Speeding Ticket

[Claire G]

A friend of mine at work has received a speeding fine (via a fixed camera). Can she deny being the driver? Does she have a legal obligation to supply the driver's details?

[MsW]

Hi Claire

Is this a "friend" ???? Or is there something you really want to tell us........... :winky:

There was something recently where if you fill in the form admitting it was you and send it back but don't sign it, they can't do you. Famous footballer or someone like that.

Don't know all the details - but there is definitely a loophole - depends how quick they move to close it, given the amount of publicity the case got.

Best of luck to your "friend"

Linda

[Zee007]

Story taken from BBC Website

Yorke cleared of speeding

Yorke was clocked driving at 61mph in his Porsche

A speeding conviction against soccer star Dwight Yorke has been overturned by the High Court.

On Thursday judges sitting in London, ruled the case against the Blackburn Rover striker had been "fatally flawed".

Yorke had told the court he should be acquitted because a police form used as evidence did not have his signature on it.

The case will have implications for drivers in the UK because of the increase in the use of speed camera evidence in court.

On Thursday Mr Justice Owen, sitting in London, agreed a prime facie case against Yorke was set up on an "erroneous basis".

Identity proof

The 31-year-old was convicted by magistrates in Manchester of driving his Porsche 911 at 61mph in Princess Road, Withington, Manchester, in May 2001.

However, Mr Justice Owen said because there was no signature on the form to prove the identity of Yorke as the driver the conviction should be set aside.

The judge had been told similar cases were spreading "like a virus" to magistrates courts up and down the country.

Yorke, who used to play for Aston Villa and Manchester United, had been fined £350 and ordered to pay £1,000 costs after his conviction.

His first appeal to Manchester Crown Court against the conviction was unsuccessful.

But lawyers for Yorke and Michael Mawdesley, another motorist also convicted of speeding, argued in the High Court that magistrates were wrong to accept the unsigned forms as admissible evidence that they were the guilty drivers.

Retrial considered

The lawyers argued that the legislation for dealing with speeding cases had been so badly drafted by Parliament that the convictions must be quashed and the law overhauled.

Michael Mawdesley, from Chorley, Lancashire, was found guilty by Warrington magistrates of clocking 102mph on the M56 in April 2002.

The two cases centre on a section of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, which requires the owner or keeper of a vehicle to give information identifying the driver when that vehicle is caught speeding.

Yorke was alleged to have partially filled in the form and returned it to the central ticket office in Manchester in July 2001, although it did not contain his signature.

Mr Mawdsley will face a retrial because there was no other evidence to prove the identity of the driver.

The judge has ruled that it must go back to Warrington magistrates for reconsideration.

[MsW]

That's the one :D

Zee, you truly are the fount of all motoring knowledge

[sorted avensis]

Don't know if this helps Claire but it must be worth checking out.

I've just posted this on TOC.

[Claire G]

Nah, it's defintely not me. Touch wood I've never been done for speeding (hope I'm not tempting fate). Thanks for the hints and tips - they've been passed on

[mudzs]

My wife was caught doin 60mph in a 40mph zone on the a20 sidcup a couple of months ago and we have tried everything to wriggle out of it like not signing the form they send and saying we do not know who was driving .They just keep on sending the form through and the latest one states we have 30 days or it goe,s to court .I consulted a solicator and the costs involved in going to court are steep .I think this is how footballers and alike get away with it as they have the money to throw at it were as joe public dos,ent .So i think i will pay the £60 fine to pay for even more cameras in places we realy do not need them while schools and other busy places that realy need them go without .

[Loz]

Well before you do pay the fine you should ask for legal advice in light of the Crown vs Yorke Case. if it has set a precident then you are ok. the reason they keep send you letters asking you to sign the form is because it says nowhere in the act that you are legally obliged to sign it. this is the loophole

Seek advice from an expert. DO you have free legal advice through your insurance for example...?

:zee:

[rhaines]

or are you with the rac they have free legal depending on cover i think....

[Rodders_UK]

It's also useful to know what kind of photographic evidence is about - for instance if there's a Truvelo picture, it'll be forward facing and have a nice piccy of your friend driving - hard to deny

[Claire G]

I've heard that they need to blow up the photo to get a clear picture of the driver, but this is tampering with evidence. Not sure if it's true or just a 'modern myth' ???

[mudzs]

The problem is a soliciter costs big bucks and my insurance is not interested in taking on the case as it is not covered by the policy.I am also with the aa and they do not cover this either .I think if it go,s to court my wife could end up with more than a £60 fine and 3 points as she was 20mph over the limit in a 40mph zone ,Time to cut my loses me thinks and buy her a ford KA . :D

[onewackynode]

Got caught at 38 in a 30 zone - 100 yds from my office on 23rd Dec last year. We asked for the photo as someone else had driven my car earlier in the day. It wasn't too clear but it looked like me!

Upshot was that if I denied it was me and wouldn't name the other driver then one of my directors would probably have been liable as it was a company car.

I guess it would ultimately be the registered owner who took the rap...

[Fargo]

I guess it would ultimately be the registered owner who took the rap...

but surly they have to PROVE you were driving,

[Loz]

no, the registered owner has to prove that he was not...

great one, oh wise judiciary!

:zee:

[onewackynode]

Had a look at the "Notice of Intended Prosecution" I got (I kept a copy, sad I know)...

On the front:

WARNING: IT IS AN OFFENCE UNDER THE RAOD TRAFFIC ACT TO KNOWINGLY OR RECKLESSLY FURNISH A FALSE STATEMENT. THIS OFFENCE MAY UPON CONVICTION INCUR BOTH A FINE AND PENALTY POINTS

Inside there's a FAQs section:

As the registered keeper of the vehicle, you have a duty to identify the driver in question blah blah... Failure to provide the information will result in prosecution under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Then on the page where you enter the details etc:

Iam the *owner/keeper/hirer of the vehicle, but I am unable to identify the driver at the time of the alleged offence. I understand this matter will be referred to court.

I had always assumed the burden of proof was with the law as well. I don't know now...

[tony_hetherington]

Hold fire a bit people.

Before you go sending the NIP back unsigned, I read pistonheads.com alot and this topic has been discussed over about 50 (FIFTY!!!) pages, and it seems the loophole might have been closed.

You're all correct....the loophole was there, but it seems that good ol' england has done something about it very quickly (but dont hold me to that).

So, really, just a quick message saying "heads up" !!!!

[Fargo]

but but but...whatever happend to innocent until PROVEN guilty.. i'm sure Human Rights violations can be called upon.. "but honeslly judge.. i was at a party with my friends, who can all vouch i was there and in fact incapable of driving.. someone must have lifted my keys for the night"...... "but sir..it was 7.30am on a tuesday" "DOOH"

[onewackynode]

The Notice of Intended Prosecution mentions human rights!

"The Human Rights Act does not effect you when returning this paperwork. Primary legislation dictates that you are obliged to provide this."

However, I thought the primary directive was

Do not interfere with the development of foreign civilisations

It is forbidden to all spaceships and members of Starfleet to interfere with the normal development of any culture or society. This directive is more important than the protection of spaceships or members of Starfleet. Losses are tolerated as long as they are nessesary to observe this directive.

[MAC_600]

You might want to look at this site - lots of very useful info

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

[jim2411]

A mate of mine said he did'nt know who was driving the van at the time it was clocked speeding, they sent him a picture that showed the fat bugger as clear as day. The best bit though was you could see him picking his nose!!