I'm being prosecuted for speeding but the police won't supply photographic evidence. What should I do?
In January I received a speeding ticket for an alleged offence in November. I wrote to the authorities asking for the photographic evidence they informed me they had twice, and got a reply the second time stating that they were not obliged to sent it to me, and the only way I could view it was to attend court and plead not guilty. My third letter to them I stated that I did not want to waste anyone's time and that I would pay the fine and take the points if they sent me the photographic evidence. They replied with the same letter as the first.
I attended court and explained that as I had had my number plates stolen I wished to see the photographic evidence and so had to plead not guilty. The prosecutor did not produce the photograph and I was asked to attend a hearing some weeks later. On the next occasion I was asked the same questions as at the first appearance, and when I asked why this was the magistrate informed me that as they were a different bench they had no information as to what had previously happened in court. The prosecutor still did not produce the photographic evidence, but I was warned by the magistrate that they had evidence to prosecute me as I had signed a form stating that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the alleged offence, and that if found guilty the costs would be high.
The form, as far as I can remember, states that it is offence not to fill in and return the form, and the only questions on it are “sign here if you were the driver or give the name of the driver who was driving at the time of the offence” with no space for any other reply. I have been summonsed to appear again in October. Could you give me some advice as to how I should react if the photographic evidence is, or is not forthcoming at the next appearance please?
I attended court and explained that as I had had my number plates stolen I wished to see the photographic evidence and so had to plead not guilty. The prosecutor did not produce the photograph and I was asked to attend a hearing some weeks later. On the next occasion I was asked the same questions as at the first appearance, and when I asked why this was the magistrate informed me that as they were a different bench they had no information as to what had previously happened in court. The prosecutor still did not produce the photographic evidence, but I was warned by the magistrate that they had evidence to prosecute me as I had signed a form stating that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the alleged offence, and that if found guilty the costs would be high.
The form, as far as I can remember, states that it is offence not to fill in and return the form, and the only questions on it are “sign here if you were the driver or give the name of the driver who was driving at the time of the offence” with no space for any other reply. I have been summonsed to appear again in October. Could you give me some advice as to how I should react if the photographic evidence is, or is not forthcoming at the next appearance please?
Asked on 9 September 2010 by a25west
Answered by
Lucy
There is no requirement for the court to provide photographic evidence to identify the driver. The photographic evidence simply supports the case that someone driving a car registered to you committed an offence. If you dispute the car was your car (because of false plates) then you will have to show it was not. You can do this by obtaining a copy of the photograph and showing material differences between your car and those in the picture. The police are obliged to provide you with the photographic evidence if the case goes to trial. If you accept that it was your car then you can use the defence that someone else was driving it. For this to be the case you will need to show that someone else was insured to drive your car.
You may well have closed off this defence by admitting you were the driver. If you now claim that you were not the driver the police are likely to charge you under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act for failing to identify driver. If convicted this offence brings 6 points and a substantial fine. I can probably help you with this case but you will need to come up with some more convincing evidence that police officers handing out screws if you want to persuade the magistrates.
You may well have closed off this defence by admitting you were the driver. If you now claim that you were not the driver the police are likely to charge you under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act for failing to identify driver. If convicted this offence brings 6 points and a substantial fine. I can probably help you with this case but you will need to come up with some more convincing evidence that police officers handing out screws if you want to persuade the magistrates.
Similar questions
I passed my driving test four months ago. I was recorded doing 35mph by a speed camera and have to complete the section 132 paperwork. I'm really hoping I only get a fine and not three points on my licence,...
Back in March 2010 I received a NIP stating my car had been photographed doing 45mph in a 30 mph zone. I had recently acquired the vehicle and on that day I had met up with two other family members. After...
I got pulled over by police last year, and I came back on the check as licence revoked. The Kent officer then took my car and my driving licence. However, at the time I had fully comp insurance and the...
.jpg)
