Discussion
Can anyone advice a friend, not me this time really.
He was stopped for speeding in excess of 100mph on 19th March 2002 in Kent. Policeman gave lecture, said they would not proceed, and gave producer.
He produced documents and heard nothing more until yesterday, 18 July 2002, when he got the summons. Know the Police can change their mind but is there a time limit for commencing proceeding.
Also the Police statement is dated 9 June, in it the Policeman states he followed my friends Peugeot 206, a 1000cc must have been down hill with the wind behind to get over 100mph, for 0.5miles at 97mph. Then in the next sentence states that he followed a "Renault" for 0.5miles at 110mph.
Since the summons is for the higher speed, is it worth defending on the basis the statement, made some 3 months later, refers a different vehicle. Can they just argue it was a typing mistake. Any advice appreciated.
He was stopped for speeding in excess of 100mph on 19th March 2002 in Kent. Policeman gave lecture, said they would not proceed, and gave producer.
He produced documents and heard nothing more until yesterday, 18 July 2002, when he got the summons. Know the Police can change their mind but is there a time limit for commencing proceeding.
Also the Police statement is dated 9 June, in it the Policeman states he followed my friends Peugeot 206, a 1000cc must have been down hill with the wind behind to get over 100mph, for 0.5miles at 97mph. Then in the next sentence states that he followed a "Renault" for 0.5miles at 110mph.
Since the summons is for the higher speed, is it worth defending on the basis the statement, made some 3 months later, refers a different vehicle. Can they just argue it was a typing mistake. Any advice appreciated.
Absolutely. The notes that are made should be made at the time or as soon aspracticable afterwards. To not do so would render them inadmissable in evidence.
the fact that the statement refers to two different cars does not mean that the facts are wrong. The officer may have reported two different vehicles in the same incident. An example would be if they were considered to be racing each other.
This sounds like a total cock up to me. If I were in this position, I would have no compunction in disputing the facts and then in court, ask to see when the notes were made. Then object to them being referred to as they were not made at the time.
Hope that helps.
the fact that the statement refers to two different cars does not mean that the facts are wrong. The officer may have reported two different vehicles in the same incident. An example would be if they were considered to be racing each other.
This sounds like a total cock up to me. If I were in this position, I would have no compunction in disputing the facts and then in court, ask to see when the notes were made. Then object to them being referred to as they were not made at the time.
Hope that helps.
The other thing that springs to mind is that, has your friend been reported for another offence that happened in June and is assuming that because he wasn't stopped at the time of the June offence (maybe the Renault was the one that was stopped), then the summons must be to do with the earlier one. It sounds as though some more digging needs to be done to give proper advice.
If he/she wasn't stopped at the time of the offence, then a written NIP should have been served within 14 days of the offence along with a name the driver form.
If stopped at the time, a verbal NIP is sufficient.
If he/she wasn't stopped at the time of the offence, then a written NIP should have been served within 14 days of the offence along with a name the driver form.
If stopped at the time, a verbal NIP is sufficient.
Doesn't really matter when the statement is signed as long as you can show that is was made form notes made at the time.
For instance, all mt RT/1 files are going in two months after the producer was issued 'cause of a two month wait for the DQ3. Hence my statements are signed two months after the date of the offence, made from notes made at the time (RT/1) of the offence.
Rob
>> Edited by relaxitscool on Sunday 21st July 16:15
For instance, all mt RT/1 files are going in two months after the producer was issued 'cause of a two month wait for the DQ3. Hence my statements are signed two months after the date of the offence, made from notes made at the time (RT/1) of the offence.
Rob
>> Edited by relaxitscool on Sunday 21st July 16:15
I totally concur with you Rob on that. In my force though a speeding statement is done at the time on a pro-former type form. The same with other minor motoring offences. The only time I would use the notes made at the time to transfer onto the Mg11 and 11a would be after being requested by CPS to do so as a NG plea to an RTA, (from the accident book) or from my PNB if I had witnessed a case of Sect 3 etc. Most notes at the time in my force area are accepted by the courts if you write them straight onto the Mg11 as soon as practicable after. I tend to use the backs of DPSI/HORT1 form for the basic notes and then straight onto the Mg11 before I finish the duty. Saves duplicating everything.
Cheers
Steve
I have to say though that I don't really get involved much these days in traffic process due to a career change 8 years ago. I will if someone really makes my blood boil!!
>> Edited by madcop on Sunday 21st July 18:18
Cheers
Steve
I have to say though that I don't really get involved much these days in traffic process due to a career change 8 years ago. I will if someone really makes my blood boil!!
>> Edited by madcop on Sunday 21st July 18:18
Tell me, o law buddies - how is it that a cops word is worth so much more than an ordinary citizen?
Surely if you have a crooked cop, who makes stuff up just to boost performance figures, eg it is easy to lie about speed reading when there is NO WAY the "victim" can dispute a laser reading 2 months later.. how can we trust?
I know that if I got to be a copper, I may be tempted to "do" someone if they answered back to me, hence the reason I am very polite to every Officer I encounter.
SO why do we trust you guys? you are only human, and as you wanted to join up, that means you wanted the power, the respect, the uniform, the shiney boots, the girls....
Ok, that may sound a bit like I'm having a go, but seriously - a good cop is fantastic, but the bad ones seem more and more prevalent. Sorry, but speak as I find.
rgds.
Surely if you have a crooked cop, who makes stuff up just to boost performance figures, eg it is easy to lie about speed reading when there is NO WAY the "victim" can dispute a laser reading 2 months later.. how can we trust?
I know that if I got to be a copper, I may be tempted to "do" someone if they answered back to me, hence the reason I am very polite to every Officer I encounter.
SO why do we trust you guys? you are only human, and as you wanted to join up, that means you wanted the power, the respect, the uniform, the shiney boots, the girls....
Ok, that may sound a bit like I'm having a go, but seriously - a good cop is fantastic, but the bad ones seem more and more prevalent. Sorry, but speak as I find.
rgds.
You cannot legislate for whether the cop is telling the truth or not, just the same as you cannot for the defendant.
The only thing that you can rely on is that there are so many vehicles out there that are breaking the limits, why do you need to make it up? You just wait for the next good one. And if everyone was honest with themselves, they know when they were caught and at what speed they were doing.
It has happened though and I know of one cop who is no longer with us as a result of cooking his speeding figures. It came to notice from the huge number of not guilty pleas that were accumulating on his process reports. Someone started to dig around a bit and set him up. He was just making them up. Got done for attempting to pervert justice and all his former victims were acquitted.
The only thing that you can rely on is that there are so many vehicles out there that are breaking the limits, why do you need to make it up? You just wait for the next good one. And if everyone was honest with themselves, they know when they were caught and at what speed they were doing.
It has happened though and I know of one cop who is no longer with us as a result of cooking his speeding figures. It came to notice from the huge number of not guilty pleas that were accumulating on his process reports. Someone started to dig around a bit and set him up. He was just making them up. Got done for attempting to pervert justice and all his former victims were acquitted.
With regard to the query as to whether there was another incident, the answer is no, the police statement identifies the incident as being on the 19 March.
So to recap the orginal incident is written up and then if action is te be taken a statement is made at that time from those notes.
Is it possible to obtain copies of the orginal notes before deciding whether to plead guilty or not? The reason being the clear discrepency in the statement, initially identifing his Peugoet, doing 97mph, then in the next paragraph, identifing a "Renault", doing 114mph. The summons is for the higher speed.
He would plead guilty if the summons was for the lower speed but does not know whether the higher speed was actually him, and a)the police made an error on the statement, or b) it was another car which the police where following.
So to recap the orginal incident is written up and then if action is te be taken a statement is made at that time from those notes.
Is it possible to obtain copies of the orginal notes before deciding whether to plead guilty or not? The reason being the clear discrepency in the statement, initially identifing his Peugoet, doing 97mph, then in the next paragraph, identifing a "Renault", doing 114mph. The summons is for the higher speed.
He would plead guilty if the summons was for the lower speed but does not know whether the higher speed was actually him, and a)the police made an error on the statement, or b) it was another car which the police where following.
quote:
With regard to the query as to whether there was another incident, the answer is no, the police statement identifies the incident as being on the 19 March.
So to recap the orginal incident is written up and then if action is te be taken a statement is made at that time from those notes.
Is it possible to obtain copies of the orginal notes before deciding whether to plead guilty or not? The reason being the clear discrepency in the statement, initially identifing his Peugoet, doing 97mph, then in the next paragraph, identifing a "Renault", doing 114mph. The summons is for the higher speed.
He would plead guilty if the summons was for the lower speed but does not know whether the higher speed was actually him, and a)the police made an error on the statement, or b) it was another car which the police where following.
Where disclosure is concerned, he will be entitled to copies of all the relevant prosecution evidence. This will include copies of the relevant entry in the officers note book or pro forma speed card. I suggest that you contact the prosecution department. Explain the discrepancy and ask to have copies of all the evidence. Only then will you be able to make a decision if a mistake has been made. Do not delay in doing this. The sooner the better.
Are the index plates in relation to both the cars the same, or are they different?
>> Edited by madcop on Monday 22 July 08:44
>> Edited by madcop on Monday 22 July 08:46
Madcop thanks for the advise. In the statement the first paragraph identifies following a Peugeot and gives the index number, the secound paragraph describes following the Peugeot at 97mph, the third paragraph then stated the officer followed a "Renualt" no index given at 114mph.
The summons is for the higher speed, which since it is over 100mph can lead to an immediate ban.
The summons is for the higher speed, which since it is over 100mph can lead to an immediate ban.
I found out to my bad luck that they have upto 6 months of having been caught speeding in which to send you a summons. I received one 5 1/2 months after an offence and was gutted because I thought they had forgotten about it. It is only with speed cameras that they have to send you a notice of intended prosecution within a short period. If the officer changed his mind about referring your incident to the CPS, he will simply deny that he let you off originally and state that you and he have "a diferent recollection of events." Either way that is not a significant technicality..you were speeding, you were caught and the magistrate will probably do to you what he did to me..sorry.
quote:
I found out to my bad luck that they have upto 6 months of having been caught speeding in which to send you a summons. I received one 5 1/2 months after an offence and was gutted because I thought they had forgotten about it. It is only with speed cameras that they have to send you a notice of intended prosecution within a short period. If the officer changed his mind about referring your incident to the CPS, he will simply deny that he let you off originally and state that you and he have "a diferent recollection of events." Either way that is not a significant technicality..you were speeding, you were caught and the magistrate will probably do to you what he did to me..sorry.
Appollo.
You are right in some respects but the system works as follows.
The offence occurs and an NIP, must be served within 14 days of the offence.
This does not mean received within the 14 days.
As long as the form has been posted, then that is counted as service.
Therefore if the NIP was issued within the 14 days and you received for instance 4 months later due to your whereabouts not known, then that would suffuce.
The statutory limit on proceedings is slightly different.
To instigate a summons, The Information (evidence and unsigned summons form) must be placed before a magistrate or magistrates clerk for signature WITHIN 6 MONTHS of the date of the offence.
Once that has been signed by either within that 6 month period, then the summons is valid, even if it is served on you 4 or 5 years later, should you be difficult to trace.
This is the case withall traffic offences except
1) No insurance.
2) No V.E.L.
which the limit on proceedings under the same rules is not 6 months but 3 years.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff