Moblie Camera Van Certificates

[whity123]

I was caught speeding by a camera van however when the certificates have been inspected the hyphen is not in the same position on the 2 documents therefore they could be seen as being different certificates and in the absence of the correct certificate the validity of the recording of the offence can be put in doubt the error is for example (ab- 123) on one the other has (ab -123) could this be strong enough to overturn a penelty

[Hopkirk]

You are grasping at straws. You were caught speeding. Take the penalty and learn your lesson.

[Captain2]

^^^ Hear, hear, Hopkirk.

'I was caught speeding......' - says it all.

[johnny.5]

you could also check the validity of the vans parking . Was it legally parked ?

[Tilly2]

You were speeding. That's the bottom line.

[Buenchico]

If you rejected the opportunity to pay a fixed penalty the matter would come before a court. The magistrates would then have to decide whether the prosecution had proved "beyond reasonable doubt" that you were speeding. The chances of them thinking that differently-placed hyphens create a "reasonable doubt" are, in my opinion, totally ZERO.

If you try to fight the matter on the basis of such flimsy evidence, you'll almost certainly end up havin to fork out a lot more money (and posibly losing yet more through having to take a day off wok to attend court).

Pay up and stick to the speed limit!

[douglas9401]

One doesn't have to look far to see how easy it is to make a typo that doesn't alter the sense of the piece.

Best take your fixed penelty and stay moblie.

[Hopkirk]

Mr Loophole, Nick Freeman has managed to get the likes of David Beckham and Sir Alex off with tactics like that.
However they have had to pay him very handsomely for his services.
Can you afford it?

[New Judge]

Where do we start?

A reading taken by an approved detection device operated in the approved manner is assumed to be accurate unless the contrary is proved to the court. If the defendant defends a speeding charge on the basis that the device cannot be relied upon, it is up to him to prove that to the court. The prosecution does not have to prove it is accurate providing they have evidence that the device is type-approved and that it was operated in the correct manner.

An out-of-date calibration certificate does not prove that a device cannot be relied upon. In fact even the lack of a certificate entirely does not do so. It may help a defendant prove it is unreliable if he has other evidence, but that's all. The deficiency you describe (which is no more than a typographical error) does nothing whatsoever to help you.

// you could also check the validity of the vans parking . Was it legally parked ? //

It makes no difference to whether the driver was speeding where the van was parked.

//Mr Loophole, Nick Freeman has managed to get the likes of David Beckham and Sir Alex off with tactics like that.//

He secured an acquittal for Sir Alex Ferguson on the basis that a medical condition required him to speed to get to a toilet. Mr Beckham's case was more straightforward. The court was satisfied that the first "Notice of Intended Prosecution" (NIP) was not served on the Registered Keeper (Messrs. Bentley Motors) within 14 days of the alleged offence and so a prosecution could not proceed. This is no "loophole". It is a defence open to any driver.