Oranoco

Some peeps may remember that coming home from Trax a mate got caught at 103mph!

After some arguing about the way in which they obtained the measured speed (across the central reservation and its barriers). The camera partnership in question has offered 3 points and a £60 fine and a speed awareness course.

His awareness was fine He was perfectly aware that he wanted to overtake me

Deano

RESULT

Mrs Ginge

well no thats not a result

its just so ya can get more speedign tickets and the course is 100 quid too

id say keep fighting

Deano

What you on about ?

If that went to court he would most likely have been banned for doing 103

To come away from that with just the 3 and 60 fine IS A RESULT

POPEYE

and imo if you are speeding be prepared to get nicked for it

ECU Monitor Enthusiast

iTrader: (1)

Someone I know just got off a speed camera ticket.

He wrote back to them saying that 4 people drove the car on the day in question
and could they send a photo.
Anyway, he got the photo and you could NOT see who was driving.
Case dismissed !

Lucky boy

dave cos4x4

iTrader: (5)

Dave.

pee vee

good work man,

Da Booga

I went on a speed awareness course a couple of weeks ago in Hull, it was £50 (although it may be dearer down South!)

mk5cos

thye can only charged 1 person for speeding, two people up here claimed they were driving the car when the offence took place (they were on our regional news) so they had to let them both off cos they could not prove who it was?

s1rscustom

yeah i was banned for doin over hundred was doin 107 and got 14 day ban not too bad but stays on licence for 10 years i think

Stavros

i thought if couldnt prove who driving they jus give the car owner the points

Weevil

No. The keeper of the vehicle has a statutory obligation to provide details of who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offence. Failure to supply the information is a separate offence carrying 3 points and up to £1000 fine. However, there is a defence and that is where the keeper has been unable to establish who was driving the vehicle at the time. But for the defence to succeed the keeper needs to do more than just say "I don't know who was driving". Pleading such a defence inevitably leads to a prosecution so the keeper needs to demonstrate what enquiries he has made in trying to establish who was driving. If the magistrates are satisfied with that the keeper will be found not guilty of failing to supply.

There has been a court case recently (Mohindra v DPP) which appears to have tipped the balance in such cases back into the motorists favour. This court found that the "keeper" of the vehicle is not necessarily the "registered keeper" and the information requirement is only on the "keeper" of the vehicle. An as yet untested defence to a charge of failing to supply information as o who was driving is simply the registered keeper saying "I was not the keeper of the vehicle involved in the offence at the time of the offence, and so the information of who was driving is not in my power to give." And that should be the end of it....

Phil

iTrader: (1)

Dave, what level of court was Mohindra v DPP presented to?

Weevil

High Court - have a read: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...dra&method=all

Phil

iTrader: (1)

Cool, that's set a pretty good precedent for the courts to follow for a while!

(Oops, after reading through that a bit more it's not the case I thought it was!)