Safe Speed Forums

Hi I'm a refugee from another related forum (pepipoo)
Don't have net access at home and use library and they've blocked access to said site! incredable.

Anyway this is the situation - I've got a PreTrail Rev on the way for an 'unable to ID driver at time of camera flash' given the two poss drivers - me and other family member, got all letter's, paper's together to show diligence (in accordance with sect172(4) )
Summons is 172(2) not speeding, that's timed out now, but will be able to veiw Video Evidence for first time at PTRev. Unlikely to ID driver as will prob. be same as photo I was sent, so what's the point at this stage. I prosume I (or other driver) can't be forced into accepting speeding if ID'ed on Video?
--------------------------------------------
My real question is regarding Claiming Costs. OK I haven't won yet but I'm tring to get it sorted out before the PTRev in the hope that if the prosecution say 'we won't procede' then I can maybe ask if the Magistrates can formally award costs and hand over my list.

Problem is I don't know for certain what to include and what the paperwork needs to be.
Is it just in the form of a letter

_ my details
- I would like to claim costs for Case NoXXXXX

Travel 2xjouneys to court 10miles ......................20p per mile.........£ X.XX
Photocopies of ducuments in preperation for court.......100pages.............£ X.XX
Postage 2x Secial Del...................................£4 each..............£ X.XX
Postage 2x Recorded Del.................................£1 each..............£ X.XX
Total £ X.XX

What are the costs per mile for a car journey, does 10p a copy for printing and coping sound ok?
And is there anything else I could claim back like time spent in preperation of the case, has anyone had success at making a decent claim and not just get fobbed off with a few quid like I'm sure I will (if ever I get that stage)

Much appreciate your time if you can help.

I believe you can claim £9.25 per hour for your time. Be aware that the current Pepipoo costs claim record is £958.95 I'll have a look and see if there's a breakdown of that claim.

Have you asked the library why the site is blocked? It offers free legal advice - why would they have a problem with that?


EDIT - here's what cjm99 sent them to get over £400

Court Costs Claims Dept
Manchester Magistrates
Crown Square
Ref. xxxxxxxxx

Dear Sir.
Further to the collapse of the prosecution case at trial 28th Oct.. I was advised to write to your selves claiming costs. The labour element of the claim consists of four distinct areas.
A. Preparation to rebut the prosecution argument. Six hours
B. Preparation of the defence argument. Thirty six hours.
C. Time expended on 18th June travelling and waiting all afternoon for trial. The court ‘ran out of time’ and a new date was given. Five and a half hours.
D. The trial it’s self including travelling time. Four hours.

A total of 51.5 hours.

As the defence argument was ultimately not presented, I have enclosed a copy to indicate the depth of research expended on it, as an indication of time spent.

I further understand that the maximum hourly rate claimable by a ‘litigant in person’, is £9.25 per hour.


Labour 51.5 x £9.25 = £476.38
Six ‘signed for’ letters @ 64p ea. = £3.84
Four taxi journeys @ £12.80 ea. = £51.20
Total = £531.42

===========================================
The reply
==============
Manchester City Magistrates’ Court

Ref etc..

Dear Mr. CJM99

I am writing in response to your letter dated the 31st Oct 2004. Please accept my apologies in the delay responding to your letter. Primarily under Regulation 23 of the Costs in criminal Cases (General regulation of 1986) generally costs of subsistence and travel expenses can be claimed. However it would appear to be possible to pay your preparation costs of 42 hours work @ £9.25 per hour, letters signed for and travel costs under the regulations. This in total is the sum of £443.54.. The other expenses (waiting time etc.) that you wish us to award do not fall within the regulations and are not allowable. The amount stated above will be payable in due course.

Yours Sincerely

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Again?

One of the webfiltering companies had the site listed as "criminal knowledge" a couple of years ago. I believe Mika (who runs Pepipoo) contacted the company and had the entry changed.

If you know what the library use for webfiltering I'm sure it can be unblocked.

Did you ask for a copy of the video to help ID the driver? If you haven't then I'd suggest that you ask for it at the PTR. If it shows you enough detail to be able to name the driver you should name them at that stage - that would hopefully be the end of the matter. S172 provides for a late response in those types of circumstances.

Otherwise, if it does go to trial and you are credible and can show that you've used reasonable diligence then you should be ok with the S172 charge anyway.

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Firstly Mrs Miggins, Thanks very much for the reply I didn't think I'd get one at all let alone one that would of such use. I say that as most people seem to be directed straight to pepipoo, which is quite right as I'd recommend to anyone (no offence to SpeedSafe of course).

Homer, about the library I will have to email the webmaster but they could argue it's questionable! Anyway they blocked ebay a year ago, at the same time I had a new "How to use Ebay" book out?, and most bizzare they block the National Lottery site so you can't check there database of old numbers, even though ever computer in the libraries in the town have a sticker saying "Lottery Funded".
Had a brief look at the blocked list but unfortunatly unavailable after your logged this what appears
"The Websense category "IM Chat Block" is filtered" only for the forum


cjm99 does seem to have legendary knowledge in these matters and I have tried to find something about his costs claimed, did't find this though. Spoke to a solicitor for a free half hour last week and he seemed to think time is only claimable at crown court not Magistrates. I've also read that other people have been given the serious run around in claiming time spent. May give it a try if I ever get to that stage of course.

Regards the Video, I ask to see any more photo or video evidence months ago in my second letter to the Partnership to ID, no offer. At the plea hearing I mentioned I hadn't seen it and needed to, prosecution offered to show it at PTRev.
So it should be there. Is it really a good idea to ID the driver. Obviously if the court can see the driver it would be mad to say I don't know, but from the photo I think the video will be none conclusive.
You seem to suggest, MMiggins, that an ID now would solve the 172 and end things. I know the speeding charge has timed out (over 6months now) but as the information was put before the court just before 6 months could they still bring back the speeding. The summons was only 172(2) by the way, not coupled with speeding as some Constabularies do.

Cheers, in advance.
Hi Hoo

Haven't got a clue, but a friend of mine (Paul knows who he is) regularly claims costs for his wasted time in court.
His last but one court case was in Derby, and he successfully claimed (through his solicitor) £300 travel expenses for 4 journeys to Derby & back from Aldershot. He also successfully recovers daily wages of £130 for every day of his time that is wasted pissing about in court.

All other losses (eg, legal fees) are also covered every time he is found not guilty of driving while disqualified.

Your solicitor will be able to confirm exactly what you are entitled to in the event you are acquitted.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

mmmm

_________________
now retired

I would certainly hassle the Library over it since surfcontrol have it listed as reference.

It looks like they are using this. It's not unusual for webfiltering services to block sites for what seem the most bizarre reasons. Sufcontrol will block brewery websites because they block all alcohol related sites as standard but will allow access to supermarket websites where you can buy alcohol. The lottery will be blocked because it is classed as gambling.

IMO, they can't just change the charge. You aren't a suspect on the charge of speeding unless and until you confirm that you were driving. If you weren't a suspect at the time that the information was laid then it's too late for them to summons you for it now if 6 months have elapsed since the alledged speeding event took place.

Ask yourself this: Why didn't they summons you for speeding when they laid the information in the first place? Answer: because they had no evidence that you did it. They can't pre-emptively lay an information just to give themselves more time to gather evidence.

Probably best that you either find an internet cafe and visit Pepipoo or have another free half hour with a solicitor to check all that though, IANAL!

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Cheer's for the reply's again

Don't have one gixxer, I'm going it alone which is why I think any costs could be difficult. They seem happy enough to hand out cash to anyone with LLB at the end of their name.

no not close, I don't post real times or dates. Are you really an operator

that's the one homer. I've emailed and its been forwarded to the 'relevent department'. So that'll be the bin then.

That's what I thought but I have definately read of one case where someone was bullied to take speeding instead of 172(2) after 6months. Theirs always a way or fiddling their way out of these things, but he obviously shouldn't have let them.
Unfortunatley I've been stewing in my own jucies for months now and you have plenty of time to doubt yourself. As they planned.

As you noted earlier the scammers often lay an information for both speeding and S172 and then offer to drop one if you go guilty on the other. IMO, a complete abuse of process. I wouldn't be surprised at the CPS making the same offer to you to given half a chance. To them it's a game and they want to win. It's not about justice or what's right, it's about winning. Since they invariably know the rules of the game better than their opponent the cards are stacked in their favour from the outset. Add some misleading communications from them and you can see why people fold on the court doorstep.

As long as you can convince the mags that you did all that could be reasonably expected of you in trying to ID the driver you should be ok in court. If that means standing at a PTR, saying "Finally, I've seen the video. Now I've seen the photographic evidence I requested on 'xxx date' I know who was driving" then that's what you have to do.

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Mmm, now I've been focused on the diligance in IDing which driver defence in line with s172(4)


link in full - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Uk ... htm#mdiv21 (To anyone new to this, this above is what I'm talking about, 172(4) in defence of a 172(2a) alleged offence)
But you seem to be suggesting that to ID the driver now is a good option, very confusing I know that means the 172(2a) is technically then out the way (though way out of time) but I prosume you mean that if the video shows driver clearly I have to give the name, I'd look stupid not to. But as I'm expecting to see no more that in the photo, conversly it could be stupid to say I can ID driver (if you get me, "it look's the same as photo you should have completed NIP then Mr LoneRanger). I'll have to keep this all in mind, apologies for these last minute jitters

You stopped quoting before you got to the interesting bit of the RTA 1991. From the same section you have quoted but a bit further down:



So the situation is this: You requested pics. You got pics. You told them you couldn't ID the driver and asked for more pics and a copy of the video. They didn't send the video. If they turn up in court and you see the video for the first time and can then ID the driver because it's clearer than the pic you were sent then you should do so and have a legal obligation to do as much. Then you rely on 7a as quoted above which says you are not guilty of a S172 offence because you have given the name of the driver as soon as reasonably practicable.

If they show the video in court and the driver is still not clear then your position becomes even stronger, as long as you have
a) a good explanation as to why you don't know who was driving and needed the pics in the first place and
b) evidence of the actions you took on receipt of the NIP to ascertain who was driving and a plausible explanation of why you were unable to come to a firm conclusion even after trying to find out.

If you just turn up, shrug your shoulders, say "I dunno, and the photo didn't help" then IMO you'll be found guilty. You need to convince the magistrates that you did everything you could to find out who was driving but still couldn't. You need to appear credible and honest to succeed. (I say appear credible because it's entirely possible to tell the truth but look a bit shifty at the same time. This would not help.) If the magistrates believe you are telling the truth then the correct verdict would be NG.

Of course, if it turns out in court that you were clearly lying and could obviously have ID'd the driver all along that's a completely different kettle of fish. You will no doubt be found guilty and get points and a fine to take home.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Take advice!

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Thanks for the quick reply again, I must say that in my pepipoo days I struggled to get replies probably due to the shear amount of topics on the go and I think my case is classed as pretty tried and tested with load of past info.
Good point about 172(7) I have read this and it is something I should, and will, keep in mind. It is absolutely relevant.
As regards the reasons for not knowing on the day and showing reasonable dilegance, the details of events are covered on my pepipoo topic so I've only brushed over it as I origonally was asking about costs and didn't want to complicate matters.
But basically on the day I used my mums car and she borrowed mine (had loaded her car up with rubbish, she needed to go out) then I used mine again when she got back travelling the same route, thus 45min between journeys with no receipts, or way of IDing specific time.

Also have a big pile of letters (5xCopies for CPS, Clerk, Bench) all nice and clearly layed out, as I've been advise for the pepipoo folk. Even asked supermarket to view CCTV footage (no reply, but receipt of sending it shows diligance)
Hope this is of help to anyone else in the same boat reading this, Welshy's post on pepipoo detailing his day in court for an "unsure of driver case" is really handy. wish me luck, I'll keep anyone interested posted.

Good luck. I'd be interested in hearing how you get on.

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

So the PTRev's done with. In brief - awaiting trail, requesting CPS review via post.
......................
Details for those interested - Bit of let down as it still goes on. Two case's in an empty, unused court. First one was a bike 70 in a 60 viewing video I handed his friend (dad?) a bit of paper with 'pepipoo.com' on and told him to look on there for future reference, looked a bit to late as I don't think he said much at all to the clerk. It's sad when people don't know there rights, its like being thrown in the lions den.

Me next, clerk knew the defence to show diligence, agreed. Had to make a point to ask them to show video !! probably not read the summons 'to view video evidence' Terrible video the copper should have been breathalized the camera was all over the place just caught back of car at end showing just the same as photo.

Both clerk and CPS very nice esp. CPS she was lovely bet she's not there for the trail. Said to CPS that I had already asked to view this video (or more photo's) months ago to ID driver and now unfortunatley it's beyond the 6months timing limit (yer he knows that). She said the police don't need to give this info until you plea 'not guilt' and trail starts.
Said of no further help, clerk said 'so you want the video played in court' I said yes OK then, then she said, why, how does that help your case? I said no my defence is based on diligance in IDing driver, but you offered so you can do. (felt like saying well don't ask then, but need friends not enemies). So it looks like it won't be played and I didn't ask for a copy, for the previous case they offered him the video, now I slightly regret not asking for it, even though I'm not actually defending a speeding charge or anything to do with video.

Clerk said 'diligance, so you asked for a photo .... -staring at me waiting for responce- so I started to expain what happend said 'obviously first discussed at length with mother to pinpoint journey times' described day, but she butted in while in mid flow 'save that for the trail as it won't make any difference today'?

Anyway I turned to CPS and said 'I've got a photo of the area and a map showing the journeys would you like a copy, and do you have all the documents you need as I have some copies of everything (5X +origonals) she said no. I asked if she thought it would need to go to trail, she said 'it will be reviewed before trail, CPS only just got all documents from police since 'not guilty plea'. (not true I saw it all a month ago at the plea hearing, when prosecution leafed through it)
I said I will write a letter asking for a review anyway should I address it to you, 'no as I may not be me looking at it' Clerk said 'well you look very organized there the magistrates like that'. Got a trial date.

So I hope if nothing else I showed not only diligence in IDing driver (all in letters anyway) but diligence in knowing what to say and do. I just hope it was noted by the CPS. (thanks so far pepipoo, big one to come )

..............................

- So now - Letter to CPS next week, as trial soon, requesting full review as believe I have
strong case for 'resonable diligance' with brief list of measures taken.
- may post direct to 'Chief Crown Prosecutor' at local CPS office for consideration, as that way it
goes straight to the top.

- Anyone got a view on this letter? I may post a full pack of documents with it
If that fails to work I'll just have to keep preparing for trial.

Your views are always welcomed.

Just thought I'd let you know got letter on Friday from CPS.

No evidence case dropped.



did I ever doubt it
um well a bit.

all's well that ends well.

Mainly for Dr L as he wanted to know how I get on with the costs claim.
Well I asked for just over £200 including the 15ish prep time at £9.25/Hr.
Asked me for proof and receipts.
Wrote back with slightly revised claim, 45p/mile travel to and from court.
2 x parking costs, copies of rec eipts of postage (most have price on), No. of photocopies made (listed in detail what they are) no receipt as done in self service library 10p/copy (there are cheaper places but there you go )
Wrote to me with offer of just over £50 and told cannot pay for prep time unless I am a solicitor defending myself, and quoting past case where this occured.
So as I thought, not a bad offer all the same, almost matches the £60 I was once offered . I'm considering writing back but have no cases to quote where a litigant in person got cost for prep. time even though there are many on Pepipoo who have.
That's the situation hope it helps.

Civil Procedure Rules.


Section 52 litigants in person: Rule 48.6
52.1In order to qualify as an expert for the purpose of rule 48.6(3)© (expert assistance in connection with assessing the claim for costs), the person in question must be a

(1)barrister,

(2) solicitor,

(3) Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives,

(4) Fellow of the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen,

(5) aw costs draftsman who is a member of the Academy of Experts,

(6) law costs draftsman who is a member of the Expert Witness Institute.

52.2Where a litigant in person wishes to prove that he has suffered financial loss he should produce to the court any written evidence he relies on to support that claim, and serve a copy of that evidence on any party against whom he seeks costs at least 24 hours before the hearing at which the question may be decided.

52.3 Where a litigant in person commences detailed assessment proceedings under rule 47.6 he should serve copies of that written evidence with the notice of commencement.

52.4 The amount, which may be allowed to a litigant in person under rule 46.3(5)(b) and rule 48.6(4), is £9.25 per hour.

52.5 Attention is drawn to rule 48.6(6)(b). A solicitor who, instead of acting for himself, is represented in the proceedings by his firm or by himself in his firm name, is not, for the purpose of the Civil Procedure Rules, a litigant in person

_________________
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

So what if you hire an appropriate technical engineer to investigate the technicalities of your case, such as to analyse the video evidence to check the validity of the speeding allegation and the operation and use of the speed measuring method.

Then if you have the necessary technical knowledge and qualifications to provide the professional technical services required, this is surely no different to when a solicitor provides the necessary professional services for his own case, so surely can be similarly charged as a legitimate cost for necessary professional technical services.