- I have heard that SPECs is operating in XXXX area. We receive
a great many emails from people that have been sent hoax emails about
new areas where SPECs is supposedly operating. To find out where SPECs
is operating see http://www.speedcheck.co.uk/index.htm
-
Loopholes? - as at July 14th 2006
From time to time someone will discover a potential loophole that can assist you with a speeding case. These loopholes are often shaggy dog stories - with no basis in fact. Sometimes a loophole may exist and be useable for a few months until a higher court clarifies the matter and closes the loophole. We have summarised the four main loopholes below. Two are currently unusable (pending a judgement from the European Court) but the other two can often produce a favourable result.
Loophole #1 - Section 172 conflicts with PACE
The main loophole that people have been exploiting is the Section 172 loophole. This loophole was exploiting an apparent conflict between the PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence) rules where you must be cautioned first and the process of receiving a Notice of Intended Prosecution from a Gatso (or similar scamera) where you don't get cautioned and just receive paperwork through the post. This loophole has for now been closed following a ruling by the High Court in the case of Francis -v- DPP. This is being taken to the European courts but it is unlikely to get a hearing this year.
-
Loophole #2 - Conflicts with European Human Rights Laws
Some people were also attempting to use European human rights legislation to make a case for not being forced to incriminate yourself by filling out paperwork effectively saying that you were breaking the law by speeding. A ruling has also closed this one off, although some Speed Trap Bible members are still getting cases dropped by threatening to use this defence. This is also being taken to the European Court and a ruling is expected on 27th September 2006.
-
Loophole #3 - I can't remember who was driving at the time
This loophole/defence has had much publicity as a number of senior police officers have used it successfully. They argued that they could not remember who was driving and the cases were dropped. From the experience of dealing with vast numbers of email requests for help - just writing back and saying you can't remember will not work. You will need to show in great detail why you can't recall who was driving and what steps you have taken to try and work out who was driving. In many cases this will work and the case will be dropped, but in some regions it will not and the Police/CPS will continue to chase you to name the driver. If you continue to show in detail why you cannot be sure of who was driving in many cases they will give up and drop it. In other cases you may end up having to go to court to show all of the reasons and research you have done to try and identify the driver.
Loophole #4 - It wasn't me driving at 173mph ….
Many of you may have read about this case of a driver being stopped on the M25 after being clocked at 173mph in his Porsche Turbo. After clocking the car at 173mph the Police briefly lost sight of it before the car slowed down and they were able to pull over the driver and took his name, address and credit card details to identify him. When it came to court he was found not guilty on a technicality. In summary the Police couldn't prove that he was the driver as they had lost sight of the car briefly and they had not taken any photo identification at the time they stopped him. This is a very technical loophole/defence and you will need excellent legal assistance to try and use it. -
I have recently been flashed by a Gatso camera, what happens next? The Police have 14 days to send you a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP). They also get an allowance of a couple of days for the post to deliver it. So if its more than 17days since you were flashed they are too late to prosecute you, unless you were driving a company car, hire car or someone elses car. In these circumstances they are allowed more time to track you down. See below for further details.
I have received a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) through the post and I want to know what to do?
-
- If you know that you broke the speed limit and its inside the
"14" day rule, then its easier to accept the offer of
a £60 fine and 3 points. If you feel strongly enough about the
abuse of Gatso's as revenue generating tools - rather than safety
tools - then you could go to court. If enough people did this then
it would totally clog up the system and it would fall over - however
being British and too reserved - this is unlikely to happen. If you
already have points on your licence and the points from this will
take you to 12 points or more, then you could get banned and we would
suggest that you take legal advice to prevent/mitigate this.
- The Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) arrived outside of the
"14" day period. You should be able to get the prosecution
dropped - get our lawyers to write you a legal letter and it should
go away. This is assuming that you are the registered owner of the
vehicle.
- The NIP arrived outside of the"14" day period, as they
had my address/details incorrectly recorded or not upto date.
Section 1(1) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 requires that Notices
of Intended Prosecution must be served within 14 days if a prosecution
is to be successful. However, s2(3) of that Act provides an escape
clause for the police. It says:
"failure to comply with the requirement of s1(1) of this act is not a bar to the conviction of the accused in case where the court is satisfied:-
(a) that neither the name and address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered keeper could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time for the notice to be served in compliance with s1(1)"
In the case of Clarke -v- Mould (1945)the police approached what was then the Motor Licences Department (now DVLA) in good time but were given wrong information from the Department which resulted in failure to serve the NiP in time. The defendant argued that because the Department had given out wrong details and the Department were, like the police, a government department, surely he should not be blamed for the police failure to serve. The Court disagreed. The Court said that the police only had to make reasonable and diligent enquiry as to the registered keeper. They did this, therefore they had complied with the rules of the relevant Act at that time. The above has not been challenged and we feel that in the current climate there is no merit in clients pursuing a defence on this basis.
- If you are not sure if you were speeding, then you should
have been sent or will need to write and ask for a copy of both
of the photographs that were taken of you by the Gatso. You should
also ask how far apart in time the pictures were taken (normally 0.5
second). When you have the pictures back from the police (they are
required to provide them to you), then look at the lines that are
painted on the road and you can see how far you have travelled in
the time it took to take both pictures - typically the pictures are
taken 0.5 second apart. You will need to revisit the camera site and
carefully (dont get snapped again! or run over) measure the distance
between the lines. Then you will know how far your vehicle moved in
the time period and from this you can calculate your speed. If it
matches the speed you are accused of - then it would appear to be
a valid accusation.
- Driving a high sided vehicle. Gatso's seem to have problems
with trucks/high sided vehicles and will give an inaccurate speed
reading - even if the truck is stationary! The police are meant to
carefully revue all high sided vehicle NIP's before sending them out
- so if you get a NIP and you were not speeding (or even moving!),
request the photographs and this evidence should easily clear you.
Also if you truck has a tacho. check it and if it proves you were
not speeding then send them a copy.
-
Company Cars. Received a NIP for a company car that we run and I cant be sure who was driving. A limited company, RTA 1988 S172 (2) requires the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver. Subsection makes it an offence for the keeper to fail to comply. Subsection (4) provides a defence if the Keeper shows that he did not know who the driver was and could not have found out by using "reasonable diligence" The sting in the tail for limited companies is in Subsection (6) which provides that for a company to establish the Subsection (4) defence it must prove that IN ADDITION to the matters in (4) the Company did not keep a record of who was driving the vehicle AND that failure was reasonable. It is being suggested that companies ought to keep such records. For example if pool cars are used, there should be a system of signing in and out. If the company does have such a system but it didn't work on a particular occasion that might suffice. There is also the sting in the tail in subsection (5) which says that where a director or senior manager of the company caused or connived the failure to identify the driver that person is also guilty. The problem is that companies can be fined but can't get points. Directors can. We believe that most forces prosecute the company and not the directors for failing to identify as this leads to a conviction and fine without any effort. If they also prosecuted the Directors (solely to get points pout on a licence, most would fight. The system is designed for swift turnover. If every motorist pleaded not guilty the system would grind to a halt.
- Company and Rental Cars. If you were caught by a Gatso or
other speed trap and were NOT stopped at the time then the authorities
must still inform the registered owner, under the 14 day rule. If
they do this then no time limit exists for them to track down who
was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident. The law surrounding
is contained in s1 and s2(3) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 ("RTOA")
and the decided case of Haughton -v- Harrison. The statute at s1 RTOA
provides that within 14 days of the date of the alleged offence an
NIP (or a summons) must be served on the registered keeper of the
vehicle. Note though that where a driver has been stopped and cautioned
that he will be reported for an offence there is no need for a
written NIP to be served.The above is clear but unfortunately that is not the end of the story!
s2(3) RTOA says that if the police failed to comply with s1 above that failure is not a bar to conviction provided that the police can show good reasons as to why they failed to serve the NIP in time. A good reason would be that neither the name or address of the accused nor the name and address of the Registered Keeper could be reasonably established.
You will have noted from above that the obligation on the police is to serve the NIP on the Registered Keeper within 14 days - not the driver. The case of Haughton -v- Harrison established that where the Registered Keeper is served within 14 days there is no time limit for serving the driver.
Therefore, the answer to your question is - if the Registered Keeper (the hire company or drivers company if a company car is involved) is served within 14 days of the offence there is no requirement on the police to then serve an NIP on the actual driver once his identity has been established.
-
I was flashed from the front by a speed camera, can I be prosecuted. In the UK two main types of speed camera exist - they look very similar but work in different ways. The most common speed cameras are the grey boxes on poles that are Gatso's. These use radar to measure a vehicles speed and then take 2 pictures half a second apart of any vehicle that passes above the set limit. Whilst these can be set to fire at the front of vehicles, it is extremely rare for them to be used like this. If a Gatso is on the other side of the road and facing you, they can go off in error and flash. If they do it is not likely to result in you being sent a NiP - in fact we have never heard of a case where the evidence (photo) from a Gatso on the other side of the road has been used to prosecute. The other much less common grey box camera is a Truvelo and this will be set to fire at the front of a vehicle. These use loops in the road to measure your speed (so radar detectors wont detect them) and they will flash in your face. I hear from drivers who have been flashed by these at night and temporarily blinded by the flash. Whilst this does not seem a safe approach, they are certified by the Govt to be used like this. So if you have been flashed from the front by a camera, unless its a Truvelo you are very unlikely to hear any more of it. To help you identify Gatso vs Truvelo - pictures of both are below.
-
< Truvelo
-
Gatso >
- My car was being driven by someone else at the time. You should provide the police with the details of the driver and they will then pursue them for the speeding offence. If the driver was visiting from outside of the UK and especially outside of the EU, then experience shows that they will not pursue the case outside of the UK.They may write to you and try and get you to prove that this other person was driving, but you only need to give them the name and address and don't need to supply any more info.
- I have a full licence and I was the front seat passenger whilst
a learner was driving. The learner driver has now received a NiP for
speeding - will I get points also? Very unlikely unless you are
found to have acted in a manner which is reckless or without care
or which has contributed to the offence - in reality you'd need to
have encouraged the driver to speed and for him to admit to this.
- I have received a NIP, but some information on it is incorrect.
If there is a typographical error on the Notice of Intended Prosecution
in relation to a persons name or address for example then the NIP
is deemed valid and the Prosecution will be entitled (with no costs
penalty to them) to make an application at the hearing of the summons
to amend the NIP under what is called "the Slip Rule". Permission
will always be granted where there is no detriment to the Defendant.
In other words where it is admitted that the offence alleged took
place or where the Court find that the offence was committed not withstanding
the Defendants plea of not guilty. If there is a more fundamental
breach e.g. the registration number is incorrect then the alleged
Defendant need only complete the s172 Notice attached to the NIP stating
that he is not in fact the owner of the vehicle whose registration
number is shown on the Notice.
- I have received more than one NiP for speeding on the same day/over
a couple of days close together, can I get these treated as one offense?
Where a person is convicted of an offence involving obligatory endorsement
(i.e. bald tyres) and the person convicted has been charged with two
or more
offences committed on the same occasion (note the words Same Occasion are not defined!) the total number of penalty points to be attributed to them is the number or highest number that would be attributed to him on conviction of just one offence. In the case of the bald tyres, applying the above rule then only one set of
3 penalty points should be awarded notwithstanding the charge of 4 bald tyres. I would certainly encourage any defendant to run with the same defence in these circumstances and a good lawyer should be able to assist with this.
- I have received a NIP. At the claimed time I cannot recal who
was driving as we shared the driving on this day. I have heard that
if I return the paperwork with both of the possible drivers details,
that the police will not pursue the matter. In many cases this
is true and the police take no further action. In some cases the police
will visit the registered driver and interview them to try and get
them to "confess" even if they really cant recall who was
driving. In a few cases the police will also a summons for failing
to comply with s172 RTA 1988 (supplying the drivers details). So no
hard and fast rules and it seems to vary from case to case.
- I have received a NIP. At the claimed time I cannot recal who
was driving as we shared the driving on this day. I have heard that
if I state that the other person was driving then they will receive
a summons and if they go to court and deny it and say I was driving
then the courts can't convivct as reasonable doubt exists. s172
Road Traffic Act 1988 puts the burden of proof onto the accused to
identify the driver, in other words the registered keeper is guilty
until he proves his innocence. I have heard of a case argued recently
where two friends each blamed the other. The Magistrates clerk made
an immediate proclamation that the client's were using a ruse to avoid
conviction and instructed the Magistrates to reach a decision as to
who was driving based on the evidence before the Court. The Magistrates
decided that they were able to reach a decision as to the driver and
convicted the registered keeper.
- The police vehicle that operated the speed trap was parked illegally
on double yellow lines, can they break the law to operate a speed
trap. In summary yes, they are excused the provisions of, in this
case the Road Traffic Act, when gathering evidence.
- The picture taken of my vehicle is unclear and some of the registration
letters cannot be read. The police have assumed that its my car by
taking the readable letters and then tracking down how many cars exist
with the registration letters that can be read and the same make,
model and colour of the photographed car. Can they convict me on this
partial evidence. We hear many cases where they try to do this,
but good legal advice should make them drop it
- What is the time limit, within which you can be prosecuted.
The police have to serve a summons on the defendant within 6 months
of the date on which the prosecutor (normally the CPS) certify that
they have collated enough evidence to bring a charge. This does not
mean that the police have 6 months from the date of the offence to
charge the accused. My advice to anyone who has received a summons
more than 6 months after the alleged offence is to request a copy
of the signed and dated certificate of prosecution from the Police/CPS.
For a normal common or garden speeding offence with no complications
I can think of absolutely no reason why the prosecution should not
issue a summons within 6 months of the offence. Notwithstanding the
above, the Prosecution must bring proceedings within 3 years of the
alleged offence. The NIP 14 day rule still applies for Gatso and other
devices, where you are not stopped and warned of proscecution at the
time of the offence.
- I have heard that if you accept a fixed penalty notice and then
appeal it later, its likely that the police will have thrown away
the evidence and you will win your appeal as the police wont have
any evidence to use. An interesting idea, but not one that we
think will work. If the normal rule of law applied to fixed penalties
and I do not see why it should not, if one pleads guilty to an offence
and is convicted that person may only appeal against sentence and
not against conviction (note the appeal must be within 21 days of
sentence). Because the sentence under a fixed penalty is prescribed
by the Home Office there can be, as a general rule, no appeal from
sentence either. If anyone has tried this - please let us know how
you got on.
- Whats the law about number plates. Dirty/Jumbled number plates
- s43 Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 states:- if a registration
mark fixed on vehicle is in any way obscured or rendered or allowed
to become not easily distinguishable the owner/keeper is guilty of
an offence. The punishment is a fine only but not limited to £60.00.
In the event any site visitors are charged with this offence it is
well worth running a defence because all the accused has to do is
show that he took all reasonable steps practicable to prevent the
mark being obscured or not easily distinguishable.
Note, where a driver fraudulently jumbles up or otherwise obscures the registration mark he commits what is called an offence triable either way. That is he can be tried in the Magistrates Court or the Crown Court and faces the possibility of a 2 year prison sentence and fine. For specific info about number plate sizes and letter size/spacing see see our LINKS page.
- I think I was flashed by a camera at a set of traffic lights,
does this have to follow the "14" day NiP rules? We
will answer this shortly (Dec 3 2002)
- I cannot remember who was driving the car (a privately owned car) at the time. Firstly request the photographs as this may show the driver clearly enough to be recognised. If this still does not clarify who the driver was, then you should write and inform the police that you have reviewed the photographs and still are unable to work out who was driving.
- In 2001, Head of Middlesbrough CID, Detective Superintendent Adrian
Roberts, appealed against a fixed penalty notice that he had received
for allegdedly doing 35 in a 30 zone. Detective Superintendent Roberts,
36, was filmed driving at 35mph in a 30mph zone and a fixed penalty
notice was sent to his home. He took the notice to the head of the
force's administration of justice department and told him he couldn't
remember if he'd been driving at the time. Superintendent Graham
Cummings decided to scrap the ticket after ruling the photographic
evidence was inconclusive, The Times reports. As the Police are
not above the law - you should be treated in the same manner. So
if you cant recall who was driving and the photographs dont show
the driver then a letter should get it dropped as above. If it does
not then another letter detailing the case of Detective Superintendent
Adrian Roberts and requesting why his was dropped and yours was
not, should bring about a result.
- The picture that I have been sent of my car has been fiddled
with. - we are awaiting revised clarification on this.
- I am pleading not guilty and I have asked the Police to send
me the evidence and they have not - am I entitled to see it before
going to court? It is a rule of law that any party (including
the police) who wishes to rely on evidence at a Court hearing must
disclose the content of that evidence, whether written statement,
photographic evidence or other, to their opponent. In the case of
evidence to be relied upon in respect of alleged breaches of the Road
Traffic Offenders Act or Road Traffic Act such evidence must be disclosed
not less than 7 days before the date of hearing. Any evidence not
disclosed within this time period cannot be relied upon at Court and
where the prosecution seek an adjournment of a hearing in order to
serve their evidence they must seek the permission of the Court (not
always given) and bear the costs of any such adjournment.
Note though that in the event that the defendant pleads guilty to the offence as charged the police are under no obligation to disclose any evidence they may have - it is only if the defendant wishes to plead not guilty and a Court Hearing date is listed that the evidence must be disclosed in accordance with the rules.
- Surely I don't have to say who was driving as this could be self
incriminating and conflicts with Human Rights Laws. S 172 R T
A 1988 requires owners/keepers to disclose details of the driver at
the time of the offence. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human
Rights ("ECHR") provides a right to every individual not
to self-incriminate.
The Scottish case of Brown-v- Procurator Fiscal (Dunfermline) & Others [2000] decided that the ECHR had to be read as balancing community rights with individual rights and in this particular area the rights of the community outweigh the rights of the individual. In addition the House of Lords found that the answer required of a keeper under s 172 R T A could not itself be incriminating since it was not an offence to simply drive a car and furthermore, all owners and drivers of cars subjected themselves to a regulatory regime of which s172 RTA is a part.
The answer therefore to your question is that the requirements under s172 RTA 1988 prevail over Article 6 of ECHR and you are obliged to provide the details. The same rules apply in Scotland as England and Wales.
- I am being accused of speeding, but the Police did not calibrate
the device properly. Failure to follow APCO or manufacturers rules
on calibration/re-calibration will not make a prosecution invalid.
What it will do however is give the defendant excellent grounds for
pleading not guilty and thereby forcing the police to prove their
case beyond reasonable doubt. Where they have failed to meet the standards
prescribed by the manufacturers (not necessarily APCO as those recommendations
are good practice only) it would be relatively easy under cross-examination,
to cast doubt on the prosecution evidence thereby forcing the bench
to return a not guilty verdict.
- I have been accused of speeding, yet the road had no signs to indicate the speed. Because all roads are deemed to be restricted unless indicated otherwise where no speed limit sign or clear sign is in place the driver is deemed to know that the speed limit for the road is 30 mph (i.e. the restricted limit). Subject to the exception below, this is not the case however where, for example, a driver who is travelling along a signed 60 mph road enters a stretch of road that is restricted yet there is no sign post indicating the reduced speed.
-
Exception:-
If a driver who has been travelling along, for example a 60mph road, then enters a restricted zone without a speed limit sign indicating 30mph being displayed, that driver is deemed to be aware of the change of speed from 60 to restricted if (a) the street lamps are less than 200 yards apart or the area is clearly a built up zone.
therefore, in this case, he was travelling on a restricted road and then joined another road which he wrongly assumed was a 70mph road. The last road that he was travelling along indicated a 30mph limit and was
built up so therefore was clearly a restricted road. Applying the rule that all roads are restricted unless indicated otherwise your correspondent will fail in his defence.
-
Are Radar detectors legal in the UK. They are legal in England and Wales.Want to buy one ...we have negotiated the best prices for Speed Trap Bible readers - see
http://speedtraps.co.uk
- Are Laser Jammers legal in the UK. There have been no reported
cases on the use of laser jammers and there is no law outlawing them
or their use. The only reference to an action brought by the police
against a driver using a jamming device (although not a laser jamming
device) was brought in 1999 under s5 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act
1947. This case established that provided radio/micro wave emissions
did not attempt to transmit to a receiver whether specific or otherwise
no offence had been committed. Therefore simply surrounding an object
(e.g. a car) with transmitted radio/micro waves is not an illegal
act notwithstanding the fact that the effect would be to disrupt the
lawful use of another transmitting device (e.g. a radar gun). It seems
to me that the same principle should apply to lasers but as far as
I can tell this has never been tested in court. Want to buy one ...we
have negotiated the best prices for Speed Trap Bible readers - see
http://speedtraps.co.uk
- Do Radar Detectors work? Yes, the good ones do. A good one
such as a Bel 966 or Bel Euro will give you ample warning of a radar/speed
trap or an operating Gatso. We independantly review all of the detectors
and publish the results on the site. Want to buy one ...we have negotiated
the best prices for Speed Trap Bible readers - see http://speedtraps.co.uk
- Do Laser jammers work? Yes, we have tried a most of them
and the best one so far is the LE850 - now known as the SnooperSLD920.
Want to buy one ...we have negotiated the best prices for Speed Trap
Bible readers - see http://speedtraps.co.uk
- Where can I get legal advice about a motoring matter. Your
average solicitor is not specialised in motoring law and by reading
the 100 pages of this site, you will probably know more than them.
So you need to find a solicitor/barrister that is focused upon motoring
law. We have only found one so far - http://www.prycewoodrow.co.uk
- and from the feedback from you and especially friends that have
used them, they do an excellent job.
- I am very worried about loosing my driving licence and thus my
job, if I get caught for speeding. Well apart from never ever
speeding (or being falsely accused) and using the best gadgets on
the market - only one solution presents itself. http://www.drive365.co.uk
can insure you against a driving ban for speeding and get you a chaufered
car to enable you to keep working etc.
- I understand that if I register my vehicle in my childs name then I can get out of Gatso type speeding NIP's as they can't chase the owner , if its a child. Not True - Vehicles registered in a Childs Name - It is not illegal to register a vehicle in a child's name but where the child is under the legal limit for prosecution i.e. 10 years old and is referred to in law as dolce incapax then the registration must be by a responsible adult who signing as such becomes responsible for the vehicle and therefore responsible for the penalties imposed for any offence committed. Where the child is over 10 years old and in law able to be prosecuted the Police will look to who bought the vehicle, who registered the vehicle, who uses the vehicle and whose name the vehicle is insured in (note insurance companies will not enter into a contract of insurance with a child without a valid drivers licence). I would not recommend anyone attempt to avoid criminal responsibility by registering a vehicle in their or a child's name.
- What are the guidelines on speed that decide whether you get
a fixed penalty or a summons.
The current guidelines from the Association of Chief Police officers (ACPO) are:
Limit Fixed Penalty Summons 20 mph25 mph35 mph30 mph35 mph50 mph40 mph46 mph66 mph50 mph57 mph76 mph60 mph68 mph86 mph70 mph79 mph96 mph
So up to 79mph you should be just told off, 79-95mph is a fixed penalty and 96mph+ is a mandatory summons to appear in court.
Last updated 20/08/2006.
We are adding new answers to this FAQ all of the time so if you want to be automatically updated, then simply join the EMailing list for a regular monthly update.
DISCLAIMER: We are in no way affiliated with any branch of the motor industry. We are not qualified to give out legal advice on any aspects of motoring covered in these pages, although we exercise our right to express opinions. The information presented here is the result of information-gathering and research. The sources for this information include the equipment manufacturers and the police forces across the UK. Neither ourselves nor the provider of these pages make any warranties, express or implied, as to the results that might be obtained from the use of this information. Neither shall be liable for the misuse of this information, nor any third-party claims or losses of any nature including, but not limited to, lost finances, punitive or consequential damages.
Copyright © Paul Gander 1995 - 2006
This site and all contents unless otherwise noted are copyrighted.The author will respond expeditiously to any intellectual property infringement.Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Paul Gander is prohibited.
Click here for full legal and copyright details pertaining to the Speedtrap Bible.
All rights reserved. [http://www.speed-trap.net] [http://www.speed-trap.co.uk]
