Obtaining Speed Camera Photos
Discussion
I just received an NIP from the Northants tax camera team. The alleged offence was almost 2 weeks ago and I have no idea who was driving at the time as there are several people insured on the car.
Can anybody tell me if the police are legally obliged to provide you with copies of the photographs? It would be very useful to see them to try to identify the driver. I’ve just called Northants central ticket office (which is now closed for the weekend), but the recorded message I got was rather ambiguous and seemed to imply that their photographic evidence would only be provided to me if I chose to go to court.
Obviously I don’t want to go to court but I do need to find out who was driving, so does anybody know if the police are compelled to show me the pictures?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Can anybody tell me if the police are legally obliged to provide you with copies of the photographs? It would be very useful to see them to try to identify the driver. I’ve just called Northants central ticket office (which is now closed for the weekend), but the recorded message I got was rather ambiguous and seemed to imply that their photographic evidence would only be provided to me if I chose to go to court.
Obviously I don’t want to go to court but I do need to find out who was driving, so does anybody know if the police are compelled to show me the pictures?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
quote:
I just received an NIP from the Northants tax camera team. The alleged offence was almost 2 weeks ago and I have no idea who was driving at the time as there are several people insured on the car.
Can anybody tell me if the police are legally obliged to provide you with copies of the photographs? It would be very useful to see them to try to identify the driver. I’ve just called Northants central ticket office (which is now closed for the weekend), but the recorded message I got was rather ambiguous and seemed to imply that their photographic evidence would only be provided to me if I chose to go to court.
Obviously I don’t want to go to court but I do need to find out who was driving, so does anybody know if the police are compelled to show me the pictures?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
no there are not legaly abliged to
but will do
some play up a bit but be persitaint
wright and tell them that you cannot help them as you do not now who the driver was with out seeing the pic so could they please forward them to you.
send it recorded do you have a recorde of sending it and keep a copy of the letter.
tip if the photo dont show the driver clearly then you could send it back and says o
but they will most likly try to do you for not telling them in that case even if it aint an offence not to know
tecnicaly its not an offence not to tell them who was driving if you honistly do not no
and to do would be lieing to the court if you just guess wich one was driving
if it if they do posocute the there must provide them under the rules of pace
however you can have a job getting them to hand evidence over in speeding cases
in that case a letter to the cps askING why PACE DOSE NOT APLLY TO SPEEDING CASES IN THERE AREA
nomaly dose the trick
aLSO RECORDED AND COPYS NEED TO BE KEPT
if it was me i would send for the pics
if it dont show the driver
i would right back saying that i have no way of knowing who the driver was
but at the bottome i would put But sec172 leavs the driver no option but to conffes in breach of artical 6 of the europian court of human rights
there fore i confees to being the driver under duress and the treat of posocution.
and if convited i reserv my right to clam compasation for any costs and loses i incur due to this case
and for wroungfull conviction
if and when the idris case is won
there a case going to the europian court now and has a good chance many belve
I may all so take my case to to the euoropian cout my self.
this worked for me they then sent a fixed penity notice out
i sent it back saying nothanks il see you in court and dident pay it.
and they gave up never did take it to court
ie to covict you they need you to confess to driving
sendig that i was not doing this
onece they sent the fpn they could not do me for not tell who was driving any more
pluss as i said i confees but it was not be
if i was convited i would be an un safe coviction and a faulse confesstion.
Im not advissing you to try it but it works for me
i done this before my self
>> Edited by outlaw on Friday 21st June 18:28
quote:
in that case a letter to the cps askING why PACE DOSE NOT APLLY TO SPEEDING CASES IN THERE AREA
Outlaw.
Have to put you right here.
PACE only covers the Police and Criminal evidence procedures. This means powers to Arrest,search, detention, interview and Identification.
The Act you refer to here is the CPIA 1996
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATION ACT
(Investigation part covers non criminal stuff like traffic)
This covers disclosure of evidence by both prosecution and defence.
PART 1 of CPIA
1) this part applies where
a) a person is charged with a summary offence in respect of which a court proceeds to summary trial AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE PLEADS NOT GUILTY.
So in answer to your quote above PACE act not applicable anyway.
To gain copies of the photos, you may have to plead not guilty to get them then change your plea once you have had the cahnce to peruse them and identify who was driving.
SECT 172 of Road Traffic act 1988
COVERS DRIVER IDENTITY
....
2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alledged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies-
a) The person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the the driver....
b) ANY OTHER PERSON shall if required as stated above give ANY INFORMATION which it is in his power to give and may lead to the identification of the driver.
3) Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence.
The provisions do not cover the circumstances that this form was issued under.
The information MUST be provided within a reasonable time and may be immediately.
If the requirement was sent via post then 28 days are allowed within which to respond.
If a person falsley claims to have been the driver, an offence of PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE MAY BE APPROPRIATE ( 7 years Imprisonment)
THE DEFENCE TO SECT 172
A person shall not be convicted of an offence under section 172(3) if that person can show that he did not know and could not have ascertained with reasonable diligence who the driver of the vehicle was.
Sect 172 (b) provides that where the requirement was served through the post,the person shall not be guilty of an offence if they can show that they gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable and after the 28 days is ended, that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.
quote:
aLSO RECORDED AND COPYS NEED TO BE KEPT
Good advice. Write and keep copies. Send by recorded delivery so that you have proof.
quote:
but at the bottome i would put But sec172 leavs the driver no option but to conffes in breach of artical 6 of the europian court of human rights
You can bang on about article 6 as long as you like, but nothing has been decided yet and there are provisions within the HR Act that could negate the defence people are trying to use under this article.
Also awfully expensive to hire the barrister to do the job for you with no guarantee of success.
The only plus is that it can now be heard in domestic British Courts rather than Stasbourg.
quote:
if and when the idris case is won
IF, IF, IF and WHEN WHEN WHEN????
quote:
this worked for me they then sent a fixed penity notice out
i sent it back saying nothanks il see you in court and dident pay it.
this may well work for you outlaw but as we all know, you live on the ragged edge!
The people you write to with advice don't generally have your vast experience of the wrong side of the law or your bottle to try things out!!
quote:
Im not advissing you to try it but it works for me
Probably the best bit of advice I have read from you outlaw
>> Edited by madcop on Sunday 23 June 18:26
Mel, the alleged offence was speeding: 50mph on a piece of dual carriageway which for some unfathomable reason is a 40 limit.
Just prefer to call them “tax cameras” rather than “safety cameras”
(Think somebody on PH has already said: “A tax is a fine you pay for being good, a fine is a tax you pay for being bad”)
Just prefer to call them “tax cameras” rather than “safety cameras”
(Think somebody on PH has already said: “A tax is a fine you pay for being good, a fine is a tax you pay for being bad”)
g government just gets richer, the poor, we buy faster cars, How strange!Sorry got confused we've got a plague round here of Customs and Excise cars/vans parked up at the side of the road with cameras reading number plates and cross checking against DVLA database for car tax in real time, 100yds down the road plod pull them over. It was these I thought you meant when you said "tax cameras"
In these Human Rights days you have an absolute right to see the photo before the case goes to court, otherwise there is "an inequlity of arms". Writing to CPS to point this out invariably produces the photo. Most Police Forces realise this and will oblige at the earlier stage as well. Write and ask by Recorded Delivery. If no luck, you will get it at the pre-court stage.
I was caught by a HIDDEN speed camera (behind a bloody great traffic sign, taking photos of the back of people's cars as they sped past) doing 83 on the A9 nr Perth. I couldn't admit to driving as there were 4 other people in the car, sharing the driving. We were flashed by cameras several times in the 700 mile trip, and were unsure who was at the wheel at said time. I wrote to the Jock cops to state this, Beds Police (where I live) then took up the case ontheir behalf. The jocks volunteered sending me the photo in case it would help with driver identification, but all it showed was the back of my car, filled to the rafters with bags and fishing rods...
Beds Police advised me STRONGLY that I should admit to the offence, as it might go to court if I didn't. The potential fines that I could have received were very hefty, and after much though, went for the 3 points and £60. Beds Police were very nice about it - apparently all THEIR camers take the photos from front-on, so that mistaken identity etc isn't an issue, but made it crystal clear to me that I should admit it, whether I was guilty or not.
2 points:
1) Why do cops insists on hiding their cameras? Bad PR or what? I have zero respect for the people who handle these things. Are they methods for slowing down traffic, or are they are a revenue-generating scheme? (I think we all know the answer to that one)
2) Why should somebody (who MAY be innocent) be strong-armed into admitting an offence, where there is NO proof whatsoever that he is guilty? I thought we were innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Big Brother is watching. This country is getting on my t*ts! Are there any countries left, where you can go about your daily business without being watched / fined?!
Grrrr...
Beds Police advised me STRONGLY that I should admit to the offence, as it might go to court if I didn't. The potential fines that I could have received were very hefty, and after much though, went for the 3 points and £60. Beds Police were very nice about it - apparently all THEIR camers take the photos from front-on, so that mistaken identity etc isn't an issue, but made it crystal clear to me that I should admit it, whether I was guilty or not.
2 points:
1) Why do cops insists on hiding their cameras? Bad PR or what? I have zero respect for the people who handle these things. Are they methods for slowing down traffic, or are they are a revenue-generating scheme? (I think we all know the answer to that one)
2) Why should somebody (who MAY be innocent) be strong-armed into admitting an offence, where there is NO proof whatsoever that he is guilty? I thought we were innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Big Brother is watching. This country is getting on my t*ts! Are there any countries left, where you can go about your daily business without being watched / fined?!
Grrrr...
quote:
Why should somebody (who MAY be innocent) be strong-armed into admitting an offence, where there is NO proof whatsoever that he is guilty? I thought we were innocent until PROVEN guilty.
In this case I think you could have taken it to court. Did you ask the Bedford police *why* you should take the points/fine?
Note the case of a Cleveland police officer who was 'let off' a similar offence at a speed camera because he could not remember who had been driving.
See www.driving.co.uk/5e9.html
quote:because they had so many out in beds they cant afford to take em to court
quote:
Why should somebody (who MAY be innocent) be strong-armed into admitting an offence, where there is NO proof whatsoever that he is guilty? I thought we were innocent until PROVEN guilty.
In this case I think you could have taken it to court. Did you ask the Bedford police *why* you should take the points/fine?
Note the case of a Cleveland police officer who was 'let off' a similar offence at a speed camera because he could not remember who had been driving.
See www.driving.co.uk/5e9.html
as for front facingcam ther normaly blured and dont shoe the face
just duck when you pass em
or get a big fat sun trip
i told em to shove front facing pics before where the sun dont shine
UPDATE
Thank you everybody for the advice in the postings above.
I’ve now obtained the photos from Northants Police. Despite their rather unhelpful recorded message, when I actually managed to speak to a human they were happy to send the pictures out to me immediately, no questions asked.
Unfortunately the guy with the mobile camera was not exactly Patrick Lichfield. The photos are of the back of the car at a range of 167.6m and very pour resolution. You can see what sort of car it is and the registration number but there’s no chance whatsoever of seeing who was driving.
I’ve phoned them again to explain that their photos are useless and I still don’t know who (of the several people insured on the car) was using it at the time. They told me to write them a letter explaining the situation and they will “take the next step”.
My letter will be in to post to them tomorrow – recorded delivery of course - and I’ll keep you posted on what hapens. In the meantime does anybody have any other suggestions? bouffy’s experience suggests that I’m likely to be pressured into saying it was me, which is rather worrying
Thank you everybody for the advice in the postings above.
I’ve now obtained the photos from Northants Police. Despite their rather unhelpful recorded message, when I actually managed to speak to a human they were happy to send the pictures out to me immediately, no questions asked.
Unfortunately the guy with the mobile camera was not exactly Patrick Lichfield. The photos are of the back of the car at a range of 167.6m and very pour resolution. You can see what sort of car it is and the registration number but there’s no chance whatsoever of seeing who was driving.
I’ve phoned them again to explain that their photos are useless and I still don’t know who (of the several people insured on the car) was using it at the time. They told me to write them a letter explaining the situation and they will “take the next step”.
My letter will be in to post to them tomorrow – recorded delivery of course - and I’ll keep you posted on what hapens. In the meantime does anybody have any other suggestions? bouffy’s experience suggests that I’m likely to be pressured into saying it was me, which is rather worrying
quote:
It must've been a tough decision - were they going to fine all FOUR of you?? What can we do to turn this around and put the onus of proof on the police, rather than us??? Suggestions??
Try www.pepipoo.com/FightBack/messages/38.html
Harlestone,
The more I think about this, the more I think that one way or another you are going to be made to pay for the speed fine. Otherwise they are implicitly saying that not knowing who was driving is a way out of the fine.
While this may be true in your case, the upshot is that people who have more than one person insured on their car could simply make the same statement as you to get out of it, basically making the cameras unprofitable, and we can't be having that after we spent so much money putting them in can we?
Steve
The more I think about this, the more I think that one way or another you are going to be made to pay for the speed fine. Otherwise they are implicitly saying that not knowing who was driving is a way out of the fine.
While this may be true in your case, the upshot is that people who have more than one person insured on their car could simply make the same statement as you to get out of it, basically making the cameras unprofitable, and we can't be having that after we spent so much money putting them in can we?
Steve
quote:
The more I think about this, the more I think that one way or another you are going to be made to pay for the speed fine. Otherwise they are implicitly saying that not knowing who was driving is a way out of the fine.
I've got a feeling that if you can't remember who was driving the fine and points fall to the registered keeper of the car, as they are ultimately responsible for the car and what happens in it (or something).
I reckon this was covered in 5th gear a while ago by QW, although my memory isn't what it could be!
Dan.
quote:
I've got a feeling that if you can't remember who was driving the fine and points fall to the registered keeper of the car, as they are ultimately responsible for the car and what happens in it (or something).
If you refuse to identify the driver, this is the case.
If you genuinely cannot identify the driver, I don't think they can proceed - this was the argument used by the Cleveland copper.
>> Edited by Neil Menzies on Friday 28th June 17:52
quote:
quote:
I've got a feeling that if you can't remember who was driving the fine and points fall to the registered keeper of the car, as they are ultimately responsible for the car and what happens in it (or something).
If you refuse to identify the driver, this is the case.
If you genuinely cannot identify the driver, I don't think they can proceed - this was the argument used by the Cleveland copper.
>> Edited by Neil Menzies on Friday 28th June 17:52
if you dont tell them, who was driving they will try it on and send you FPN
If they did charge you with not telling them then realy not knowing is a defence and can win this.
but its my guess they will drop it fast.
and would not go to court as the would most likely lose
if i was you I would go for it.
even if it when to court
I would take all the others that were driving with me as wicnesses. not bothering with a solisitor
find som excuses to get a good few ajurnments
and make em supple all the calobration stuff
see of you can get the cam operrater in court to give some cross exmaimination stick to.
and ask em to delay the hearing till the adriss case is heard in the europian court.
it could take about 5 years. as you will be clamin damages if covited and the adriss case wins you have the right to ask,you may even get it
if they dont go for that
all give evidence that you cant posibly know which one was driving the car at the as it was a long trip.
and you were all driving at different times pluss it was some time ago and none of you have a clue
and if one of you was to say it was you you would be lieing under oth as you realy do not know/
and to lie in court would be a biger crime than a speeding ticket
doing it in the most longwinded way posible if theres a few of you. you could make it last a whole moring or a day if your good
make the bastards pay.
Stick with your story. If Police and CPS think you're not telling the truth, it will come to court. However the bench will still require CPS to prove whatever the charge is, either that the registered keeper is wilfully failing to disclose the driver, or that a specific individual was driving. From what you describe, the Police are unlikely to be able to identify who was driving, and as long as all in the car are willing to go as witnesses and agree "we all had a go at driving that day but as it was a strange road, don't know where or when we changed" there can be no conviction. This is easier said than done as witnesses tend to screw things up by remembering who drove first, or other bits of info. Wouldn't it be fortunate if they all had total amnesia
quote:
UPDATE
Thank you everybody for the advice in the postings above.
I’ve now obtained the photos from Northants Police. Despite their rather unhelpful recorded message, when I actually managed to speak to a human they were happy to send the pictures out to me immediately, no questions asked.
Unfortunately the guy with the mobile camera was not exactly Patrick Lichfield. The photos are of the back of the car at a range of 167.6m and very pour resolution. You can see what sort of car it is and the registration number but there’s no chance whatsoever of seeing who was driving.
I’ve phoned them again to explain that their photos are useless and I still don’t know who (of the several people insured on the car) was using it at the time. They told me to write them a letter explaining the situation and they will “take the next step”.
My letter will be in to post to them tomorrow – recorded delivery of course - and I’ll keep you posted on what hapens. In the meantime does anybody have any other suggestions? bouffy’s experience suggests that I’m likely to be pressured into saying it was me, which is rather worrying
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff