3. Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Farmersson

Pages: [1]
1
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: 97 on M40 but written evidence is partly incorrect
« on: January 25, 2026, 07:00:12 pm »
Thank you for your replies so far. It would seem then a very high risk strategy to plead not guilty, and probably one I’m not willing to take.

So would you advise putting a shortened version of these descrepancies in my mitigation if I were to plead guilty or is it pointless as they will just say these are minor errors and the photo evidence from the laser gun trumps everything ?

And is it advised to plead guilty and appear or is that pointless as well ? In other words just plead guilty online and wait for the judgement ?

2
Speeding and other criminal offences / 97 on M40 but written evidence is partly incorrect
« on: January 22, 2026, 01:04:22 am »
I have received a NIP from Warwickshire police which was served within the 14 day limit and I have admitted I am the driver within the specified time. They have EROS offence images from an LTI 20:20 Trucam 2 ( handheld laser gun ) showing my vehicle doing 97 on the M40 motorway.

I have now had an SJP notice. Among the forest of paperwork they have sent with the SJP is a Statement of Facts which states that I drove my vehicle on the “ Towards ( let’s say ) Banbury bound carriageway of the M40”. The offence was actually on the away from Banbury bound carriageway. One of the EROS offence images has been annotated with M40 SB which I assume means Southbound and that is correct.

The wording on the charge sheet mentions my vehicle on the M40 but doesn’t state which carriageway I was on.

There is also a sheet headed Speed where plod 1 states they used their laser gun to catch my car on ( let’s say ) 15th Dec and there is no possibility the equipment was faulty etc. This sheet has an offence reference on it but is not signed. 15th Dec was the correct date.

There is also a Witness Statement where plod 2 goes into great detail about how they were on duty and in uniform and carried out a fixed distance check with their equipment at a local police station and then went to the M40 and carried out enforcement where the roads were dry and the weather was fine etc. etc. Later the same day they tested the alignment and uploaded the SD card etc. This statement doesn’t mention my car specifically. This witness statement was signed by plod 2 and the signature witnessed by plod 1. It has the same offence ref. But all the dates mentioned are for the day after the 15th Dec.

The back of another piece of paper has a signature from plod 1 saying the SD card was copied to disc on the 15th Dec ( correct ) which has been overwritten and initialled with 16th Dec ( incorrect ). So they have me on the wrong carriageway and 2 confusions over offence dates.

But they also have a laser gun picture of my car doing 97 with all the correct anotation ( correct carriageway and date ).

So my question is:  are the mistakes in evidence a defense in law ? Presumably all the excruciating detail about the equipment they used and how they processed my offence is supposed to build up a cast iron case against me but that case is full of errors! I suspect you might say they will just say in court; these are obviously admin errors and we’ll correct them now. Or will a single JP say there is so much doubt and throw the prosecution’s case out ?

Pages: [1]