To court, or not to court - that is the question!

[R32UK]

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:

[bobbarley]

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! 

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?

[RedRobin]

^^^^
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?

[bobbarley]

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.

[RedRobin]

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.

[bobbarley]

Yeah sounds like a good plan to me 

[Egbutt Wash]

My gung ho head says best of luck.
My sensible head says Amber Gambler = dangerous.

Best of luck.

[Teutonic_Tamer]

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! 

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".   

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. 

[Teutonic_Tamer]

^^^^
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.

[Teutonic_Tamer]

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?    

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?