GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk5 => Topic started by: SKAVIA on 22 January 2009, 18:30
-
Hello all - it's been a while since I've posted, but today I got my Ed30 plaque and that made me remember you lot!
Anyway, back to the point:
I was stopped by an unmarked police car yesterday for jumping a red light.
Now I know it was amber as I approached but it may have turned red before I went through it.
There was only one policeman in the police car and he came out of the car and breathalysed me (unusual - but obviously I hadn't been drinking).
He then told me I'd blatantly jumped a red light and that I was getting a fixed penalty (3 points and £60) and started writing the ticket.
He gave me the ticket and said I can go to court if I'm not happy, but that there was a video camera fitted to the car (I saw it in the front windscreen) and I had no chance.
I asked him how late I had jumped the light and he said "ridiculously", so I asked him to show me the video (which is what the police normally do to show you how bad your driving was) and he replied "no, that only gets shown if you go to court".
Now, I'm not sure if he is telling the truth about the video (it may not have been on?), but that is his only means of proof as otherwise it's just my word against his, as he was on his own.
SO - do I just lump it and accept the fixed penalty, or risk it and go to court and either find he has no evidence and I get off, or he has an incriminating video which may get me a higher fine and more points.
I already have 3 points for speeding :cry:.
Your input and thoughts are valued!
-
I would speak to a solicitor straight away. Esp if you think you went through amber, and it was safer to go through that slam on. How close was he behind you?
-
I was stopped for speeding by an unmarked car a couple of months ago and the first thing he did was sit me down and show me the video of my driving. It seems starnge to me that he would deny you the chance to see it if he had it recorded, but im not sure where your legal stance is on this - as R32 said i would contact your solicitor asap. if you take it to court and they produce indisputable evidence i would expect your fine to go up, but not your points - unless its a really blatant and stupid offence - which it doesn't sound like. good luck with it anyways :wink:
-
I thinik its at their discretion although it sounds like the guy was a total t055er :angry:
-
Think you would struggle to get off in court,
Even if his video wasn't recording then its a police officers word against yours, and the general rule of thumb is that the police don't lie....
And if you admit yourself to going through amber then that doesn't really help your case.
Let us know what you decide on.
-
Thanks for the feedback guys.
He was actually the first car in the lane next to me, so once he saw me go through the lights he immediately flashed the blue lights behind his grill and followed me.
If it is my word against his then yes, he'd probably have the favour of the judge BUT we are innocent until proven guilty right?! :shocked:
I've got a few days to think about it but to be honest I'll probably just put it behind me and forget about it.
If I decide to go to court then it will be playing on my mind until the hearing and is not a nice feeling....
Think it's time I changed my driving style as it's probably too aggressive - especially now I've got a little one due in April.
Been seriously considering getting a 535d sport estate and let the mrs have the Ed30!
They look tasty with 19s on!
(http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn195/SKAVIA/OVKDFCAG9GZWYCAFHBTD2CA7YSAB6CAPJFL.jpg)
(http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn195/SKAVIA/post-3047-1224605821_thumb.jpg)
(http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn195/SKAVIA/post-3047-1224605954_thumb.jpg)
:evil: :nerd:
-
If it was definitely on amber when I went through and got pulled I'd go to court. If you are unsure I wouldn't risk it an pay up :sick:
-
They do show you the video as I found out when I got done for speeding back in October.
Im not sure if you can request a copy of the video or not...would also like to know this myself as I got my court date through on Saturday.
-
Think you would struggle to get off in court,
Even if his video wasn't recording then its a police officers word against yours, and the general rule of thumb is that the police don't lie....
And if you admit yourself to going through amber then that doesn't really help your case.
Let us know what you decide on.
They can only do it based on two eye witnesses, e.g 2 coppers.
-
Having heard exactly what happened I would definately get a solicitor involved. If he was the only person in the car and does not have a video of you then they dont stand a chance of making it stick.
The fact that other officers have openly shown others a video of their offences there is no real reason why he would not have shown you yours.. In addition to the fact that he said that the video "only gets shown in court" could be another reason to show why he may infact have been telling porkies.
Might be worth a quick call to a solicitor/police station/citizens advice bureau just to find out if this is the case. If its a police station you choose to call you might want to refrain from telling them the exact situation as no doubt they will try to cover their collegues a$$. Im quite sure a solicitor would be happy to tell you where you stand over the phone. :wink:
-
Were any of your statements to the officer made under caution?
If not they're inadmissible as evidence....
Get some advice - 3 points is 3 points :angry:
-
If you say it was amber when you were approaching then there is definitley a chance it was red when you actually went through?
if you are 100% sure it DEFINITLEY wasn't red then sure pursue it but even if you just caught the red then i doubt a court will be leaniant for wasting its time and will no doubt mention that amber is a warning to stop and not a signal to floor it to make it through the light :evil:
How long do you think it would take to get resolved in court anway? and at what cost?
Not something i would risk if i wasn't 100% sure - just my opinion and not judging as everyone does it, its called an amber gamble and maybe you lost this time? :wink:
-
He doesn't need someone else in the car to report a driver for a red light and he doesn't need to show you the video. Some counties have a policy of showing it and some have a policy not to show it. Speeding is the usual offence where you need someone or something else to corroborate the opinion of the first officer in order to get a conviction.
Also, have a look in the Highway Code for what an amber light means ... then think about if say the road was a 30mph road and you were doing 30mph how far you travel each second at that speed .... 13.4m. Factor in that each amber phase is normally 3 seconds. You would be 40m away from the stop line, if doing 30mph when the lights change to amber. 23m is the stopping distance in the Highway Code for 30mph (based on old tests) so if dong 30mph you should be able to stop without issues.
I am not suggesting you were speeding - you just need to be aware that if the lights were working correctly you can stitch yourself up by saying you were too close to stop, etc.
-
<snipage>
I asked him how late I had jumped the light and he said "ridiculously", so I asked him to show me the video (which is what the police normally do to show you how bad your driving was) and he replied "no, that only gets shown if you go to court".
This is very clear.
If you were clearly told at the roadside that there was evidence on video, and that you correctly asked to view the said video - but were declined, then the cop has clearly with-held evidence against you. This is a clear and absolute breach of the "Police and Criminal Evidence Act" (aka PACE). Any charges relating directly to this incident must, by law be discontinued.
IANAL, but I do have some relations who are cops and barristers.
-
He doesn't need someone else in the car to report a driver for a red light and he doesn't need to show you the video.
Erm, you are very wrong. OK, the cop doesn't need a 2nd person to corroborate his own evidence, and nor does he need video evidence either. However, because the cop did state that the alleged offence was recorded on video, and that that video offence would be used in any court proceedings, then to withhold, when formally requested (and a verbal/oral roadside request is classed as a formal request) ANY evidence is in clear breach of PACE, because it is deemed an obstical to natural justice. So therefore, any legal proceedings where where refusal to supply evidence is rightfully claimed can be ordered to be thrown out by a Magistrate.
Some Cops really do need to appreciate that they are not above the law.
Also, have a look in the Highway Code for what an amber light means ... then think about if say the road was a 30mph road and you were doing 30mph how far you travel each second at that speed .... 13.4m. Factor in that each amber phase is normally 3 seconds. You would be 40m away from the stop line, if doing 30mph when the lights change to amber. 23m is the stopping distance in the Highway Code for 30mph (based on old tests) so if dong 30mph you should be able to stop without issues.
I am not suggesting you were speeding - you just need to be aware that if the lights were working correctly you can stitch yourself up by saying you were too close to stop, etc.
I agree with the Highway Code meaning for an amber traffic signal. Basically, amber means "STOP, only if it is safe to do so". So whilst you are correct to advise caution about potentially stiching yourself up for speeding. However, and this is a big HOWEVER - the "STOP, only if it is safe to do so" applies to all other road users who may be affected by your own actions. For example, if a car was tailgating you, or a car was approaching from the rear and you had real and genuine concerns that you would get whacked up the rear, then to stop on amber would be clearly unsafe, and it would therefore be lawful to go through an amber light. And this "safe/unsafe" dilemma is NOT formed by other road users - it has to be formed by the driver of the car in question.
Finally, all these traffic signal offences are ONLY valid for when the car actually and physically crosses the Stop Line. So in this instance, even if the video still proves you crossed the stop line during amber, but the lights changed to red before you had cleared the other side of the junction, then irrespective of all the above PACE advice, you can ask for the case to be dropped on the grounds that the cop is an unreliable witness (ie, the cop lied because he stated "crossed a red", when it was actually amber).
HTH
-
He doesn't need someone else in the car to report a driver for a red light and he doesn't need to show you the video.
Erm, you are very wrong. OK, the cop doesn't need a 2nd person to corroborate his own evidence, and nor does he need video evidence either. However, because the cop did state that the alleged offence was recorded on video, and that that video offence would be used in any court proceedings, then to withhold, when formally requested (and a verbal/oral roadside request is classed as a formal request) ANY evidence is in clear breach of PACE, because it is deemed an obstical to natural justice. So therefore, any legal proceedings where where refusal to supply evidence is rightfully claimed can be ordered to be thrown out by a Magistrate.
Some Cops really do need to appreciate that they are not above the law.
Also, have a look in the Highway Code for what an amber light means ... then think about if say the road was a 30mph road and you were doing 30mph how far you travel each second at that speed .... 13.4m. Factor in that each amber phase is normally 3 seconds. You would be 40m away from the stop line, if doing 30mph when the lights change to amber. 23m is the stopping distance in the Highway Code for 30mph (based on old tests) so if dong 30mph you should be able to stop without issues.
I am not suggesting you were speeding - you just need to be aware that if the lights were working correctly you can stitch yourself up by saying you were too close to stop, etc.
I agree with the Highway Code meaning for an amber traffic signal. Basically, amber means "STOP, only if it is safe to do so". So whilst you are correct to advise caution about potentially stiching yourself up for speeding. However, and this is a big HOWEVER - the "STOP, only if it is safe to do so" applies to all other road users who may be affected by your own actions. For example, if a car was tailgating you, or a car was approaching from the rear and you had real and genuine concerns that you would get whacked up the rear, then to stop on amber would be clearly unsafe, and it would therefore be lawful to go through an amber light. And this "safe/unsafe" dilemma is NOT formed by other road users - it has to be formed by the driver of the car in question.
Finally, all these traffic signal offences are ONLY valid for when the car actually and physically crosses the Stop Line. So in this instance, even if the video still proves you crossed the stop line during amber, but the lights changed to red before you had cleared the other side of the junction, then irrespective of all the above PACE advice, you can ask for the case to be dropped on the grounds that the cop is an unreliable witness (ie, the cop lied because he stated "crossed a red", when it was actually amber).
HTH
If you think I am wrong about the video being shown then fine. I am not going to get into an argument about evidence and the rules of disclosure for motoring matters. The driver needs to get legal advice if they feel that something is wrong and go 'not guilty'.
FWIW I do have quite a bit of knowledge in this area .... over 18 years worth. I am more than happy what I say is correct in relation to a stop at the roadside for viewing a video - after that yes it can be different ......
As for the amber light - yes, we can speculate about different circumstances but I am not going to as they weren't mentioned in the original post.
-
He doesn't need someone else in the car to report a driver for a red light and he doesn't need to show you the video.
Erm, you are very wrong. OK, the cop doesn't need a 2nd person to corroborate his own evidence, and nor does he need video evidence either. However, because the cop did state that the alleged offence was recorded on video, and that that video offence would be used in any court proceedings, then to withhold, when formally requested (and a verbal/oral roadside request is classed as a formal request) ANY evidence is in clear breach of PACE, because it is deemed an obstical to natural justice. So therefore, any legal proceedings where where refusal to supply evidence is rightfully claimed can be ordered to be thrown out by a Magistrate.
Some Cops really do need to appreciate that they are not above the law.
Also, have a look in the Highway Code for what an amber light means ... then think about if say the road was a 30mph road and you were doing 30mph how far you travel each second at that speed .... 13.4m. Factor in that each amber phase is normally 3 seconds. You would be 40m away from the stop line, if doing 30mph when the lights change to amber. 23m is the stopping distance in the Highway Code for 30mph (based on old tests) so if dong 30mph you should be able to stop without issues.
I am not suggesting you were speeding - you just need to be aware that if the lights were working correctly you can stitch yourself up by saying you were too close to stop, etc.
I agree with the Highway Code meaning for an amber traffic signal. Basically, amber means "STOP, only if it is safe to do so". So whilst you are correct to advise caution about potentially stiching yourself up for speeding. However, and this is a big HOWEVER - the "STOP, only if it is safe to do so" applies to all other road users who may be affected by your own actions. For example, if a car was tailgating you, or a car was approaching from the rear and you had real and genuine concerns that you would get whacked up the rear, then to stop on amber would be clearly unsafe, and it would therefore be lawful to go through an amber light. And this "safe/unsafe" dilemma is NOT formed by other road users - it has to be formed by the driver of the car in question.
Finally, all these traffic signal offences are ONLY valid for when the car actually and physically crosses the Stop Line. So in this instance, even if the video still proves you crossed the stop line during amber, but the lights changed to red before you had cleared the other side of the junction, then irrespective of all the above PACE advice, you can ask for the case to be dropped on the grounds that the cop is an unreliable witness (ie, the cop lied because he stated "crossed a red", when it was actually amber).
HTH
Think you are a little wide of the mark here HTH, SO8 has provided a more realistic & accurate opinion.
Should the OP wish to take the matter further, dispute the ticket with Court proceedings to follow, then the Police have a duty to disclose the video to the defence pre-trail.
-
....
Welcome to the forum, Harbornite :afro:
Just for your information, "HTH" is the abbreviation for Hope This Helps :laugh:
-
....
Welcome to the forum, Harbornite :afro:
Just for your information, "HTH" is the abbreviation for Hope This Helps :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh:
-
....
Welcome to the forum, Harbornite :afro:
Just for your information, "HTH" is the abbreviation for Hope This Helps :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh:
I very nearly posted this up too! But couldn't really be arsed!
-
....
The bottom line is that any court can only judge what is set before them and in the light of legislation, and do so on the 'facts' as presented for the individual case.
People here can debate/argue until the cows come home about what they think/believe the law is and what is right or wrong. On matters such as this (and we don't know if there are additional reasons why the OP was 'pulled' or if earlier driving behaviour alerted the policeman), the court is likely to favour the evidence from the Police - It's extremely unusual for the Police to act unfairly by stopping for no justifiable reason.
Btw, changing their car isn't going to prevent someone from crossing amber/red lights or whatever!
-
My dad was Clerk to the Justices until his recent retirement and now trains Magistrates for the courts service.
Unless you are in danger of losing your licence through "totting up" and you think there is significant doubt then his advice is to pay the fine and accept the points.
The courts will take a dim view if, when it came to it, there was clear evidence that you jumped a red light and you could and should have stopped. Not only would the fine likely increase, they could give you more points and you would, more than likely, have to pay court costs on top as well as the cost of your own representation.
Is it worth the risk potentially to receive say 5-6 points, £200+ fine, court costs and solicitor's fees... when you can accept 3 points and £60...
-
My dad was Clerk to the Justices until his recent retirement and now trains Magistrates for the courts service.
Unless you are in danger of losing your licence through "totting up" and you think there is significant doubt then his advice is to pay the fine and accept the points.
The courts will take a dim view if, when it came to it, there was clear evidence that you jumped a red light and you could and should have stopped. Not only would the fine likely increase, they could give you more points and you would, more than likely, have to pay court costs on top as well as the cost of your own representation.
Is it worth the risk potentially to receive say 5-6 points, £200+ fine, court costs and solicitor's fees... when you can accept 3 points and £60...
my thoughts exactly :wink:
-
unless you were absolutely sure that you didn't do anything wrong then try your luck in the courts, if you have any doubts, accept it as a lesson learnt and stop when the lights are yellow. end of.
-
Still worth seeking legal advice I would say :rolleyes:
-
Still worth seeking legal advice I would say :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Go for your life... it may be possible to receive a free initial consultation with some practices... but anything beyond that, if you can get the free initial consultation, is going to very quickly exceed the 3 points, £60 fine and the increase in insurance premium that you might experience without going to court.
If you go to court and take legal representation with you it will cost you way more than £60 - some may represent you "no win, no fee" though, even then if you win, OK you have no points but you have your own legal costs to cover... even if the case is dropped without going to court the legal costs are likely to be in excess of £60...
So, on a point of principle, if you are certain you have done nothing wrong then you could argue it is worth persuing; however, from a financial perspective it is not. The best case scenario, if you go to court, is to be found not guilty so no points or fine but you are still left with the legal costs...
I stand by the advice given, it is not worth going to court over this unless you are certain that you did nothing wrong and three points would result in a ban for totting up...
-
Who remembers:
"Don't be an Amber Gambler, you might not be the only one around."
Those old public information films were sometimes quite memorable, I can never see a car with a blown headlight without thinking; "One Eyed Menace".
-
Still worth seeking legal advice I would say :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Go for your life... it may be possible to receive a free initial consultation with some practices... but anything beyond that, if you can get the free initial consultation, is going to very quickly exceed the 3 points, £60 fine and the increase in insurance premium that you might experience without going to court.
If you go to court and take legal representation with you it will cost you way more than £60 - some may represent you "no win, no fee" though, even then if you win, OK you have no points but you have your own legal costs to cover... even if the case is dropped without going to court the legal costs are likely to be in excess of £60...
So, on a point of principle, if you are certain you have done nothing wrong then you could argue it is worth persuing; however, from a financial perspective it is not. The best case scenario, if you go to court, is to be found not guilty so no points or fine but you are still left with the legal costs...
I stand by the advice given, it is not worth going to court over this unless you are certain that you did nothing wrong and three points would result in a ban for totting up...
As I said in a previous post it would be a good idea to just phone a solicitor and ask them where you stand in reference to the officer not showing you the evidence. They can also request the evidence from the police, I am quite sure and let you know where you stand. Worth it regardless I would say... Even if your not sure if the light was red or amber.
-
Who remembers:
"Don't be an Amber Gambler, you might not be the only one around."
Those old public information films were sometimes quite memorable, I can never see a car with a blown headlight without thinking; "One Eyed Menace".
got any youtube links? I thought amber meant prepare to stop? Might be wrong as it was 19 years ago since i read the highway code.
-
He doesn't need someone else in the car to report a driver for a red light and he doesn't need to show you the video.
Erm, you are very wrong. OK, the cop doesn't need a 2nd person to corroborate his own evidence, and nor does he need video evidence either. However, because the cop did state that the alleged offence was recorded on video, and that that video offence would be used in any court proceedings, then to withhold, when formally requested (and a verbal/oral roadside request is classed as a formal request) ANY evidence is in clear breach of PACE, because it is deemed an obstical to natural justice. So therefore, any legal proceedings where where refusal to supply evidence is rightfully claimed can be ordered to be thrown out by a Magistrate.
Some Cops really do need to appreciate that they are not above the law.
Also, have a look in the Highway Code for what an amber light means ... then think about if say the road was a 30mph road and you were doing 30mph how far you travel each second at that speed .... 13.4m. Factor in that each amber phase is normally 3 seconds. You would be 40m away from the stop line, if doing 30mph when the lights change to amber. 23m is the stopping distance in the Highway Code for 30mph (based on old tests) so if dong 30mph you should be able to stop without issues.
I am not suggesting you were speeding - you just need to be aware that if the lights were working correctly you can stitch yourself up by saying you were too close to stop, etc.
I agree with the Highway Code meaning for an amber traffic signal. Basically, amber means "STOP, only if it is safe to do so". So whilst you are correct to advise caution about potentially stiching yourself up for speeding. However, and this is a big HOWEVER - the "STOP, only if it is safe to do so" applies to all other road users who may be affected by your own actions. For example, if a car was tailgating you, or a car was approaching from the rear and you had real and genuine concerns that you would get whacked up the rear, then to stop on amber would be clearly unsafe, and it would therefore be lawful to go through an amber light. And this "safe/unsafe" dilemma is NOT formed by other road users - it has to be formed by the driver of the car in question.
Finally, all these traffic signal offences are ONLY valid for when the car actually and physically crosses the Stop Line. So in this instance, even if the video still proves you crossed the stop line during amber, but the lights changed to red before you had cleared the other side of the junction, then irrespective of all the above PACE advice, you can ask for the case to be dropped on the grounds that the cop is an unreliable witness (ie, the cop lied because he stated "crossed a red", when it was actually amber).
HTH
If you think I am wrong about the video being shown then fine.
I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong in the video issue. Whilst cops, particularly traffic cops or those from 'road policing units' are generally always spot on with the Road Traffic Act, and the various other traffic laws, I think you will find that not all cops are proficient with PACE. Afterall, how often do you find that a cop (for whatever kind of offence, be it traffic, drugs, sexuall or whatever) will do his job to the best of his abilities, then send the file off to the CPS. Then subsequently, the CPS take NFA because of some 'procedural error', or it goes to Court and gets thrown out on some kind of 'technicality' - which can include non-disclosure.
Going back to the OP, if he was clearly advised that his alleged offence was recorded on video, and was then refused access to that 'evidence', then that IS non-disclosure, and is prejudical to natural justice. If, on the other hand, the OP was NOT advised at the scene that the alleged offence was recoded on video, and/or the OP didn't actually ask to view any such video evidence, then there has been NO withholding of evidence, and the case can be progressed through the normal channels.
I am not going to get into an argument about evidence and the rules of disclosure for motoring matters. The driver needs to get legal advice if they feel that something is wrong and go 'not guilty'.
I fully agree. But I also think it is important to look at the wider picture too. :wink:
FWIW I do have quite a bit of knowledge in this area .... over 18 years worth. I am more than happy what I say is correct in relation to a stop at the roadside for viewing a video - after that yes it can be different ......
I'm not doubting that there can be different scenarios, which can all lead to different ways of case progression. :smiley:
As for the amber light - yes, we can speculate about different circumstances but I am not going to as they weren't mentioned in the original post.
Agreed again. However, what is NOT clear to the average 'joe-public' is that a red or amber light has a very definate and specified point of measurement - ie, the exact time the target vehicle crosses the white stop line. But I would find it very difficult to believe that the occasional unscrupolous <sp?> cop hasn't tried to push his luck, especially if they think the motorist in question was clueless about the finite detail of the alleged offence. And what about if the cop had actually made a genuine mistake? We are all human, and we all fcuk up from time to time, weather we like to admit it or not. Maybe in the OPs case, the cop was genuinely mistaken, and thought he HAD crossed a red, but on reviewing the video evidence, the tape actually showed the car crossed on amber, but very shortly aferwards, changed to red. I'm sure you can accept the 'devil is in the detail'. :wink: :smiley:
Anyhow, I'm not here to slag of cops in any way (and I apologise if my previous post appeared that way :undecided:). The vast majority do an honest and decent job, and get very little, if any praise for their hard work. So to all the cops out there, and all our other chaps and chapesses from all the other emergency services - I'd like offer my thoughts of appreciation and thanks, and to encourage you all to stay safe, and be proud of your uniforms. :afro: :smiley:
-
....
The bottom line is that any court can only judge what is set before them and in the light of legislation, and do so on the 'facts' as presented for the individual case.
Absolutely agree. :afro:
People here can debate/argue until the cows come home about what they think/believe the law is and what is right or wrong.
Disagree. The actual laws themselves tend to be set in stone, and so to argue or debate on the actual point of law is pointless. However, what is entirely and legitimately depatable - is do the evidential facts actually match the charge? If the charge on the summons (or FPN) states you crossed on red, yet the video evidence categorically proves you crossed on amber, and the lights changed red after you cleared the line - then this is a clear scenario where the charge does not match the evidence - and so it would be perfectly reasonable to go not guilty.
On matters such as this (and we don't know if there are additional reasons why the OP was 'pulled' or if earlier driving behaviour alerted the policeman), the court is likely to favour the evidence from the Police - It's extremely unusual for the Police to act unfairly by stopping for no justifiable reason.
I tend to agree fully with you. However, maybe the cop in question was having a bad day or sommat . . . . sh!t affects us all!
Btw, changing their car isn't going to prevent someone from crossing amber/red lights or whatever!
Huh, I don't get you. :huh: Have I missed something? :undecided:
-
My dad was Clerk to the Justices until his recent retirement and now trains Magistrates for the courts service.
Unless you are in danger of losing your licence through "totting up" and you think there is significant doubt then his advice is to pay the fine and accept the points.
The courts will take a dim view if, when it came to it, there was clear evidence that you jumped a red light and you could and should have stopped. Not only would the fine likely increase, they could give you more points and you would, more than likely, have to pay court costs on top as well as the cost of your own representation.
Is it worth the risk potentially to receive say 5-6 points, £200+ fine, court costs and solicitor's fees... when you can accept 3 points and £60...
Yes, I fully agree with all the above.
But what about where there is a significant and justifiable doubt that the allegation is NOT correct.
And what about when the Magistrates find out that Court time has been wasted, when there was a valid claim by the defendent that the police or CPS withheld evidence (which was proven to be prejudicial by not allowing the defendent to enter an earlier plea which may have differed to the actual plea for trial), but insisted on contiuance of proceedings. I think you will find that most Magistrates take a very, very dim view of the prosecuting authorites, and usually throw out the charge, and award costs (taxpayers money) to the defendent.
-
Still worth seeking legal advice I would say :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Go for your life... it may be possible to receive a free initial consultation with some practices... but anything beyond that, if you can get the free initial consultation, is going to very quickly exceed the 3 points, £60 fine and the increase in insurance premium that you might experience without going to court.
If you go to court and take legal representation with you it will cost you way more than £60 - some may represent you "no win, no fee" though, even then if you win, OK you have no points but you have your own legal costs to cover... even if the case is dropped without going to court the legal costs are likely to be in excess of £60...
So, on a point of principle, if you are certain you have done nothing wrong then you could argue it is worth persuing; however, from a financial perspective it is not. The best case scenario, if you go to court, is to be found not guilty so no points or fine but you are still left with the legal costs...
I stand by the advice given, it is not worth going to court over this unless you are certain that you did nothing wrong and three points would result in a ban for totting up...
Erm, you seem to be forgetting, that if a case is dropped, or a defendent is found not guilty, then they can apply for all their costs - so, to use your point of principle, if the video evidence IS different to the actual charge, then it is absolutly worth going to a not-guilty trial.
-
I would take it to court. If he has a video fair enough, HOWEVER if he doesn't, there's no evidence to secure a conviction, it would be purely circumstantial, e.g. your work against the officers. If you didn't win, chances are the judge would just uphold the 3 points and 60 fine. Of course you're lumbered with court costs as well though.
-
Personally I'd go to court. They wouldn't put your points up but may double your fine. Worth the risk for a possible extra £60-£100 in my opinion. Especially as you think it was amber when you went through.
The whole safer to go through than slam on is a valid point in my opinion. You weren't speeding though were you which made it harder for you to have stopped in time? Might not look good on camera if you fly through the amber.
Only prob is that Magistrates are pretty slack and would go with the Policeman's word everytime but luckily the Court Clark knows the ins and outs and will point out to them if there isn't enough evidence against you.
If you genuinely believe it was amber and wasn't dangerous or through your own fault (going too fast to stop) then go for it.
-
I thought amber meant prepare to stop? Might be wrong as it was 19 years ago since i read the highway code.
Noooo - urban myth.
OK, from the very latest issue of the Highway Code (revised 2007 edition, ISBN 978--0-11-552814-9) - page 102:
AMBER means 'Stop' at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident.
So, as I previously stated, in simple-to-remember laymans terms, an amber light means stop but only if it is safe to do so. However, with a red light, there is no ambiguity - you should never, ever cross a red light (OK, there are some extreme exceptional circumstances when you can cross a red, but they arn't really appropriate to this thread).
-
Can't you just go to the plod station and ask nicely to see the video to decide whether it's worth defending in court? They can't withhold evidence potentially used to prosecute you, can they?
-
Yes, I fully agree with all the above.
But what about where there is a significant and justifiable doubt that the allegation is NOT correct.
And what about when the Magistrates find out that Court time has been wasted, when there was a valid claim by the defendent that the police or CPS withheld evidence (which was proven to be prejudicial by not allowing the defendent to enter an earlier plea which may have differed to the actual plea for trial), but insisted on contiuance of proceedings. I think you will find that most Magistrates take a very, very dim view of the prosecuting authorites, and usually throw out the charge, and award costs (taxpayers money) to the defendent.
Agreed, they will take a dim view if they believe that the crown has been knowingly wasting the time of the court and they would, in those circumstances, award costs. I'm not saying that this doesn't happen but it is not, for example, a daily occurence...
My point is this, whilst the situation you describe does happen it is not common, hence the advice given was that on the balance of probabilities in my opinion (and that of my Dad who has 40 years + experience) it is not worth challenging unless you know with absolute certainty that you are innocent and remember, as has been stated earlier, it doesn't matter how long the light has been red when it was apparently "run" because the amber will have been visible for seconds prior to that...
In the end the OP can, of course, do what he wants BUT he did ask for advice and plenty of that has been given, now he just has to decide which path he should take...
I'd like to think we'd be kept informed...
-
A friend of mine at work in a magistrate. I'll ask for his opinion tomorrow :smiley:
-
....
Welcome to the forum, Harbornite :afro:
Just for your information, "HTH" is the abbreviation for Hope This Helps :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh:
Ooops schoolboy error :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Just spoke to a friend who was done for this a couple of months back. He was instantly pulled over and show the video of "jump" when requested.
This meant there was no need for it to go to court, and he accepted his penatly. However had the officer not shown him the video he would have definately taken it to court. As he said "he must not have got him"... otherwise why would he refuse to show him.
It could have been that only after he had pulled the OP he realised his mistake, and that the equipment was not recording, or some other error on his part that meant he was unable to show the evidence. Instead of wanting to look like a tw@t, he issued the ticket anyway.
GO TO COURT!!! I WOULD!! if i didnt already have 8 points :embarassed:
-
Ok, I spoke to my friend today, he's a magistrate for the courts in Manchester.
Write to the police station and request a copy of the video evidence. They HAVE to give it to you, but you might have to pay £10-£15 to get it. If it doesn't show you going through on red, then absolutely go to court, and defend yourself. He told me if there's no proper evidence, the magistrate will throw it out of court. They won't trust the word of just one policemen with no evidence. What's more, if the video evidence doesn't prove anything, the policeman will actually get into trouble for lying! :grin:
However, should the video prove you went through the red light, he said you'd still get 3 points, but could get a much bigger fine, and have to pay £45 court costs.
It's up to you mate, but you need to look at that video, and ask yourself, hand on heart, did you skip a red light?
-
^^^^
Surely after checking the video and if it shows the red light was crossed, the OP wouldn't then initiate taking it to court. And so would simply pay the £60 fine and get 3pts.
Or have I missed something?
If there is doubt, then surely an extra £15 is worth it to find out?
-
That's the point, ask for a copy of the video and find out for yourself. The only snag is if you want the evidence, you have to get it BECAUSE you're going to court, you can't just have it for no reason.
-
The only snag is if you want the evidence, you have to get it BECAUSE you're going to court, you can't just have it for no reason.
....Then can't you proceed as if going to court, check the evidence, and : -
1) - If the video shows clearly you are at fault, write to the court pleading guilty and not wishing to waste the court's time, but explaining that you were in doubt and therefore needed to see the evidence as you feel it is your right to do so. This would all be done before any date of hearing was reached.
2) - If the video shows clearly to you that you are not at fault, then continue and contest it in court.
-
Yeah sounds like a good plan to me :smiley:
-
My gung ho head says best of luck.
My sensible head says Amber Gambler = dangerous.
Best of luck.
-
Ok, I spoke to my friend today, he's a magistrate for the courts in Manchester.
Write to the police station and request a copy of the video evidence. They HAVE to give it to you, but you might have to pay £10-£15 to get it. If it doesn't show you going through on red, then absolutely go to court, and defend yourself. He told me if there's no proper evidence, the magistrate will throw it out of court. They won't trust the word of just one policemen with no evidence. What's more, if the video evidence doesn't prove anything, the policeman will actually get into trouble for lying! :grin:
Exactly. And I think (providing the OP was honest in his recollection of the incident, and the actions of the copper) in this instance, the blatant refusal to show the vid upon a legit request would seem to me as something slightly dodgy. As always, though, there are always two sides to every story, so caution should be exercised in this particular "trial by internet forum". :wink: :smiley:
However, should the video prove you went through the red light, he said you'd still get 3 points, but could get a much bigger fine, and have to pay £45 court costs.
Yup, agreed exactly.
It's up to you mate, but you need to look at that video, and ask yourself, hand on heart, did you skip a red light?
Agreed again. Sometimes, in the 'heat of the moment' your mind can sometimes get tricked into believing that something else happened, and when you have an opportunity to review something such as video evidence, then can sometimes confirm a different perspective of what you thought happened. Obviously, if you get arsey or obnoxious with the copper, you aint gonna be doing yourself any favours, even if you were right. You don't have to 'arse-lick' to coppers, just treat them honest, decent respect, speak to them calmly - and you will find that 99% of them are generally good guys who are just as good at listening as anyone else. :smiley:
-
^^^^
Surely after checking the video and if it shows the red light was crossed, the OP wouldn't then initiate taking it to court. And so would simply pay the £60 fine and get 3pts.
Or have I missed something?
If there is doubt, then surely an extra £15 is worth it to find out?
Your 1st sentance is exactly correct. However, Fixed Penalty Notices have a strict time limit - and it is not unheard of for the cops or the CPS to actually delay releasing the video evidence - particularly if the evidence is inconclusive (ie, not supporting the actual charge on the ticket). This can then allow the FPN time limit to expire, thus automatically forcing a Court hearing - and when this happens, the prosecuting authorities then expect most just to plead guilty, and not contest the issue - effectively using it as a 'scare tactic'. This has twice happend to me, and both times I won.
-
That's the point, ask for a copy of the video and find out for yourself. The only snag is if you want the evidence, you have to get it BECAUSE you're going to court, you can't just have it for no reason.
But then that is surely against 'natural justice'? Just like the cops use the 'caution' - "anything you say may be taken down and used as evidence, anything you fail to answer now, but later rely on in court, may not be admissible in court" (or something along those lines) - which basically means that the accused must present all the evidence immediately when asked, etc. Surely this also applies to the prosecuting authorities too? :huh: :undecided:
What happens if you genuinely thought that you did NOT cross a red (or amber), and you were fairly sure that any video would back you up. If you were shown the vid at the roadside, and it did prove you had crossed on red - then most normal peeps would agree with the video, take the FPN, send the cheque and licence off, and take the 3 points and £60 fine without wasting any more time of the copper, or wasting court time. However, if they refused to show you the vid, this effectively cancels the FPN, and literaly forces a Court hearing. What if the accused gets a Court summons, having only seen the vid at the statutory minimum 7 day disclosure, and on seeing the vid then realises he has made a genuine mistake - and wishes to accept the FPN? He now can't, and has been jeopardised, by NOT being able to accept the FPN in time - and effectively now being liable for additional Court costs and a larger fine?
-
The only snag is if you want the evidence, you have to get it BECAUSE you're going to court, you can't just have it for no reason.
....Then can't you proceed as if going to court, check the evidence, and : -
1) - If the video shows clearly you are at fault, write to the court pleading guilty and not wishing to waste the court's time, but explaining that you were in doubt and therefore needed to see the evidence as you feel it is your right to do so. This would all be done before any date of hearing was reached.
Unfortunately, by this time, the CPS have already worked on the case (the CPS have no involvements if a FPN is accepted and payed), and can still claim their costs. I would, however, hope most magistrates are reasonable and actually deny any costs, providing a guilty plea is entered at the earliest opportunity after the video evidence was made available. :sad:
Another problem, if the CPS only disclose the evidence 7 days before the Court hearing, the defendent is effectively commited to turning up in Court in person, thereby not only wasting his own time, but it will mean that a CPS lawyer will also be in the courtroom to present the charge and an outline of the evidence - again, adding to potential costs against the defendent - which wouldn't have occured if they had seen the vid at the roadside. :sad:
Whilst the British legal system is supposed to be one of the best, it still does have some pitfalls too.
-
Ring 0161 233 2130 to speak to Mr Loophole, Nick Freeman.
Good enough for Clarkson.
-
Ring 0161 233 2130 to speak to Mr Loophole, Nick Freeman.
Good enough for Clarkson.
Maybe, but you will need very deep pockets to afford his £3000 (or whatever it is) per hour rate.
-
Ring 0161 233 2130 to speak to Mr Loophole, Nick Freeman.
Good enough for Clarkson.
Maybe, but you will need very deep pockets to afford his £3000 (or whatever it is) per hour rate.
Here is his web page, you can listen to him waffling on.
http://www.freemankeepondriving.com/home.asp
One of the golden rules of my life is to avoid litigation at all costs. Involvement with lawyers only leads to untold personal grief and misery.
Personally I'd just pay the fine and take the 3 points, job done.