that if document has the word “Signature ………”, you are required to sign it using your signature. A passport requires your signature, a driving licence requires your signature, bank cards/cheques require your signature …. Court Documents require you to sign your signature! So the question is with reference to the Witness Statement from the Safety Camera Operator, can I have the evidence (the witness statement of the Safety Camera Operator) dismissed because it is not signed, or am I obliged to advise the police that the witness statement is devoid of a signature – The document “Mitigating Circumstance” states that “If you object to any of the witness statement being tendered in evidence, please specify which one(s) and provide details:”

Of course, having evidence dismissed because the witness statement has not been signed doesn’t prove my innocence of the crime.

Thanks for your help.

[des8]

I doubt there is any mileage in contesting the typed signature.

To save my typing finger (only one) read this from CPS about telephone statements , especially the bit :
"• Section 9 Criminal Justice Act 1967 requires that a statement ‘…purports to be signed by the person who made it…’. There is no requirement in relevant statutes or Rules for a signature to be in ink on paper (a so-called ‘wet signature’) or that a document must be signed in any particular way."

[HandyAndy]

If I did not make a choice then they would prosecute me for not making a choice...

Er...no. They would prosecute you for speeding (as it seems they have).

The idea of the police offering you a course or a fixed penalty is that you accept the allegation as it stands without any evidence having to be provided. Both of these options are by far and away the best offers you will have been given. With court action having been initiated those offers are now off the table. So the choice for you is now straightforward. You can either plead guilty or you can plead Not Guilty and face a trial in court. Unless you are acquitted you now face sentencing under the normal sentencing guidelines.

If you plead Not Guilty, when you get to court you can save the court (and yourself) time by not complaining about receiving no evidence before court action was taken. You are not entitled to any unless you face court action. As well as that, there is no mileage in objecting to the Camera Operator's statement. If you do they will simply call him as a witness and he can give his evidence in person to the court.(That's why you were asked within the paperwork, whether you object to any statements). At your trial, the police will provide evidence that your speed was measured by an approved device operated correctly. Unless you successfully cast doubt on that evidence you will be convicted. Unfortunately simply turning up and declaring you were sure you were not speeding will not do that. Have you any other evidence to show you were not speeding and/or which would cast doubt on the evidence the police will provide?

You need to be aware of the penalties you now face if you are convicted. If you plead guilty you will be fined half a week's net income but this will be reduced by a third for your guilty plea. You will also pay a "Victim Surcharge" of 10% of the fine (minimum £34) and £85 prosecution costs. If you are convicted following a trial you will obviously lose the discount and the prosecution will ask for costs which will begin at £620. So for most people there will not be much change from £1k. In any event you will have Three points imposed on your driving record.

It's make your mind up time.

[Freepost]

But I wasn't speeding and to me this is unfair ..... how can you prove a negative? Also, with regard to cost, I have nothing, up until 2000 I had a very good job flying around the world providing tech support here there and everywhere, one day Helsinki next day Paris day after Hong Kong then Taipei but when my wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s at the age of 44, I stopped work to care for her, she died 5 years later and it thoroughly threw me, a total wreck! I haven't been able to hold down a job since. Surviving on £135 a week, so sure the court can take me to the cleaners but to what end?

"It's make your mind up time" .... you mean admit to doing something I haven't done (... they all say that don’t they?) but perhaps it's true!

What other evidence can I show, I have checked my speedometer against sat nav and can confirm that the vehicle speed is some 5% below the speed indicated, how does that help?

I don't know what to do .... it seems I'm stuffed, should have agreed to the course even though it wasn't justified!

I do appreciate you taking the time to tell me how it is;-)

[HandyAndy]

Could you by any chance have been speeding before you saw the camera? They can capture vehicles a considerable distance away and the usual explanation for drivers in your position is that by the time they saw the camera they had already been caught.

If you can, post your pictures up here (suitably redacted) and we can see if there are any anomalies. What you should understand is that the devices can measure speed quite accurately in around a third of a second.

Defending a speeding charge on the basis that the measurement cannot be relied upon usually involves finding some fault with the camera or method of operation. This will invariably require expert (and expensive) help.

The sentencing guidelines are based on ability to pay. Any fine should be income-related and the court does have discretion to vary other financial penalties such as costs when awarding them. But pleading not guilty but being convicted will cost you considerably more than pleading guilty.

[Freepost]

Thanks Handyandy for taking the time to respond.

as requested I have attached two photographs that the police have forwarded to me.

I had seen the police traffic van immediately that I came over the top of the hill while overtaking the two cars the first being a BMW, I immediately checked my speedometer, 50mph, I thought I was okay.

Once again thanks for your help.

[atticus]

There is a similar location near me. The cameras catch drivers as they come over the brow of a hill. By the time a speeding driver has seen the camera, it is too late.

[HandyAndy]

The device certainly seems to be correctly centred on your vehicle. You said that you saw the camera "...immediately that I came over the top of the hill while overtaking the two cars the first being a BMW," It's difficult to tell from the photos and I don't know the location, but from those two pictures it seems you have just passed a dip in the road and are going up a hill, not over the top of it. I have a suspicion (and that's all it is because it's not clear to me) that you were captured before you saw the camera. What evidence have they provided to prove your speed?

Not that it matters, but was the BMW doing considerably less than 50mph? If so it would be most unusual!

[Freepost]

Good afternoon, I note your point about the BMW but I think it was towing the car that is immediately behind it which had it's hazard warning lights on and they were quite slow. As for the road layout, the photograph doesn’t show the hill, I've already come over that, the road then dips a little and curves to the left before climbing again which is what you see in the photograph!

The evidence that the Police provided was typed on the photograph, I've attached the photograph with that info in situ.

The camera operator says in his evidence that he formulated an opinion that I was travelling faster than the permitted speed limit, I'm not too sure how he formulated his opinion but my car does make a lot of noise when you accelerate, this is because the original exhaust system including the back boxes had to be replaced following a failed MOT. The car is 18 years old this Thursday, I’ve had it since new. The exhaust was manufactured by a local company that specialises in exhaust systems for motor bikes but said they could build an exhaust system for my vehicle unfortunately the shape of the back boxes are different to the original and it has made the vehicle very throaty to say least when you accelerate. Perhaps the officer heard me accelerating up the hill, not in the photograph, formulated his opinion from the sound and clocked me when I came over the crest of the hill.

Thank you for your help and advise;-)

[HandyAndy]

Having seen that photo with the overprint I don't really think there is much more I can say. You can see you were captured whilst you were 467 metres from the camera. That is well over 500 yards away. At 60mph it would take you over seventeen seconds to reach the camera's position. Are you sure you saw the camera at that distance? Whether you did or not does not really matter, but it may help explain your surprise at being caught. The speed printed on the photo is taken directly from the device as it measures your speed (in about a third of a second). The device seems well aimed at your car and there are no other vehicles nearby which may have caused mis-readings. To succeed with a defence you must show that the device cannot be relied upon to show you were exceeding the speed limit. I don't realistically see how you can do that. There's not much mileage in disputing the operator's initial opinion that you were speeding because, as the device shows, his opinion was well founded. At over 500 yards away, I doubt your exhaust could be heard very distinctly.

My advice is to plead guilty and limit the damage as far as possible.