Seen this a lot on pepipoo and with other car enthusaists last couple of years. Most magistrates are more interested in the fact youve broken the law rather than some technicality to try and get out of it.

To be fair i agree with them (and i dont mean this as a dig at you), and i dont mean traffic offences but criminal cases in general, far too many get off because some stupid I wasnt dotted or a T wasnt crossed even though the evidence in any reasonable persons eye stands for itself regardless of some piece of paper or technicality in case law.

Sure in border line cases the technicalities are important, but anything else it just hinders true justice. If youd been charged with doing 77 in a 70, then sure technicalities might be relevant eg an innacurate speedo makes a difference, but at higher speeds or more blatent crimes, a small technicality makes no difference.

The ones that used to annoy me were things like people claiming under the 14 day time limit rubbish for FPN's. Regardless of the time, the person was still speeding and should take responsibility.

However i do see why people do it as over targetting of motorists for petty offences does breed contempt for the law and understandably so.

The whole speed limit system needs urgent review IMO as its just not fit for purpose for modern cars and roads. The fact you didnt (and many dont) get dangerous driving added to the list of offences shows that speed alone isnt the "evil sin" the authorities make it out to be.
however a judge would say it was your responsibility to be maintain proper control such that even under heavy acceleration you can stop at the speed limit. You wouldnt want careless driving added to your speeding conviction
depends on the type of ban. very few bans have a mandatory retest/extended test. However a magistrate can for many offences order a retest.
isnt 6 points less costly in insurance terms though??