Double Counting Warning:

[HandyAndy]

…but no one has yet given an alternative as to how they would define the offense itself

I have. The actus reus of the offence is not in dispute here. You do not seem to deny you were speeding. It's a question whether you committed one offence or two and that's purely a matter for the court to decide. There is no legislation which covers it and no binding precedents that I know of. It’s simply a matter of fact on which the court would rule having heard all the circumstances. All we know of those circumstances is that you averaged 30mph for ten minutes on a motorway (which makes any allegation of speeding somewhat hard to grasp, but I suspect there is a little more to it than that).

So you are in full agreement with my original post.

No, not in full agreement. The only aspect of it I agree with is that your case may not have been handled correctly by the court. In particular, this:

…the judge was of the view of one camera = one offense regardless of any other factors,

That said, having read some of the stuff you have come up with since, there may be an explanation for that. But as I said, I wasn’t there.

The reason your post has generated so much interest is because some of what you have posted is at best misleading and at worst simply incorrect.

[Tremarl]

I have. The actus reus of the offence is not in dispute here. You do not seem to deny you were speeding. It's a question whether you committed one offence or two and that's purely a matter for the court to decide. There is no legislation which covers it and no binding precedents that I know of. It’s simply a matter of fact on which the court would rule having heard all the circumstances. All we know of those circumstances is that you averaged 30mph for ten minutes on a motorway (which makes any allegation of speeding somewhat hard to grasp, but I suspect there is a little more to it than that).



No, not in full agreement. The only aspect of it I agree with is that your case may not have been handled correctly by the court. In particular, this:




That said, having read some of the stuff you have come up with since, there may be an explanation for that. But as I said, I wasn’t there.

The reason your post has generated so much interest is because some of what you have posted is at best misleading and at worst simply incorrect.

No, I think we are in full agreement in regards to the direct subject matter, but maybe my points have been lost in all the noise. I'll bullet point for clarity.


1. I believe the Actus Reus of the crime is to exceed the speed limit on a Road (Not that a Camera catches you speeding, that is merely evidence).

2. I believe that the Magistrates have absolute discretion in finding of facts (the only contest against this is an appeal based on reasonableness, which is a high bar, and not likely to happen in these types of cases). The Magistrate can determine that these are in fact two separate independent offences as a matter of fact. [My view is that a finding is irrational, however it is perfectly legitimate for a Magistrate to find in this]

3. The point of me making the original post was to warn people, that although the facts might rationally conclude for the average person something, and that even in a very short time frame, where multiple charges might seem unreasonable/unfair, that the Magistrate may still find that these are in fact multiple offences instead of one. I've never contested their ability to do so, although I have said as my opinion that such a finding is irrational.


You say that I'm being misleading or incorrect, but not explained how and as we are mostly in agreement, then I assume this is merely a misunderstanding of what I've said?



Apart from the general discussions over this point, the only other response made in this thread is by another Magistrate who seems to be stating that they believe 1 camera = 1 offence is the correct principle as a matter of law, not fact. But I've asked for further clarity on their views of this, as 1 camera = 1 offence as a matter of law as you have agreed is suspect.

[islandgirl]

If it were in my court and the circumstances are as described I would find it to be 2 separate offences. There are no precedents. There has been no error in law. Presumably this is not an average speed situation but passing 2 cameras at 2 points doing a speed which is above the limit. Therefore 2 offences. You are entitled to argue it should be counted as one but, as above, the court decides. You are unhappy of course but you are rather shouting into the void.

[Tremarl]

If it were in my court and the circumstances are as described I would find it to be 2 separate offences. There are no precedents. There has been no error in law. Presumably this is not an average speed situation but passing 2 cameras at 2 points doing a speed which is above the limit. Therefore 2 offences. You are entitled to argue it should be counted as one but, as above, the court decides. You are unhappy of course but you are rather shouting into the void.

I'm not unhappy. My outcome I'm bothered by, however I think the determination itself is irrational. I posted to warn people, so certainly I'm not shouting into the void as people may read this and then think differently when it comes to paying an FPN or going to trial. I already said at the outset the Magistrate can conclude whatever they want and I've never disputed that authority. For a situation where the time period is so close, I wouldn't expect the magistrate to abandon rationality for policy, but that is what they did, which is why I felt the need to warn people, so they can make a more informed decision, as there is an extreme lack of information online regarding speeding offenses and trial outcomes.

You've told me multiple times that you would find it two separate offenses, but you've not actually explained why or how you reasoned that conclusion. If you are arguing that it is two separate offenses as there are two cameras, then why do you come to that conclusion. All conclusion come from some sort of critical reasoning. Your reluctance to explicitly state your reasoning after multiple requests for clarification makes me think that either you do not know what that is, or you do not want to say what it is.


If your reasoning is that speeding is very dangerous, and that we should vehemently punish people for speeding at any opportunity, and the second camera gives us a chance to find a second conviction as there is a separate line of evidence. Then be open and say that. No one is going to judge you for it. We all know people have implicit biases. In fact I would find it much more concerning if someone came to a conclusion without a critical line of reasoning, than if they had one based on bias. As at least the latter has predictability to it.

[HandyAndy]

I haven't formed an opinion on the issue because there is insufficient information. You've only told us about the five miles and ten minutes. If you'd like my opinion, I'll need to know this as a minimum:

• What was the alleged speed and the prevailing limit at the first camera?
• What was the alleged speed and the prevailing limit at the second camera?
• If the prevailing limit is the same at each location, did it change anywhere between the two?
• What is the distance between the two locations?
• What is the elapsed time between the two incidents?
• Did your speed vary significantly between the two points? In particular, did it vary either side of the prevailing limit?

Tell me the answers to those questions and I'll give you my opinion and explain my critical reasoning.

[islandgirl]

All good questions and I await the answers with some interest although I do not think the OP will ever shake the feeling they have suffered a great injustice. I have seem many similar cases in court. I have no particular interest in prosecuting those who break the speed limit nor any bias in this area - I am a driver and a realist. But when the evidence is there we sentence on it and in this case it was, twice.
Warning others is a good idea though - perhaps those who realize they have passed through one camera well over the limit will remember to slow down before they reach the next...

[Tremarl]

I haven't formed an opinion on the issue because there is insufficient information. You've only told us about the five miles and ten minutes. If you'd like my opinion, I'll need to know this as a minimum:

• What was the alleged speed and the prevailing limit at the first camera?
• What was the alleged speed and the prevailing limit at the second camera?
• If the prevailing limit is the same at each location, did it change anywhere between the two?
• What is the distance between the two locations?
• What is the elapsed time between the two incidents?
• Did your speed vary significantly between the two points? In particular, did it vary either side of the prevailing limit?

Tell me the answers to those questions and I'll give you my opinion and explain my critical reasoning.

61 MPH in a 50 VSL
59 MPH in a 50 VSL
1 Junction apart
Time period difference about 9 minutes.
So a couple of miles.


islandgirl I don't know why you keep saying that I "feel injustice". I do not feel injustice at all. I feel that the decision was based on irrational beliefs, but I've never disputed the courts authority to have irrational beliefs. Going into court, I was already aware that some Magistrates were particularly minded in regards to speeding, just didn't realize it was this bad. Hence the warning.

Also you might consider that people pass 1 camera and then the second without being aware that they were speeding the first time. If you were being a realist then you'd realize that its not uncommon for someone to zone out and focus on the road and not the signage for a very short period. Especially on long journeys.

[atticus]

9 minutes @ 60 mph = 9 miles.

[Manxman]

61 MPH in a 50 VSL
59 MPH in a 50 VSL
1 Junction apart
Time period difference about 9 minutes.
So a couple of miles.

....

Rather than saying "a couple of miles" and "about 9 minutes", what is the actual distance between the location of the two cameras, and what is the actual elapsed time between the two photos?

As atticus has pointed out, 9 minutes at an average of 60mph would mean that the two junctions were about 9 miles apart, and not the couple of miles that you suggest.

If, however, the two junctions really are two* miles apart then an elapsed time of 9 minutes suggests an average speed between the two points of only 13mph - give or take.

The point is that if the two locations really are about 9 miles apart, and you travelled between them in about 9 minutes, then your average speed would never have fallen below the speed limit, and I would suggest that this could support your argument that the two should have been treated either as a single continuing offence, or as two offences committed on the same occasion. (Note I only say "could" - I'm not necessarily convinced by the argument myself).

But if the two locations are only a couple of miles apart, and you travelled between them in about 9 minutes, then that would suggest either that you were stationary at some point between the two locations, and/or that your speed dropped significantly below the prevailing limit. In that case you must have slowed down and then speeded back up again between the two locations, and I'd suggest that that would constitute two separate speeding offences.

If you don't know the distance between the two locations I suspect you can get a reasonable estimate from M1 - Google Maps. Or tell us which two junctions are involved. I assume the photos show the time they were taken?


* I think most people think of "a couple" as two. Once you get up to three and more you are into "a few" or even "several" territory. But even if the two locations were four miles apart your average speed would still have lower than 27mph, indicating that you had slowed down and speeded back up again, thus committing two offences

[Tremarl]

Rather than saying "a couple of miles" and "about 9 minutes", what is the actual distance between the location of the two cameras, and what is the actual elapsed time between the two photos?

As atticus has pointed out, 9 minutes at an average of 60mph would mean that the two junctions were about 9 miles apart, and not the couple of miles that you suggest.

If, however, the two junctions really are two* miles apart then an elapsed time of 9 minutes suggests an average speed between the two points of only 13mph - give or take.

The point is that if the two locations really are about 9 miles apart, and you travelled between them in about 9 minutes, then your average speed would never have fallen below the speed limit, and I would suggest that this could support your argument that the two should have been treated either as a single continuing offence, or as two offences committed on the same occasion. (Note I only say "could" - I'm not necessarily convinced by the argument myself).

But if the two locations are only a couple of miles apart, and you travelled between them in about 9 minutes, then that would suggest either that you were stationary at some point between the two locations, and/or that your speed dropped significantly below the prevailing limit. In that case you must have slowed down and then speeded back up again between the two locations, and I'd suggest that that would constitute two separate speeding offences.

If you don't know the distance between the two locations I suspect you can get a reasonable estimate from M1 - Google Maps. Or tell us which two junctions are involved. I assume the photos show the time they were taken?


* I think most people think of "a couple" as two. Once you get up to three and more you are into "a few" or even "several" territory. But even if the two locations were four miles apart your average speed would still have lower than 27mph, indicating that you had slowed down and speeded back up again, thus committing two offences

9 minutes is the recorded time.
Actual 100% definite distance is not known as they do not record or provide the data of where the cameras are positioned, and the police ignored about 3 separate requests for disclosure.

My testimony that my speed was consistent between the two cameras and that I was speeding the whole time, was never contested by the prosecution nor the magistrate.

I already tried getting information from googlemaps for specific junctions and it proved somewhat futile. However, as the testimony itself was never disputed it doesn't seem relevant.

The way you are thinking about this is exactly how I thought about it. However, the point of my warning of a dice roll is that some magistrates don't actually care if you can prove that you were consistently speeding. The Magistrate in my case didn't dispute my statement and still found the way they did as they were of the view 1 camera = 1 offence regardless of other factors.


Now in regards to same occassion defence the courts agreed, while the police disagreed on this point. Which is why my concerns about this are less about "disqualification" and more about police forces racakteering by putting cameras next to each other, as the fine stacks, but not the points, if you have a particularly minded judge. [Also because its not clear about the outcome, some people may actually end up oppressed by paying muiltiple FPN, as same occassion is a defense in court, and not relevant to FPN notices]

So you could percevably go through 5 cameras in a 14 minute journey (one guy actually did this, but the court agreed it was a continous offence as he had a "sensible judge" as I'd view it), the same occassion defence would have meant 5 x 50% of weekly income, + prosecution costs, which is what an additional Ł500. + victim surcharge, so that would be on minimum a nice fine of roughly Ł4000 or something for 14 minutes of driving. Would certainly be a nice bit of money making for the council.

[HandyAndy]

..then your average speed would never have fallen below the speed limit,

The average would not have, but at individual points it may have. e.g:

3 miles @ 60mph = 3 minutes
3 miles @ 40mph = 4.5 minutes
3 miles @ 120mph = 1.5 minutes

So nine miles in nine minutes with a dip below the 50mph limit in the middle. Extreme, I know, but just to illustrate that the average would not give the court the full picture.

Actual 100% definite distance is not known as they do not record or provide the data of where the cameras are positioned, and the police ignored about 3 separate requests for disclosure.

The police have no obligation to provide such information. They’re entitled to prosecute you for two offences as you were caught speeding on two occasions. You are the one making an argument that it was a single offence so the onus is on you to provide evidence to support that argument.

A motorway database giving distances between junctions is here:

https://www.roads.org.uk/motorway

Of course, if it is within striking distance, you could always retrace the journey and measure the precise distance between the two camera locations.

It seems your argument (if you had been allowed to properly present it) would have been that you exceeded the speed limit for the entire distance (at ~60mph) between the two cameras. You don’t know the distance between the two but they were one junction apart so you reckon “a couple” of miles (though in your opening post you said it was a five mile stretch) and that took nine minutes.

At the very least you needed to provide that distance with a reasonable degree of accuracy (at least to the nearest mile). If you could have shown that it was (say) nine miles, the court would have known that you averaged 60mph between the two. Since you were travelling at ~60mph at each end, coupled with your testimony that your speed was fairly constant throughout, I think there is a fair chance they may have ruled that this was a single offence. However, as above, saying it was “a couple” (or perhaps five) miles but you don’t know how many, would have seen no chance of success.

I think the consolation to be drawn from this is that, had you presented your argument, it would have failed.

[Tremarl]

..then your average speed would never have fallen below the speed limit,

The average would not have, but at individual points it may have. e.g:

3 miles @ 60mph = 3 minutes
3 miles @ 40mph = 4.5 minutes
3 miles @ 120mph = 1.5 minutes

So nine miles in nine minutes with a dip below the 50mph limit in the middle. Extreme, I know, but just to illustrate that the average would not give the court the full picture.



The police have no obligation to provide such information. They’re entitled to prosecute you for two offences as you were caught speeding on two occasions. You are the one making an argument that it was a single offence so the onus is on you to provide evidence to support that argument.

A motorway database giving distances between junctions is here:

https://www.roads.org.uk/motorway

Of course, if it is within striking distance, you could always retrace the journey and measure the precise distance between the two camera locations.

It seems your argument (if you had been allowed to properly present it) would have been that you exceeded the speed limit for the entire distance (at ~60mph) between the two cameras. You don’t know the distance between the two but they were one junction apart so you reckon “a couple” of miles (though in your opening post you said it was a five mile stretch) and that took nine minutes.

At the very least you needed to provide that distance with a reasonable degree of accuracy (at least to the nearest mile). If you could have shown that it was (say) nine miles, the court would have known that you averaged 60mph between the two. Since you were travelling at ~60mph at each end, coupled with your testimony that your speed was fairly constant throughout, I think there is a fair chance they may have ruled that this was a single offence. However, as above, saying it was “a couple” (or perhaps five) miles but you don’t know how many, would have seen no chance of success.

I think the consolation to be drawn from this is that, had you presented your argument, it would have failed.

Actually the police have an obligation to disclose any and all relevant information to my defense, but w/e

My argument was irrelevant as the court believed as a matter of law in all circumstances 1 camera = 1 offense.

[Manxman]

9 minutes is the recorded time.
Actual 100% definite distance is not known as they do not record or provide the data of where the cameras are positioned, and the police ignored about 3 separate requests for disclosure...

... I already tried getting information from googlemaps for specific junctions and it proved somewhat futile. However, as the testimony itself was never disputed it doesn't seem relevant....

I would have expected the police to include the precise location of the cameras in the evidence pack they sent you when you pleaded Not Guilty. Didn't they?

In any case, you know what route you took and you know the two junctions where you were caught. Can't you retrace your steps virtually on Google Street View and spot where the cameras are? And then measure the distance between them?

I appreciate your point that this would have been of no help as the magistrates rejected your argument anyway, but I can't help thinking that if you'd gone in backed up with a lot of hard facts to show that it should have been treated either as a continuous offence or as two offences on a single occasion, you might have had more success.

Also I think if you brought double jeopardy up as an issue, you were diverting attention away from what should have been your primary and only argument - ie that this was either a continuous offence or two offences committed on the same occasion.

By the way, I don't think speeding fines etc go to either the local council or the police, so they benefit neither of them. Although I believe the police do get some kind of "commision" on speed awareness etc courses...

[HandyAndy]

Actually the police have an obligation to disclose any and all relevant information to my defense,

Actually they don't.

When you are charged you are entitled to “the Initial Details of the Prosecution Case.” This is basically the evidence the police intend to rely on to convict you.

In addition to that, if you plead not guilty you should be provided with the “Schedule of Unused Material.” This is a list of anything else the police have gathered during their investigation (which in the overwhelming majority of speeding cases is probably nothing). If you want to see any of that material you must explain to the court why you believe it will either assist your case or undermine theirs and they will decide whether or not to order its disclosure.

It is most unlikely the police would have, in amongst either of those lists of material (if indeed the second one exists in your cases), the distance between the two camera sites. They have prosecuted you for two individual offences and there is simply no need for them to require that measurement.

The reason why they refused to disclose it could be that there is no obligation for them to do so. But the more likely explanation is that they simply don’t have it. They don’t need it to support their argument that you have committed two individual offences. You need it to support your argument that you didn’t, so you the obligation to provide it falls to you.

[Tremarl]

Actually they don't.

When you are charged you are entitled to “the Initial Details of the Prosecution Case.” This is basically the evidence the police intend to rely on to convict you.

In addition to that, if you plead not guilty you should be provided with the “Schedule of Unused Material.” This is a list of anything else the police have gathered during their investigation (which in the overwhelming majority of speeding cases is probably nothing). If you want to see any of that material you must explain to the court why you believe it will either assist your case or undermine theirs and they will decide whether or not to order its disclosure.

It is most unlikely the police would have, in amongst either of those lists of material (if indeed the second one exists in your cases), the distance between the two camera sites. They have prosecuted you for two individual offences and there is simply no need for them to require that measurement.

The reason why they refused to disclose it could be that there is no obligation for them to do so. But the more likely explanation is that they simply don’t have it. They don’t need it to support their argument that you have committed two individual offences. You need it to support your argument that you didn’t, so you the obligation to provide it falls to you.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...1-introduction

They have to give you all relevant information. The fact they often fail to do which has been reported on internal in policy documents is one of concern. If you don't believe me read their guidance and the relevant legislation.

There are historically several cases that have fallen through after it was found out that the CPS / Police were not providing information that were key to undermining their case.


They didn't "refuse" the disclosure. They ignored the request. Refusal would actually force them to provide reasons and would make an actionable case. They ignored it and delayed until the trial date without providing the information.




What you are suggesting is once you get to trial to then explain this, but this is not a pre-hearing, this is a summary trial so not appropriate in this circumstances. It could cause a stay of proceedings, but that is not really appropriate or wanted for such minor offences. Part of the reason why the police don't bother to disclose and instead regularly prejudice the defence is that the bar for a stay of proceedings or even a dismissal of the trial through abuse of process claims, require a very high bar of failure by the police, and evidence that may negatively affect their case, that the defence is unaware of is not likely something they are going to become aware of unless told.