I wondered if anyone would like to offer advice on this.

I have accepted guilt in a fixed camera incident (speeding at 37 in a
30mph), however, I only did this after I recently received sufficient
evidence from the safety camera partnership (a picture of my vehicle). I
insisted on receiving this before accepting responsibility because even
though I knew it was 'probably' me who committed the offence, as I knew I
was driving in that general area at the time of the offence, I was not
totally sure I was there at that time. I am also concerned that it is
extremely easy to replicate number plates, so I wanted to see a picture so I
could identify unique characteristics of my car.

It took 2 months to finally get evidence from the safety camera partnership.
They would only send the picture to me after I had sent a picture to them
first (!!), and a number of letters preceded this. I have now accepted
guilt, and want to take the option of a £60 'donation' and attendance at a
'speedchoice' workshop. This is a workshop offered instead of 3 points being
added to my license. However, the safety camera partnership are saying that
the offer of attendance at the workshop instead of the points has been
revoked, as I did not admit guilt within 28 days.

In essence, I am arguing that it is grossly unfair that the partnership has
tried to pressurise me into admitting guilt to an offence with a time
limited inducement, without presenting with sufficient facts to confirm
culpability. They have deliberately withheld information from me which could
have helped me to confirm that my car (and me as the driver) were
responsible. Because they did this, it was not possible for me to respond to
the NIP within 28 days as they stipulate, and therefore could not be
eligible for a 'speedchoice' workshop instead of a fixed penalty.

Any comments / views? Is there any legal recourse I can take with this? Does
this in any way breech my human rights?!

Cheers

James

James wrote:
I wondered if anyone would like to offer advice on this.

I have accepted guilt in a fixed camera incident (speeding at 37 in a
30mph), however, I only did this after I recently received sufficient
evidence from the safety camera partnership (a picture of my
vehicle). I insisted on receiving this before accepting
responsibility because even though I knew it was 'probably' me who
committed the offence, as I knew I was driving in that general area
at the time of the offence, I was not totally sure I was there at
that time. I am also concerned that it is extremely easy to replicate
number plates, so I wanted to see a picture so I could identify
unique characteristics of my car.
It took 2 months to finally get evidence from the safety camera
partnership. They would only send the picture to me after I had sent
a picture to them first (!!), and a number of letters preceded this.
I have now accepted guilt, and want to take the option of a £60
'donation' and attendance at a 'speedchoice' workshop. This is a
workshop offered instead of 3 points being added to my license.
However, the safety camera partnership are saying that the offer of
attendance at the workshop instead of the points has been revoked, as
I did not admit guilt within 28 days.
In essence, I am arguing that it is grossly unfair that the
partnership has tried to pressurise me into admitting guilt to an
offence with a time limited inducement, without presenting with
sufficient facts to confirm culpability. They have deliberately
withheld information from me which could have helped me to confirm
that my car (and me as the driver) were responsible. Because they did
this, it was not possible for me to respond to the NIP within 28 days
as they stipulate, and therefore could not be eligible for a
'speedchoice' workshop instead of a fixed penalty.
Any comments / views? Is there any legal recourse I can take with
this? Does this in any way breech my human rights?!

Cheers

James

You were offered an inducement to quickly admit the offence, you did not
take up that offer, it is no longer available.

James wrote:
I wondered if anyone would like to offer advice on this.

I have accepted guilt in a fixed camera incident (speeding at 37 in a
30mph), however, I only did this after I recently received sufficient
evidence from the safety camera partnership (a picture of my vehicle). I
insisted on receiving this before accepting responsibility because even
though I knew it was 'probably' me who committed the offence, as I knew
I was driving in that general area at the time of the offence, I was not
totally sure I was there at that time. I am also concerned that it is
extremely easy to replicate number plates, so I wanted to see a picture
so I could identify unique characteristics of my car.

It took 2 months to finally get evidence from the safety camera
partnership. They would only send the picture to me after I had sent a
picture to them first (!!), and a number of letters preceded this. I
have now accepted guilt, and want to take the option of a £60 'donation'
and attendance at a 'speedchoice' workshop. This is a workshop offered
instead of 3 points being added to my license. However, the safety
camera partnership are saying that the offer of attendance at the
workshop instead of the points has been revoked, as I did not admit
guilt within 28 days.

In essence, I am arguing that it is grossly unfair that the partnership
has tried to pressurise me into admitting guilt to an offence with a
time limited inducement, without presenting with sufficient facts to
confirm culpability. They have deliberately withheld information from me
which could have helped me to confirm that my car (and me as the driver)
were responsible. Because they did this, it was not possible for me to
respond to the NIP within 28 days as they stipulate, and therefore could
not be eligible for a 'speedchoice' workshop instead of a fixed penalty.

Any comments / views? Is there any legal recourse I can take with this?
Does this in any way breech my human rights?!

It might be in breach of what is believable. You are supposed to notice
when you are speeding. I assume that you are a reasonably competent
driver who did know that they were in the area and did know that they
were speeding whilst in the area.

Thus the request for the photo would appear to have been in the hope
that the system had screwed up and that you could get off on a
technicality. Worth trying, but, in this instance the gamble hasn't paid
off and they have you dead to rights.

Never mind. It was worth trying. Maybe next time you will be luckier.

--
Sue

Mrcheerful wrote:
James wrote:
I wondered if anyone would like to offer advice on this.

I have accepted guilt in a fixed camera incident (speeding at 37 in a
30mph), however, I only did this after I recently received sufficient
evidence from the safety camera partnership (a picture of my
vehicle). I insisted on receiving this before accepting
responsibility because even though I knew it was 'probably' me who
committed the offence, as I knew I was driving in that general area
at the time of the offence, I was not totally sure I was there at
that time. I am also concerned that it is extremely easy to replicate
number plates, so I wanted to see a picture so I could identify
unique characteristics of my car.
It took 2 months to finally get evidence from the safety camera
partnership. They would only send the picture to me after I had sent
a picture to them first (!!), and a number of letters preceded this.
I have now accepted guilt, and want to take the option of a £60
'donation' and attendance at a 'speedchoice' workshop. This is a
workshop offered instead of 3 points being added to my license.
However, the safety camera partnership are saying that the offer of
attendance at the workshop instead of the points has been revoked, as
I did not admit guilt within 28 days.
In essence, I am arguing that it is grossly unfair that the
partnership has tried to pressurise me into admitting guilt to an
offence with a time limited inducement, without presenting with
sufficient facts to confirm culpability. They have deliberately
withheld information from me which could have helped me to confirm
that my car (and me as the driver) were responsible. Because they did
this, it was not possible for me to respond to the NIP within 28 days
as they stipulate, and therefore could not be eligible for a
'speedchoice' workshop instead of a fixed penalty.
Any comments / views? Is there any legal recourse I can take with
this? Does this in any way breech my human rights?!

Cheers

James

You were offered an inducement to quickly admit the offence, you did
not take up that offer, it is no longer available.

A crooked description of justice if ever I heard one. This needs to be
stopped. The OP was being asked to admit to an offence he did not know, or
had no way of knowing he had committed.

Gaz

Palindrome wrote:
James wrote:
Thus the request for the photo would appear to have been in the hope
that the system had screwed up and that you could get off on a
technicality.

And by 'technicality' you mean asking the Crown to divulge the evidence held
against the accused?

If he admitted the offence, but it later turned out to be not the OP who
committed the deed, would perverting the course of justice be a reasonable
charge?

Gaz

Gaz wrote:
snip
A crooked description of justice if ever I heard one. This needs to be
stopped. The OP was being asked to admit to an offence he did not know, or
had no way of knowing he had committed.

I do hope that the OP did know that he had been speeding. What he didn't
know was if they had caught him and had enough evidence to convict. They
had and they did.

--
Sue

Gaz wrote:
Palindrome wrote:
James wrote:
Thus the request for the photo would appear to have been in the hope
that the system had screwed up and that you could get off on a
technicality.

And by 'technicality' you mean asking the Crown to divulge the evidence held
against the accused?

If he admitted the offence, but it later turned out to be not the OP who
committed the deed, would perverting the course of justice be a reasonable
charge?

If he knew that he hadn't been speeding, then he would have been
confident of the outcome. Why would anyone who had not been speeding
admit to have done so?

Oh, knowing that you were guilty of speeding but hoping that they had
caught someone else instead, or hoping that there was something wrong
with the evidence, is fair enough. But it is hardly "perverting the
course of justice" to have got off with an offence that you actually did..

--
Sue

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:22:29 GMT, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

James wrote:
I wondered if anyone would like to offer advice on this.

I have accepted guilt in a fixed camera incident (speeding at 37 in a
30mph), however, I only did this after I recently received sufficient
evidence from the safety camera partnership (a picture of my
vehicle). I insisted on receiving this before accepting
responsibility because even though I knew it was 'probably' me who
committed the offence, as I knew I was driving in that general area
at the time of the offence, I was not totally sure I was there at
that time. I am also concerned that it is extremely easy to replicate
number plates, so I wanted to see a picture so I could identify
unique characteristics of my car.
It took 2 months to finally get evidence from the safety camera
partnership. They would only send the picture to me after I had sent
a picture to them first (!!), and a number of letters preceded this.
I have now accepted guilt, and want to take the option of a £60
'donation' and attendance at a 'speedchoice' workshop. This is a
workshop offered instead of 3 points being added to my license.
However, the safety camera partnership are saying that the offer of
attendance at the workshop instead of the points has been revoked, as
I did not admit guilt within 28 days.
In essence, I am arguing that it is grossly unfair that the
partnership has tried to pressurise me into admitting guilt to an
offence with a time limited inducement, without presenting with
sufficient facts to confirm culpability. They have deliberately
withheld information from me which could have helped me to confirm
that my car (and me as the driver) were responsible. Because they did
this, it was not possible for me to respond to the NIP within 28 days
as they stipulate, and therefore could not be eligible for a
'speedchoice' workshop instead of a fixed penalty.
Any comments / views? Is there any legal recourse I can take with
this? Does this in any way breech my human rights?!

Cheers

James

You were offered an inducement to quickly admit the offence, you did not
take up that offer, it is no longer available.

Excuse me, he admitted guilt immediately *on being provided with the evidence
requested* - a perfectly reasonable request. Perhaps his wife was also driving
in the same area that day, and he needed the photo to hopefully confirm who was
driving.

The 28 day clock starts when he sees the photo, IMHO - not when the NIP arrives.
That's only fair and just. If the camera operators are unable to get the photo
in a reasonable timeframe (shouldn't be hard - 'give us the NIP reference number
and your email address, Sir - you'll have it within the hour') that's their
problem, not his.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

"Palindrome" wrote in message

If he knew that he hadn't been speeding, then he would have been confident
of the outcome. Why would anyone who had not been speeding admit to have
done so?

I didn't know I had been speeding, or even if it was my vehicle. Thats why I
asked for further information. They refused to send it. I didn't want to say
it was definitely me until I knew it was definitely me.

Oh, knowing that you were guilty of speeding but hoping that they had
caught someone else instead, or hoping that there was something wrong with
the evidence, is fair enough. But it is hardly "perverting the course of
justice" to have got off with an offence that you actually did..

It seems reasonable to me to ask for further information before accepting
guilt for an offence, particularly if the alleged offender cant remember
having committed it.

"Mrcheerful" wrote

You were offered an inducement to quickly admit the offence, you did not
take up that offer, it is no longer available.


Is that legal / ethical?

I didn't take up that offer because I was not sure that I had committed the
offence. I needed further details of the offence clarified before I could do
this, because even though I was driving vaguely in that area at that time (I
am not sure of my exact movements because I was visiting a friend using
satnav to direct me as it was an unfamiliar area) and I did not recall
either speeding or being flashed by a camera for speeding.