Advice on two speed cameras (one continuous speeding incident) and taking it to court

Hi there. 

I currently have 3 points on my license (expiring July 2027).  I have also attended a speed awareness course

I recently received 2 NIPs (1 minute apart and travelling in the same direction of travel, as best I can tell) as follows:

1. 35 in 30mph @ 19:19 on A47 King Richards Road (Westbound), Leicester - camera 1240
2. 36 in 30mph @ 19:20 on A47 Hinckley Road / Wyngate Drive, Leicester - camera 1257

I have tried to view the video/photo evidence on their website but nothing appears.  I am not contesting the offences - just that it was a single offence, measured twice.

I have written to Leicestershire Police asking for them to consider this as a single continuous speeding incident.  They responded with a brief "I am unable to intervene in the process for this matter".  I appreciate that the decision to treat as a single continuous offence lies with the court, though the police force could exercise some discretion.  I have also written to them asking for copies of the video/photo evidence.

So, my questions:

1. If they are unable to find video/photo evidence, is this likely to be dropped (before or at court)?
2. Assuming that they are not dropped, what's the best approach?   If I go to court to ask the magistrate to treat the two as a single offence, and even if I am successful, I will probably end up paying a much bigger fine than the £100 fixed penalty (but saves me the anxiety of driving around with 9 points until July next year).  Do I need to contest the charge/plead guilty in this scenario?
3. Can someone recommend a good solicitor (ideally one in Leicester) who does this type of thing with their eyes closed?

Thanks,

Skellig

Those cameras are 875m apart. At a continuous 35mph, that would take you 56 seconds to travel, which would match your narrative.
Suppose, however, that you did 375m at 35mph, dropped to 28mph for 300m, and then sped back up to 36mph for the last 275m of the gap. That would take you 65 seconds, which would still show as a one minute gap on the NIPs, but would be two separate offences.

What I'm getting at is: Are you quite sure you never dropped below 30mph? Do the NIPs specify the number of seconds into each minute each picture was taken at? Because 19:19 and 19:20 are one minute apart, but (for example) 19:19.01 and 19:20:29 will also show one minute when rounded but would prove you did 2 offences.

Thanks Dr Satan

No - the NIPs dont include seconds and I dont have photos with timestamps either.

Out of interest, are you saying that, had I dropped below 30mph during the 1 min period, it would make a difference to the court's determination?  Or are you just trying to validate the distance travelled?

Thanks,

Flann

OP, the police are not obliged to provide you with any evidence at this stage. If they do not, it will be disclosed before you go to court.

In brief:

If your speed didn't drop below the limit between the two cameras then a single offence - one fine, one set of points.

If your speed did drop below the limit between the two cameras, then two offences committed on the same occasion - two fines but one set of points.

In brief:

If your speed didn't drop below the limit between the two cameras then a single offence - one fine, one set of points.

If your speed did drop below the limit between the two cameras, then two offences committed on the same occasion - two fines but one set of points.

Ah, thanks.  That makes sense in theory but how we I or they prove that the speed had/hadnt dropped below the 30 mark without a 3rd camera in the middle (which likely would not have fired in that scenario)?  Or are the camera systems more intelligent than that now?

Logically, speeding must be a continuous offence insofar as it is impossible to exceed the speed limit instantaneously. The logical argument would then be that if you were exceeding the speed limit for 1 metre, 100 metres, a mile, or 10 miles, that would only be a single continuous offence - regardless of how many separate witnesses or cameras saw you do it. Arguably, if you were to continuously exceed the speed limit going from an ordinary road to a motorway, or vice versa, that would/could constitute 2 separate offences as the offences are created by different legislative provisions.

Logically, to argue that being caught twice whilst continuously exceeding the same contiguous speed limit somehow constituted 2 separate offences because you were caught twice would require some logical argument that elements of the same continuous offence somehow constituted separate offences.

There is an obiter (throw-away, or not binding) comment in some High Court judgement to the effect that it cannot be right that a driver, having been caught speeding at the start of a journey would then effectively have a free pass to continue speeding for the rest of his journey - but that somewhat unlearned comment from an otherwise learned judge not only  seeks to ignore the principles of duplicity and continuous offences, it ignores that (unless the police are too lazy to do any proper police work, and issue fixed penalties like confetti), exceeding the speed limit continuously for say 100 miles would be an aggravating factor to that offence - meaning that the driver would not in effect have a free pass.

Logically, it would be somewhat harder to argue that you cannot be prosecuted twice for the same continuous offence if the court are not satisfied that it was a single continuous offence. As a general rule, the prosecution's burden of proof is "beyond any reasonable doubt", and the defence's burden of proof is "on the balance of probabilities".

The fact that the website does not show you the money shot does not mean that the police do not have it. If you were caught by a camera and the police do not have the photo(s), logically they must have a very effective Ouija board in order to issue the NIP.

If you dispose of criminal liability for an offence by accepting a fixed penalty, you cannot subsequently [lawfully] be prosecuted for that offence (S. 78(2) RTOA 1988). The cheapest way out - assuming that you can persuade the court, on the balance of probabilities that it was a single continuous offence, would be to accept a fixed penalty for one the the "instances", and then defend the other on the basis that the prosecution is an abuse of process/statute barred.

Please do not ask us what an unknown bench on an unknown day will decide.

Thank you for the brilliant (and entertaining - I'm left with the confetti image!) summary. 

Practically then, I think I'll wait until I get a response to my question to the police about the photo evidence (I totally agree with your 'Ouija board' comment) and if they decide to cancel both tickets (very unlikely) then I dont need to do anything.

In the scenario you propose, I'd just accept the conditional offer of fixed penalty on the first of the two (19:19 timestamp) and then request to appear at the magistrate's court to argue that the 2nd one is dropped based on the continuous incident.

Is there any way of progressing the second case by way of correspondance, without actually attending the court?
If the magistrate agrees that it should be treated as a single offence - will I still in that scenario have to pay a fine (having already paid the £100 fixed penalty fee on the other notice), court + surcharge?

Interestingly, when I spoke with the Road Safety Team at Leicestershire just now (to my surprise, a very friendly and helpful bunch) they said that the reason they rejected my request for it to be treated as a single incident is because I've attended a speed awareness course in the last 3 years.  I think their logic is that they should reserve that discretion to drivers with no blemishes on their record.  As you say, they are under no obligation to deal with that in the police force anyway - it naturally sits with the magistrate.

Thank you for the brilliant ... summary.

If it was a brilliant summary, why do you feel the need to ask questions that have already been addressed?

Thanks Andy. 

I dont think the follow-on question was answered earlier (unless I missed it)


I probably didnt word it very clearly.  So the scenario I'm trying to understand is:

1. I've closed off the first offence as a Fixed Penalty and paid the penalty fee
2. Then I go to the magistrate's court and she/he agrees that both should have been treated as a single offence.
3. The 2nd offence then falls away
4. I leave the court without (a) paying court fees, (b) paying any fine (calculated as a % of monthly salary) and (c) receiving the additional points on my license.

Is point 4 correct?

 

Thanks Andy. 

I dont think the follow-on question was answered earlier (unless I missed it)


I probably didnt word it very clearly.  So the scenario I'm trying to understand is:

1. I've closed off the first offence as a Fixed Penalty and paid the penalty fee
2. Then I go to the magistrate's court and she/he agrees that both should have been treated as a single offence.
3. The 2nd offence then falls away
4. I leave the court without (a) paying court fees, (b) paying any fine (calculated as a % of monthly salary) and (c) receiving the additional points on my license.

Is point 4 correct?

Only if the magistrates (3 of them) agree with you. If they don't, you'll have another 3 points and be about £1,000 out of pocket.