View Full Version : Speeding ticket

Mercenary Pilot
19th Dec 2006, 10:02
Hello and a very Merry Christmas to all my fellow Pruners. :)

I remember reading something on here about getting speeding tickets wavied on a technicallity. There was a link with a draft letter posted up. I did a search but couldnt find it. Can anyone point me in the right direction?



Capt Chambo
19th Dec 2006, 10:12
Was this what you were looking for.....

Page: [1]
Message << Older Topic Newer Topic >>
speeding - 23/9/2006 10:04:21 AM

"Super Member"

"Super Member"

Posts: 475
Joined: 31/1/2006
Status: offline

just read this on another forum

A simple letter using legal wording has opened up a new route to get speeding charges dropped, according to experts. The statement is at the centre of a high court appeal to be heard this summer. but for now police forces accross the country are dropping cases when it has been used. People accused of speeding have been simply been sending in the statement in response to NOTICES OF PROSECUTION (NIPS).

Speed cameras rely on a law requiring you to say who was driving your car at the time of the alledged offence. Not saying who it was will lead to a charge of withholding information under section 172 of the road traffic act, While admitting to being the driver will lead to a fixed penalty for speeding.
But another law says that before suspects are questioned about an offence they should receive a formal caution - and no caution is given when a speeding notice is delivered through the post.

The standard statement below, is designed to accompany an admission to being the driver. It points out that, since no caution has been given, the admission cannot be used as evidence in court.

Specialist road traffic lawyer Robert Dobson whos clients case is to be heard by the high court says " In English law there's a requirement that if a statement is going to be used against somebody, that person has to be cautioned under section 78 of the police and criminal evidence act. If a caution hasn't been given, then the argument runs that anything that's said cannot be used as evidence in court. We've complied with section 172 of the road traffic act by identifying the driver. But what we are saying is that we're not going to allow that information to be then used against us. Any charge under section 172 must fail as we have complied. And if any charge is brought for speeding we'll say how do you know who was driving?"

The loophole letter called the PACE Witness Statement is a catch 22 for police and camera partnerships according to Dobson.

Even though someone has admitted to being the driver, that admission can't be used against him as he didn't recieve a caution. If an officer then visits him to issue a caution then only statements after said caution can be used and the caution gives the right to silence.

Forces have dropped cases all over the country. very few people who have used this letter have been convicted. The met and many more forces have not issued summons to anybody who has sent the statement back.

Remember different forces reach different decisions and there is no guarrantee that a case will be dropped.


If your car is snapped speeding you will be sent a notice of intended prosecution asking who was driving. If it was you and you want to respond with a PACE statement fill out the form by writing "Please see the attached" where it asks for details. Then attach a letter with the standard wording shown below.




Further to the above Notice of Intended Prosecution, I confirm That the following individual was driving the above vehicle at the time of the alledged motoring offence.


As this statement is provided under the threat of criminal penalty (funke v France) and as I have not received the caution required by paragraph 10.1 of PACE Code C (Mawdesley v the Chief Constable of Cheshire (2004) 1 All E.R.58 ), I make this statement on the express understanding that it shall not be used or disclosed in any proceedings of whatever nature against myself.

Yours Sincerely



looks and sounds complicated but basically they can't use your details in court because noone said "you have the right to remain silent" and all that to you before they sent the letter out to you.

this was in motorcycle news and can be found at www.pepipoo.com which is an anti speed camera campaigners website which is funding the high court appeal.

It might work it might not, but if it saves you 60 and 3 points why not try it

19th Dec 2006, 10:39
Anybody got an Australian version????:ok:

Mercenary Pilot
19th Dec 2006, 10:48
That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks Capt Chambo much appreciated.


Capt Chambo
19th Dec 2006, 10:50
Let us know how you get on....

19th Dec 2006, 13:01
Or an Irish version!!!

Mercenary Pilot
19th Dec 2006, 13:26
Let us know how you get on....

Certainly will! :E

19th Dec 2006, 15:10
Don't forget the defence that always works..
"My name is Mark Milton and I was just trying my car out", coupled with "I was just fetching my takeaway, and although the camera flashed I was not speeding"

19th Dec 2006, 15:22
Here we go again yada yada yada. Stick your tehnicalities up your ass, if it were a thug accused of assault getting off on a technicality you would be outraged. Tell me the difference. Doesn't the law apply to god-fearing white law abiding gun toting blah blah citizens? Your hypocrisy is the the reply to your own question.

19th Dec 2006, 15:46
Of course the law applies to everyone. It is how different laws are applied that it is at issue here.

If the motorist has to comply with the letter of the law without exception, latitude or discretion, why should the same not apply to the prosecuting authorities ? PACE requires the police to caution a suspect, yet this has not been done for fixed penalty notices. If they want others to stick slavishly to the rules, better set a good example by sticking to the rules themselves.

The thug accused of assault is entitled to the right to silence and is not placed under duress to incriminate himself. The nature of the offences is completely different, yet the thug has more rights than someone without any malicious intent who completed their journey without harming anyone.

On a different note, how do you know whether M_P is white ? (or religious or owns a firearm for that matter). The high horse is not a good platform from which to make comments that could be seen as racist.

Capt. Queeg
19th Dec 2006, 15:53
Talk about "yada yada yada here we go again"..... speeding = assault... ri-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

How about they shove their technicalities up your ass?? That'd be a whole lot funnier!! :ok:

Step right up, folks, get in line and shove your technicalities up Binos' ass.....!!! :uhoh:


Come on, Merc pilot, admit it... were you whinging about thugs getting off assault charges again??? :rolleyes:

Brewster Buffalo
19th Dec 2006, 22:11
Of course the law applies to everyone..............

Well you would like to think so however.....

"Two months ago we revealed that police have been using their own"loophole" to cancel speeding tickets for their officers who have been caught speeding. This happened as Britain's top traffic policeman launched a crackdown on motorists who use legal loopholes to avoid convictions for speeding..." ;)

Newsnight 18th Dec 2006

Howard Hughes
19th Dec 2006, 22:47
May I just say, that I see no problem in using every law available to you! This is of course one of the ideals held in a free society.

Having said that, may I just caution you that should you succeed, you may very well raise the ire of the constabulary, now this may be on an individual or group basis, at which point you could find yourself on the end of a well directed campaign against you. Then once you are caught contravening the law, you will have the book summarily 'thrown at you', at which point you will have no recourse and it will be impossible to prove that you were targetted!

Just pay the fine and be done with it, I mean you were speeding right?;)

Cheers, HH.:ok:

PS: Of course you could employ the same tactics as a well know former Federal Court Judge and nominate any number of foreigners, dead or disabled people as the drivers of your car....:=

19th Dec 2006, 22:53
I'm surprised you Dunnundaners don't just nominate one of the wandering indigenous outback residents. I mean they all look the same, don't they? Plod couldn't prove a thing.

Howard Hughes
19th Dec 2006, 22:54
We would if we could spell any of their names....;)

19th Dec 2006, 23:51
And remember, just as the law enforcer states that anything you say can and will be used against you, its time to come out with,

"please don't hit me again officer."

Mercenary Pilot
20th Dec 2006, 00:29
Hehehe....it wasn’t me caught speeding, it was my mother. She’s been driving for around 30 years and usually tootles around at embarrassingly slow speeds. She has being done for doing 42 in a 40 so I thought it would be an amusing and interesting Xmas pressie by getting her off with it. I could just pay a lawyer I guess but them buggers make enough money as it is. :ok:

I read Binoculars comments but couldn’t understand how religion, race, firearms and violent crime fitted into it...how bizarre. :rolleyes:

Maybe technicality was the wrong word, maybe I should have said something like “Does anyone have the correct legal information to stop a family member incriminating themselves unfairly in a motoring conviction?"

20th Dec 2006, 00:57
42 in a 40? I thought the ACPO recommendation was limit + 10% plus 2mph?

Where was that?

Flight Detent
20th Dec 2006, 01:10
Keef -

In this case, caught at 42 in a 40 zone actually means that the person was actually clocked at about 46, then the 10% was deducted, and then the speed noted on the fine was 42!

This is the way it's normally done hereabouts!

Cheers, FD

Howard Hughes
20th Dec 2006, 02:02
If thats the case MP, then try this one it worked for my mother in law. She was in the same situation 35 years of driving without so much as a parking ticket, got a blasted speed camera fine for 66 in a 60 zone. So she sent them a later stating her good driving record, explaining the fact that she doesnt normally speed, was in an unfamiliar area, didnt see the last speed sign and promised not to do it again. She received a letter back saying that the matter had been dropped.

Worth a try!!:ok:

PS: 42 in 40 zone, even minus the 10%. what a joke....:hmm:

20th Dec 2006, 02:18
Having collected more than my fair share of HORT1 forms in my life here in Scotland, I find it quite easy to avoid the newer speed camera/red light camera by using the "not sure who was driving at that time" excuse. As long as there are more than one persons on the insurance for said car you can get away with it under European Law regardin encriminateing yourself.