ChatterBank0 min ago
Charged with speeding but no proof offerd by the police
I set off on my motorcycle from as set of traffic lights.Also at the lights but further back in the queue was an unmarked police car.Further down the road was another set of lights which were on red.The distance between the lights is about 400 meters.The road was clear in front of me but the police car had to negotiate round other vehicles to get behind me.I stopped at the red light then when they changed I carried on down the road with the police car behind me.The police officers stopped me about a kilometer further on.They said I had "set off like a bat out of hell" which I didnt and said I was being charged with doing 45 in a 30 limit.They said that they had to get to 80 mph to catch me in the 400 meters between the lights.They said they would say I was doing 45 so I didnt have to go to court and gave me a fixed penalty notice.They offerd no video evidence to this arbitrary figure but in their opinion I was travelling to fast.They also gave me a section 59 for "anti social driving" even though I didnt pass any other vehicles or cause anyone any inconvenience.Do they have to provide real evidence that I was speeding and not just pick a speed and then tell me I was doing it.
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by axor1840. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hi
I am not great with traffic matters but this is what Sec 89 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 states:
89 Speeding offences generally..
(1)A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence..
(2)A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit..
(3)The enactments to which this section applies are—.
(a)any enactment contained in this Act except section 17(2);.
(b)section 2 of the M1Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926; and.
(c)any enactment not contained in this Act, but passed after 1st September 1960, whether before or after the passing of this Act..
(4)If a person who employs other persons to drive motor vehicles on roads publishes or issues any time-table or schedule, or gives any directions, under which any journey, or any stage or part of any journey, is to be completed within some specified time, and it is not practicable in the circumstances of the case for that journey (or that stage or part of it) to be completed in the specified time without the commission of such an offence as is mentioned in subsection (1) above, the publication or issue of the time-table or schedule, or the giving of the directions, may be produced as prima facie evidence that the employer procured or (as the case may be) incited the persons employed by him to drive the vehicles to commit such an offence.
I am not great with traffic matters but this is what Sec 89 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 states:
89 Speeding offences generally..
(1)A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence..
(2)A person prosecuted for such an offence shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that, in the opinion of the witness, the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding a specified limit..
(3)The enactments to which this section applies are—.
(a)any enactment contained in this Act except section 17(2);.
(b)section 2 of the M1Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926; and.
(c)any enactment not contained in this Act, but passed after 1st September 1960, whether before or after the passing of this Act..
(4)If a person who employs other persons to drive motor vehicles on roads publishes or issues any time-table or schedule, or gives any directions, under which any journey, or any stage or part of any journey, is to be completed within some specified time, and it is not practicable in the circumstances of the case for that journey (or that stage or part of it) to be completed in the specified time without the commission of such an offence as is mentioned in subsection (1) above, the publication or issue of the time-table or schedule, or the giving of the directions, may be produced as prima facie evidence that the employer procured or (as the case may be) incited the persons employed by him to drive the vehicles to commit such an offence.
It is widely believed that the police have to provide evidence either in the form of photographs or by some type of measured analysis before laying a charge of speeding, and that the precise speed alleged has to be proved. This is not so.
A speeding charge can be laid if, in the opinion of a police officer, the speed limit was broken and the court can be convinced that he was correct. Motorists have gone to trial over allegations such as these and have been convicted. The court will need to be convinced that the police officer has had experience of speeding motorists when the speed was properly measured and that his experience is such that he is correct on the occasion where he has simply used his judgement. The court must be convinced “beyond reasonable doubt” of this. He does not have to convince the court that you were doing 45mph, only that you exceeded 30mph.
In your case your choice is simple. You can either accept the fixed penalty (£60 and three points) or you can contest the matter in court. If you do you are entitled to call the officer(s) to give their evidence and can cross examine them (either yourself or via your lawyer) to try to convince the Magistrates that the evidence cannot be relied upon.
If you are convicted following trial Magistrates sentencing guidelines for 45mph in a 30mph zone are a fine of half a week’s net income and either 4 or 5 penalty points or a disqualification of up to 42 days. You will also be liable for hefty prosecution costs, probably somewhere in the region of £450.
A speeding charge can be laid if, in the opinion of a police officer, the speed limit was broken and the court can be convinced that he was correct. Motorists have gone to trial over allegations such as these and have been convicted. The court will need to be convinced that the police officer has had experience of speeding motorists when the speed was properly measured and that his experience is such that he is correct on the occasion where he has simply used his judgement. The court must be convinced “beyond reasonable doubt” of this. He does not have to convince the court that you were doing 45mph, only that you exceeded 30mph.
In your case your choice is simple. You can either accept the fixed penalty (£60 and three points) or you can contest the matter in court. If you do you are entitled to call the officer(s) to give their evidence and can cross examine them (either yourself or via your lawyer) to try to convince the Magistrates that the evidence cannot be relied upon.
If you are convicted following trial Magistrates sentencing guidelines for 45mph in a 30mph zone are a fine of half a week’s net income and either 4 or 5 penalty points or a disqualification of up to 42 days. You will also be liable for hefty prosecution costs, probably somewhere in the region of £450.
-- answer removed --
Case Law
Swain v Gillete 1974 - Defence appealed against the evidence of two officers & a speedo on the grounds that the no evidence of accuracy of the speedo had been given. Conviction upheld, not only did **Nicholas v Penny** apply, but as the two officers were together & had formed their opinions simultaneously, that was enough without any mechanical evidence.
(Nicholas v Penny 1950 - Defence appealed where the driver had been convicted on the evidence of one officer & a speedo because no evidence had been given as to the accuracy of the speedo. Conviction upheld because no evidence of accuracy was required for the speedo, unless the margin of speed over the limit was very small).
Swain v Gillete 1974 - Defence appealed against the evidence of two officers & a speedo on the grounds that the no evidence of accuracy of the speedo had been given. Conviction upheld, not only did **Nicholas v Penny** apply, but as the two officers were together & had formed their opinions simultaneously, that was enough without any mechanical evidence.
(Nicholas v Penny 1950 - Defence appealed where the driver had been convicted on the evidence of one officer & a speedo because no evidence had been given as to the accuracy of the speedo. Conviction upheld because no evidence of accuracy was required for the speedo, unless the margin of speed over the limit was very small).
They do indeed need a bit more than their opinions, cath.
They have to convince the court that their opinions (which in fact are really their assessment of the speed alleged) are likely to be correct. The prosecution will almost certainly ask them to give the court details of their experience and how it is that they can make reasonably accurate assessments of the speed of vehicles they observe. The burden of proof is a heavy one and if the court has any doubt about their assessments they must acquit the driver. But exdc has also shown that the opinions of police officers are sufficient to secure a conviction.
The difficulty for axor is that if he blindly accepts your suggestion to wait for their case to unravel he may be disappointed and it may cost him considerably more than sixty quid. I would suggest, axor, that if you are thinking of disputing this in court you should consult a solicitor to see precisely what evidence is being laid against you.
They have to convince the court that their opinions (which in fact are really their assessment of the speed alleged) are likely to be correct. The prosecution will almost certainly ask them to give the court details of their experience and how it is that they can make reasonably accurate assessments of the speed of vehicles they observe. The burden of proof is a heavy one and if the court has any doubt about their assessments they must acquit the driver. But exdc has also shown that the opinions of police officers are sufficient to secure a conviction.
The difficulty for axor is that if he blindly accepts your suggestion to wait for their case to unravel he may be disappointed and it may cost him considerably more than sixty quid. I would suggest, axor, that if you are thinking of disputing this in court you should consult a solicitor to see precisely what evidence is being laid against you.
this seems really Sh!tty to me. Motirbikes can accelerate quicker than cars, and it can seem like they are going faster thanthey are in my experience (of being both a biker and car driver) I wonder if the antisocial driving was because of noise? Mind you, my opinion is neither here nor there i suppose and i guess you'll just have to decide whether to swallow it or spend money contesting it
New Judge
This is a criminal matter. Is the test not " beyond a reasonable doubt"?
You say "They have to convince the court that their opinions (which in fact are really their assessment of the speed alleged) are likely to be correct"
I would think "likely to be correct" to be a lesser standard of proof - more akin to the balance of probabilities in civil cases.
This is a criminal matter. Is the test not " beyond a reasonable doubt"?
You say "They have to convince the court that their opinions (which in fact are really their assessment of the speed alleged) are likely to be correct"
I would think "likely to be correct" to be a lesser standard of proof - more akin to the balance of probabilities in civil cases.
"you would think they would need more than just their opinions!"
Hi, There are no general requirements in Common Law (English) that evidence has to be corroborated and a conviction (or a judgement) can be based on the uncorroborated at court on the evidence of a single witness, or on uncorroborated evidence of any other kind.
However, there are a few offences that do requirement corroboration and one of those is speeding, hence New Judge's comments that they do indeed need a bit more than their opinions and both police officers will have to give testimony
(there are other situations that where law requires corroboration in the sense of either evidence from an independent source or an alternative type of evidence from the same source and situations where discretionary care warnings have to be given at court regarding uncorroborated evidence).
Hi, There are no general requirements in Common Law (English) that evidence has to be corroborated and a conviction (or a judgement) can be based on the uncorroborated at court on the evidence of a single witness, or on uncorroborated evidence of any other kind.
However, there are a few offences that do requirement corroboration and one of those is speeding, hence New Judge's comments that they do indeed need a bit more than their opinions and both police officers will have to give testimony
(there are other situations that where law requires corroboration in the sense of either evidence from an independent source or an alternative type of evidence from the same source and situations where discretionary care warnings have to be given at court regarding uncorroborated evidence).
-- answer removed --
One thing that axor has not told us (perhaps with good reason) is what speed he (or she) was actually doing. It would be interesting to set up a test where each officer concerned with your alleged offence individually had to estimate the speeds of cars and motorbikes in realistic situations, or in a simulator. But that is not likely to happen.
Yes, themas, thanks for pointing out my misleading phrase in my later answer.
You can see from my first contribution that I did say that the matter has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. My second answer, including the phrase "likely to be correct" was misleading. The magistrates have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the officers' assessments are accurate enough to convince them that the offence had been committed.
You can see from my first contribution that I did say that the matter has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. My second answer, including the phrase "likely to be correct" was misleading. The magistrates have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the officers' assessments are accurate enough to convince them that the offence had been committed.
Sorry for my errors,
"you would think they would need more than just their opinions!"
Hi, there are no general requirements in (English) Common Law that evidence has to be corroborated and a conviction (or a judgement) can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness, or on uncorroborated evidence of any other kind.
However, there are a few offences that DO require corroboration and one of those is ‘Speeding’, hence New Judge's comments ‘that they do indeed need a bit more than their opinions’ and ‘both police officers will have to give testimony’, etc.
(Please note, rules of evidence is an in-depth subject and the above is a very basic summary. There are other situations where the law requires corroboration in the sense of either evidence from an independent source or an alternative type of evidence from the same source. There are also situations where ‘Discretionary Care Warnings’, have to be given at court regarding uncorroborated evidence).
"you would think they would need more than just their opinions!"
Hi, there are no general requirements in (English) Common Law that evidence has to be corroborated and a conviction (or a judgement) can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness, or on uncorroborated evidence of any other kind.
However, there are a few offences that DO require corroboration and one of those is ‘Speeding’, hence New Judge's comments ‘that they do indeed need a bit more than their opinions’ and ‘both police officers will have to give testimony’, etc.
(Please note, rules of evidence is an in-depth subject and the above is a very basic summary. There are other situations where the law requires corroboration in the sense of either evidence from an independent source or an alternative type of evidence from the same source. There are also situations where ‘Discretionary Care Warnings’, have to be given at court regarding uncorroborated evidence).
a test was done with estimating speeds from a distance and, as far as i can remember, police were better at it than the general population!
but speed is only one factor in your story: how close were you to other traffic? did you cause a nuisance or alarm, for example?
but if the fine is only £60, i agree pay and learn from it!
but speed is only one factor in your story: how close were you to other traffic? did you cause a nuisance or alarm, for example?
but if the fine is only £60, i agree pay and learn from it!
So, why were you racing between two sets of lights? For what reason? You obviously were or you wouldn't have been stopped by the police - they wouldn't have stopped you if you were doing 30mph or thereabouts. You were obviously doing far in excess of that.
You've been caught. Pay the fine and, perhaps, think again before you start speeding in a 30mph area.
You've been caught. Pay the fine and, perhaps, think again before you start speeding in a 30mph area.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Isn't It Good To Hear That Another...
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Home & Garden18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.