I was caught by a speed camera a couple of weeks ago, and, whilst I hold my hands up and accept that I did exceed the speed limit, I can't understand the fact that the police don't have to supply evidence of the offence unless I go to court. If I did go to court, it would cost me more. Is this why they do it?
You answered the question yourself - you know that you were speeding. I can never understand why people make a fuss about this, most people know that they were exceeding the speed limit yet some insist on seeing the proof of what they already know
If you refuse to accept what you know to be true and require the prosecution to prove it then yes you will end up paying more costs.
No-one likes getting done for speeding least of all me but just accept it take your 3 points and �60 fine and be more careful next time
Seatrout, as I said, I'm not disputing the fact that I was speeding and I'm not trying to 'get out of it'. All I want to know is why you are not allowed to see the evidence unless it goes to court. I will pay the fine and accept that I did wrong and yes I have learned a lesson so I don't need a lecture, thank you.
But you have answered the question yourself. You know you were speeding, so you are not disputing it, so there is no need for them to show you the proof. If you dispute it, and go to court, they will show you the proof.
I've found the actual answer for you! The Criminal & Procedures Act 1996 paragraph 1(1)a states that the police only have to disclose the evidence if you plead not guilty.
However some forces offer you a photograph - if there is one - of you committing the offence - this is often available to collect from the police station delaing with it whether you dispute it or not - evryone should be entitled to see the evidence against them.
My dad fought his speeding ticket on the basis that the police did not put their hats on when they stopped him. Ended up with a bigger fine than if he had just paid up as usual. Silly old fool.