Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: Alessio on January 05, 2025, 01:19:49 pm
-
I have decided to accept the fixed penalty .
Paid the fine and posted the driving licence details over .
Thanks to all of you for your time and valuable advise
Probably a wise move.
-
I have decided to accept the fixed penalty .
Paid the fine and posted the driving licence details over .
Thanks to all of you for your time and valuable advise
-
There is also the problem that, as far as I know, the prosecution can amend the charge up to the opening of their case at the trial. If anyone who knows what they are doing sees the papers before then that is likely to happen.
IIRC it can be amended up to verdict. Not checked for a while.
-
There is also the problem that, as far as I know, the prosecution can amend the charge up to the opening of their case at the trial. If anyone who knows what they are doing sees the papers before then that is likely to happen.
-
If the charge is technically "wrong" but (including the statement of facts) addresses the same wrong-doing, the court would almost certainly amend the charge if the issue is raised. In order to exploit any such error (and I am far from convinced that there is a fatal error), the OP would need to be convicted by the magistrates without the charge being amended and then appeal against conviction to the Crown Court.
-
The problem with ignoring the fixed penalty, so that you are charged, hopefuly under the wrong act and have to go to court is that it is a high risk strategy, if it fails you could end up seriously out of pocket financially and no one can tell you your chances of success, but the court legal advisor may well not be clued up on the obscurities of this legislation and will be unlikely to be sympathetic to a legalistic defence if you are charged under the wrong legislation and you will be arguing a legal point before him/her. If you are charged under the correct legislation you will have to argue the point made by the policeman, or plead guilty. While it is interesting for the posters here, I think the smart thing is to accept the fixed penalty.
-
[
What about the Pelican Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1987.
Essentially revoked by the The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997. Revoked in turn by The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
-
What about the Pelican Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1987.
I'm open to be corrected, but I thought it's all been subsumed into the latest TSRGD.
-
There is one possibility here.
The offence wording of "Stop a Vehicle Within Pelican Crossing Limits" corresponds to the ZP97001 offence code. This then continues:
Contrary to regulation 18 of the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997, section 25(5) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Now... The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997 have been repealed, so they cannot prosecute you under that act. Legislation.gov likes to pretend it hasn't, but it has.
They should have given you a CoFP you with "Failing to Comply with a S36 Traffic Sign (endorsable) (manned equipment)" instead.
So if you are feeling lucky, you can ignore the CoFP, wait for the police to go to court, and hope they attempt to charge you under the incorrect act.
What about the Pelican Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1987.
-
There is one possibility here.
The offence wording of "Stop a Vehicle Within Pelican Crossing Limits" corresponds to the ZP97001 offence code. This then continues:
Contrary to regulation 18 of the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997, section 25(5) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Now... The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997 have been repealed, so they cannot prosecute you under that act. Legislation.gov likes to pretend it hasn't, but it has.
They should have given you a CoFP you with "Failing to Comply with a S36 Traffic Sign (endorsable) (manned equipment)" instead.
So if you are feeling lucky, you can ignore the CoFP, wait for the police to go to court, and hope they attempt to charge you under the incorrect act.
-
So would I.
I was being flippant when I suggested defending the charge in court would be a breeze. I am quite sure you would be convicted.
-
Hi “NEW JUDGE” .
What would you advise me doing ?
I don’t have other pernalty points on my license anyway . Just an DR10 from May 2019 that makes my insurance a bit more expensive and a couple of years of NCD so not the end of the world .
I'm sure NJ will be along shortly with better advice, but I'd suggest:
1. Yellow and red lines generally apply across the whole highway, including the footpath. I don't imagine zig-zags are any different.
2. The downside risk of contesting this is considerable.
3. You will frequently read on this forum "Never take legal advice from a police officer."
So I'd accept the fixed penalty.
-
Hi “NEW JUDGE” .
What would you advise me doing ?
I don’t have other pernalty points on my license anyway . Just an DR10 from May 2019 that makes my insurance a bit more expensive and a couple of years of NCD so not the end of the world .
-
No - magistrates cannot do that. They can only deal with charges that are brought before them.
But I don't think it really matters. Whatever the officer said at the time, the police have decided that the criminal offence is the appropriate charge and the OP's option is to accept the FP or defend the matter in court. According to the officer he can "...easily argue that [he] was mostly parked on the pavement other then the road." So it should be a breeze. 8)
-
But isn't parking on the pavement a non-criminalised offence?
I don't see how the police officer's suggestion of swapping a non-criminalised offence for a criminal one would work in practice? Can magistrtaes do that?
If he didn't think the OP deserved to be penalised for parking on a crossing, why issue the penalty?
-
Here attached
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
If you've been accused of stopping within the crossing, then on the face of it you're bang to rights, and it's a £100 + 3 points job. Parking on the crossing zig-zags is dangerous and illegal. You should have stopped on the double yellows, for which you had a legitimate exemption.
If you want to contest it on the basis that you were on the pavement so it doesn't count, then go ahead and plead not guilty. Could be an expensive move.
What are the actual words of the offence on the COFP, so we can be sure?
-
I have moved this to the criminal forum as it pertains to an alleged criminal offence, not a private parking charge.
-
Second picture
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hi all ,
Whilst I was stopped doing a delivery a police man on a motorcycle stopped as he saw my vehicle on pelican crossing .
Officer cautioned me because of where I was parked but also the officer stated the following off the record : I could easily argue that I was mostly parked on the pavement other then the road and get
Away with a £50 for unlawfully parking the vehicle on the pavement and avoid the fixed £100 plus 3 penalty points .
I received a “CONDITIONAL OFFER OF FIXED PENALTY” with £100 fine & 3 penalty points .
I have run out of time and I need take action today ! Help please 🙏
[attachment deleted by admin]