Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun May 31, 2026 00:39

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 14:00 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
You need to send a short letter to fareham bourough council asking for the traffic order.

If you choose to plead guilty by letter on recieving a summons you should not recieve a significant fine but is may be slightlly higher than the standard £60.

You might explain that you could not accept the FPN as it refered to the wrong road. then they cannot add costs.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 14:03 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Sounds like they are trying to bully you into paying up to be honest. I can't see any reason they would win if the case is materially similar to those already decided against them.

Whether you take the time and effort to fight it is up to you!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 14:33 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 07:59
Posts: 22
oh its so hard to decide!! I am ging to sleep on it and see how i feel tomorrow.

If I could afford to I would fight this all the way!!! But I am really worried about this money and cannot afford to pay more than £120 total fine and costs!!! My insurance is going to go up by about £30 a year as well so I have that to find as well!!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 14:34 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
I don't see how even the most ardent supporter of cameras in principle can be happy with tactics like these. And yet plenty apparently are. Justice clearly isn't of great concern to them. Once again we have this "technicalities of law are fine but only if they're used against motorists". It can only be a product of a desire to punish people for driving. Cases like these are at least good for exposing such unhelpful attitudes.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 19:00 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
the tide has turned

http://www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/news-item.htm?news=478

_________________
now retired


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 22:23 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Given that Mr Duncan admitted that signs WERE missing then:

- this is surely a contravention of technical regulations and invalidates the limit (I can't see how this can be argued against in law);
- the use of inverted commas in the title of the piece is misleading (and deliberately so).

The tide that has turned is the one of innocence until guilt is proven.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 09:15 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
One year on and the case still rattles around the courts
Quote:
Barry Culshaw: You may be interested to hear that on 9th September last at Alton Magistrates' Court DJ Gillibrand did a complete volte face and convicted a client of mine for exceeding the 40 mph speed limit on Southampton Road, Titchfield despite the fact that he was on the same stretch of road and was within the same defectively signed speed limit as Mr Coleman who was acquitted as the test case on 8th October last year! Indeed, there were more signing defects evident in the recent case as a change of the de-restricted speed limit to a 40 mph speed limit for the northern section of Southampton Road brought into the equation flawed terminal signing at three junctions on the west of the enforcement site. This was despite the fact that at the recent trial Mr Bentley adduced evidence to show how the three flawed junctions on the east of the site were now subject to materially changed signing put in place this year with a view to addressing the shortcomings highlighted in Mr Bentley's 2006 Coleman report!!

Pursuant to the client's instructions I have requested the DJ to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. If this case proceeds to the High Court it will have huge implications for signing law as the defects in the signing are largely agreed by the experts.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.213s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]