Speed Camera

[Acwats]

I read this in Super Bike and have seen info on a web site. No guarantees but it may help somebody in the future.

MAGISTRATES' courts could grind to a halt if thousands of motorists exploit a legal loophole unwittingly exposed by a Welsh driver. Magistrates had no choice but to find Phillip Dennis, of Whitford, Flintshire, not guilty of speeding when his case was heard on Thursday. He had omitted to sign the standard form which is sent to the owner of each vehicle caught by a speed camera - and Mold magistrates said they couldn't accept the form as evidence. Police have no power to compel car owners to sign the form and have been expecting someone to spot the loophole. Yesterday the Association of British Drivers, representing about 2,500 motorists, predicted drivers would soon get wind of the court case. "Motorists are always very quick to seek any way to avoid paying for their speeding ticket, particularly when they've been caught by cameras because they resent very much the way the cameras operate," said spokesman Tony Vickers. "The cameras have very much reduced public respect for the police and local authorities. "People are only too glad to find a way to beat the system." He said motorists who receive a speeding ticket after being caught on camera could opt to have their case heard in court, rather than pay the fine without quibble. "If a lot of people take up this option it will have another side-effect, which will be to clog up the magistrates' courts with hundreds or thousands of motorists all trying to avoid paying the fine. "The implications for the legal system are interesting, to say the least." Although the ABD did not condone breaking the highway laws, it said it would place details of the loophole on its own website for other drivers to read. "I'm sure a lot of people will try it on and see whether it gets them anywhere." The prospect of using the loophole could look especially appealing to people who already had endorsements on their licences, said Mr Vickers. "They should bear in mind that if they fail, they will end up paying the full fine rather than the 50% they would pay if they put their hand up." When a police camera takes a photograph of a speeding vehicle, the vehicle's registered owner is sent a form asking who the driver was at the time. It is an offence not to complete the form and name the driver - but the owner does not have to sign it. If the form has not been signed, the courts cannot take any notice of it. Magistrates in Mold were asked to prove a case of speeding against Phillip Dennis, 34, of Gwibnant Farm, Downing Road, Whitford, near Holywell. But clerk Paul Conlon pointed out that the form naming the defendant as the driver was unsigned. The driver had provided the information required of him but there was no requirement under that section of the law for the form to be signed. Magistrates said they were not happy but had to find the defendant not guilty in his absence. Chairman John Beard suggested the police should go back to defendants and ask them to sign the form. But he was advised that as the law now stood the only requirement was to stipulate the name of the driver, and that there was no legal requirement to sign it even if police did go back and request a signature. Nobody was available from North Wales Police to comment yesterday. But one police source said there had been concern that once the loophole was spotted "it could open the flood gates." He said, "The police generally have been waiting for someone to appeal against a conviction on this point but no one has yet. "We have basically been keeping our heads down. "Some of my colleagues say we should just make sure people sign the forms but others are a bit concerned that to do that is tricking people into something they do not have to do. "The trouble is when this is highlighted they will all be sending the forms back unsigned." RoadPeace, the charity for road-accident victims, said the loophole showed that cameras and computers were no substitute for a police presence on the roads. Chairman Zoë Stow said, "It illustrates that we can't just deal with these things as a bureaucratic issue and send forms through the post. "It's disappointing that the law is poorly drafted and nobody seems to care enough to do it properly." Speed cameras have proliferated in South and North Wales since the Home Office gave police permission to use fines to pay for enforcement, rather than sending the money to the Treasury. Latest figures show that in 2001 the number of speeding tickets issued by South Wales Police was 38% higher than in 2000.

The Speed Trap Bible[/url

[chazpowerslide]

All very well untill you get prosececuted for perverting the course of justice or obstruction, far more serious than a speeding fine.....................

This came up in the bike and car mags a while ago and the concencus in the end seemed to be that the potential consequences of of not siging the form could be far worse than siging.

It all seems to hinge around weather an un-signed document is admissable as evedence in the court or not.

It all seems pretty pointless when the modern digital speed cameras take as good a photo of the drivers face/detail on the vehicle ect as it does the index mark.

It's up to you to proove you were not the driver, not the courts.

Five-0.com has some threads on this but I'm to much of a technaphobe to be able to link it.

Chaz.

[Tony wright]

As a Law abiding citizen I can confirm that there is also another loophole in the system. My vehicle was unfortunately snapped at 56mph in a 40mph limit. When the document dropped through my letter box telling me I had been caught I had some memory loss and couldn't remember if I was driving or my wife was driving at the alleged time of the offence. After requesting proof  ie; photographic evidence I was still none the wiser. I sent a cheque for the fine but told them I wasn't going to accept the 3 penalty points as the photographic evidence was not clear. And by luck the Magistrates aren't allowed to prosecute the registered keeper of the vehicle unless they were driving at the alleged time of the offence, and they aren't allowed to accept any money either. I then received my cheque back and a loving letter saying they were not going to proceed any further.

I'll leave it upto you to decide who was driving at the said time of the offence.

Tony