Hello. I was photographed by a mobile speed camera in the back of a van. I saw it and looked down at my speedometer. I was doing the posted limit of 30mph. I was astounded when a Notice of Intended Prosecution came through saying I'd been pictured at 47mph. The alleged offence was timed at 3.09pm and said I was Southbound. I was Northbound at about that time and it makes a difference to proving the impossibility of the alleged speed, so I wanted clarification.I went to a motoring law solicitors who wrote to the Dorset Police informing them that they acted on my behalf and making enquiries about the alleged offence. I was expecting either a helpful answer, or an advice that they were under no obligation to answer, or no answer at all. But what I got astounded me.Dorset Police said "as no authorisation from the potential offender is held at this location to release details to you/your organisation, I am unable to answer your queries".My response to the NIP has to be received by them in two days time. But in a FAQ leaflet they sent with it, it says that if you think your vehicle "was not on the road named at the time stated", to contact them. If I ring them tomorrow and tell them that, will that put a stay on the return date of the NIP until I have their response?Thanks.
Province/Country relating to question : UK
HiThank you for your question and welcome to Just Answer. I will try to help with this.Why do you need to phone them?
FOR JOMO1972Hi,I can't see anything that says 'Accept' to press?I was thinking of phoning them because of the time constraints. The NIP has to be returned to them tomorrow if it is not going to be late. They do not specify how to contact them, they simply say to contact them.
But what are you going to say to them?Whats the point of contacting them?
FOR JOMO1972The point of contacting them is to tell them that I was not on the road named at the time stated - as they invite me to do if I believe that to be the case, which I do. They say I was on the Southbound carriageway at 3.09pm but I wasn't. Therefore I was not on the road named at the time stated. I'm not after a technicality, I just want to establish the veracity (or not) of their evidence. I want to establish that at that time, I was not on the Southbound carriageway.The difference is that going Southbound it is feasible to be doing 47mph (difficult but feasible)and so would be difficult to prove that I wasn't doing that speed if they still insist I was Southbound. However, on the Northbound carriageway (which I was) I believe I can show that I could not have been doing 47mph and so they must have a spanner in the works somewhere.It's the first time I've come across this 'guilty until proved innocent' situation and I can't make much sense of it.In a civil court with a proper judge, I would send a 'not guilty' plea in without a second thought. I understand that process. But magistrates are a different kettle of fish.
You cannot do that.You need to respond to the S172 forms naming the driver. Calling them is not sufficient.You cannot demand sight of their evidence in advance.If you believe that you were not driving in that location at the time because the car was not in that location at the time then you cannot complete the S172 form and your defence is just to say that it was not reasonably practicable for you to complete it.However, if this is the first NIP they will just send out a second giving you a further 28 days to complete. If you do not complete it there is a risk they will summons you for failing to identify the driver.To be wholly honest, if you know you were in the area at the relevant time then this isn't really a good point to take. There's no doubt your vehicle was there on your own account. Whether you were travelling northbound or southbound or the level of the speed is a non issue from the point of view of establishing who was actually driving. Those are all points to be taken later.I'm sorry this isn't the answer you wanted but it is the position that you face and I have a duty to inform you truthfully.Hope this helps. I would be grateful if you could please rate my answer and provide quick feedback. If necessary, I can then provide further advice and guidance as required and answer any specific questions you may have. Thank you
Bar Exams, over 5 years in practice
FOR JOMO1972Hmm. Part 1 asks me to confirm I was the driver - easily done and not the issue. Part 1a asks if I wish to be considered for a fixed penalty (to me, that sounds like a guilty plea) and part 1b asks if I would like a court hearing instead (which sounds to me like a not guilty plea). It says I must answer part 1 and either part 1a or 1b.It sounds a bit odd to say that the level of speed in a speeding allegation is a non-issue.Thanks anyway.
No problem.Did you want to know anything else? If so, what ?Please rate my answer and then I will give you related information for free.
No. Thank you. Guilty 'til proven innocent, that's me. And bitter about it too. Another law abiding citizen bites the dust.
Thats not whats happened here.S172 reverses the onus onto you to identify the driver. That is all you are being asked to do at this stage.Identifying the driver does not mean you accept that you were speeding. It just establishes that you were the driver.
FOR JOMO1972Aha - something I understand. But I have to answer part 1a or 1b as well. It says I must. Part 1a asks if I wish to be considered for a fixed penalty (to me, that sounds like a guilty plea) and part 1b asks if I would like a court hearing instead (which sounds to me like a not guilty plea).Is that not the case?
Its probably worth asking to be considered for a fixed penalty. You don't have to take it if its offered to you and probably at these speeds they would be looking at summonsing anyway.
FOR JOMO1972Ah. That's useful info. Thank you. I think I'll leave it there now.
No problem.all the best.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).